Tag: Defense

Categories
Politics

Pentagon asks for $715 billion in 2022 Protection finances

Pentagon asks for $715 billion in 2022 Defense budget

An F / A-18 Hornet aircraft sits on the airline line while a wall of fire behind it explodes during an air show at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., On October 3, 2010.

Lance Cpl. Jamean Berry | US Marine Corps

WASHINGTON – The Department of Defense is asking Congress for $ 715 billion in its fiscal 2022 budget, an increase of about $ 10 billion over what was allocated to the Pentagon in fiscal 2021.

The White House on Friday released the general details of President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning October 1, which targets a whopping $ 753 billion for national defense.

The Pentagon’s $ 715 billion share of the budget will fund weapons programs and key national security priorities, while an additional $ 38 billion will be used for defense programs at the Department of Energy and other federal agencies, bringing the total to defense spending totaling $ 753 billion. Dollar.

The nearly 2% increase in defense spending is due to the Biden administration pulling the nation out of the U.S. military’s longest war and shifting focus away from the Middle East to address the emerging threats from China.

“The division in this budget has a clear view of Beijing and provides the investment to prioritize China as our pace challenge,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks told reporters on Friday. “The PRC has become increasingly competitive in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world. It has the economic, military and technological capabilities to challenge the international system and American interests within it,” she added.

The Pentagon is calling for $ 5.1 billion for its Pacific deterrent initiative to counter threats emanating from China.

“At the same time, we have to deal with advanced and persistent threats from Russia, Iran, North Korea and other non-state and transnational factors,” said Hicks.

The Pentagon’s proposed budget includes more than $ 500 million for Covid-19 and pandemic preparation. largest investment in research, development and technology to date, at $ 112 billion; and $ 617 million to combat, prepare and adapt to climate change.

The budget also includes a 2.7% pay increase for troops and civil defense personnel.

Here is a breakdown of some of the major weapons programs the Pentagon is looking to add to its arsenal.

plane

A Naval Airman with Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 flies an F-35 over North Carolina during air refueling training April 14, 2015.

Cpl. Unique Roberts | US Marine Corps

The Pentagon is asking for $ 52.4 billion to invest in the military’s air domain. The Department of Defense plans to use $ 12 billion to purchase 85 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The F-35 is Lockheed Martin’s largest program and the most expensive weapon system in the world.

Other important investments:

  • 14 Boeing KC-46 tankers: $ 2.5 billion
  • 9 Lockheed Martin CH-53K King Stallion helicopters: $ 1.7 billion
  • 12 Boeing F-15EX fighter jets: $ 1.5 billion
  • 30 Apache Boeing AH-64E attack helicopters: $ 825 million

Ships

The aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman will cross the Arabian Sea on January 31, 2020.

Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Scott Swofford | US Navy

The Pentagon wants $ 34.6 billion to grow and modernize the Navy’s combat fleet. The Department of Defense is also calling for an unmanned surface vehicle to diversify the Navy’s capabilities.

Other important investments:

  • 1 General Dynamics Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine: $ 5 billion
  • 2 General Dynamics Virginia-class rapid attack submarines: $ 6.9 billion
  • 1 General Dynamics Arleigh Burke-class destroyer: $ 2.4 billion
  • 1 frigate FFG (X) frigate: $ 1.3 billion
  • 1 Huntington Ingalls Ford-class aircraft carrier: $ 2.9 billion
  • Unmanned surface craft: $ 203 million

vehicles

U.S. Marines with the 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force position their amphibious assault vehicles on the beach during an amphibious raid drill with Royal Thai Marines on June 10, 2013 in Hat Yao, Thailand.

Cpl. John Lamb | US Marine Corps

The Pentagon calls for $ 12.3 billion for ground combat systems. The request includes upgrades and modifications for 70 rugged M1 Abrams tanks for $ 1 billion.

Other important investments:

  • 3,799 common light tactical vehicles for a variety of missions: $ 1.1 billion
  • 92 amphibious combat vehicles for use throughout the U.S. Marine Corps: $ 613 million

Cybersecurity and IT

The Pentagon is demanding $ 10.4 billion for its cyber efforts, including protecting the Department of Defense’s networks.

Last year, software from IT company SolarWinds was breached, allowing hackers to access communications and data in multiple government agencies.

In April, Washington officially made the Russian foreign intelligence service responsible for carrying out the SolarWinds cyberattack. Microsoft President Brad Smith described the incident as “the largest and most sophisticated attack the world has ever seen”. Microsoft’s systems were also infected with malicious software.

The Russian government denies all allegations behind the SolarWinds hack.

Earlier this month, the Colonial Pipeline was the victim of a widespread cyberattack that forced the company to shut down approximately 5,500 miles of pipeline, cutting off half fuel supplies on the east coast and gasoline shortages in the southeast.

On Thursday, Microsoft warned in a blog post that the Russian hackers believed to be behind the catastrophic SolarWinds attack had launched another attack.

The hacking group known as Nobelium has targeted more than 150 organizations worldwide in the past week, including government agencies, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. The cyber attack is the latest example of criminal groups or state actors exploiting US cyber vulnerabilities.

“With solar winds and other episodes of hacking into US data networks, it makes sense to invest more in cybersecurity, but the Pentagon will not necessarily be the main player in addressing broader cyber challenges for infrastructure, power, communications, and banking systems.” said William Hartung, director of the weapons and security program at the Center for International Politics.

“Partnership with the private sector and federal rules on the path to cybersecurity could also or more importantly be to prevent cyber risks,” he added.

Missile defense

A U.S. Air Force Minuteman III unarmed ICBM launches during an operational test May 3, 2017 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

Aviator 1st class Daniel Brosam | US Air Force

The Pentagon wants $ 20.4 billion for the further development of its multi-layer missile defense system.

“The company finally seems to be moving towards a new vision of missile defense, manifested in new efforts in space sensors, hypersonic and cruise missile defense, and other next-generation technologies,” said Thomas Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, when asked about the budget for missile defense.

“Hypersonic defense will be a challenging, complex form of air defense, but it is possible and that is where the threat has arrived,” added Karako.

Other important investments:

  • Sea Interceptors (SM-3 IIA and SM-3 IB): $ 647 million
  • Sea-based Ballistic Missile Defense System, or AEGIS BMD: $ 1 billion
  • Ground-Based Middle Way and Enhanced Next Generation Homeland Security / Interceptor (NGI): $ 1.7 billion
  • Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD System: $ 562 million
  • Patriot Advanced Capability Missile Segment Improvement: $ 777 million

place

The 45th Space Wing successfully launches a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket for the U.S. Navy that lifted from Space Launch Complex-41 on July 9, 2013 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

Pat Corkery | via the US Air Force

The Pentagon is calling for $ 20.6 billion to invest in the emerging security environment in space. The Department of Defense plans to spend 1.7 billion US dollars on five launchers and the Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP).

Other important investments:

  • Global Positioning System (GPS) Company: $ 1.8 billion
  • Space-based Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) systems: $ 2.6 billion
Categories
Politics

Impeachment Briefing: A Combative Protection

Hong Kong Website Doxxing Police Gets Blocked, Raising Censorship Fears

This is the Impeachment Briefing, the Times’ newsletter on the impeachment investigation. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

  • Donald J. Trump’s lawyers delivered a brief defense with only three of their 16 hours.

  • Contrary to the facts, his lawyers alleged that Mr. Trump never glorified violence, and they mistakenly equated his behavior with the Democrats’ use of combative rhetoric.

  • Senators from both parties submitted written questions that were answered by the property managers and defense attorneys for Mr. Trump.

  • During breaks, Republican senators spoke favorably of the defense. Without major changes, it is unlikely that there will be enough votes in the Senate to condemn Mr Trump.

  • Officer Eugene Goodman, hailed as a hero on January 6 for distracting the mob and saving the Senators from danger, received a standing ovation and will receive the gold medal of Congress.

  • The process has been suspended until Saturday when it is expected to be completed.

Trump’s impeachment team presented a fire defense for the former president and described the House’s charges of instigating a Capitol riot as “an absurd and monstrous lie”.

  • Shortly before the uprising, Mr. Trump said to his supporters, “If you don’t fight like hell, you will have no more land.” In an attempt to suggest the metaphorical nature of political speeches, Mr. Trump’s lawyers presented video montages of elected Democrats and some celebrities uttering the word “fight”.

  • “Suddenly the word ‘fight’ is taboo?” said Michael T. van der Veen, one of the lawyers hired in recent days to defend Mr Trump. “Spare us the hypocrisy and false indignation.”

  • “OK, you indicated that it is possible to use ‘fight’ in a metaphorical sense,” said Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court, at the Times’ live briefing. “The question is whether Trump has called for fighting in the physical sense in context.”

  • Mr. Trump’s attorneys dismissed the process as a “culture of constitutional repeal”. Bruce L. Castor Jr. said the impeachment is about “turning down 75 million Trump voters and criminalizing political positions.”

  • The lawyers alleged the riot was deliberate and pointed to pipe bombs that were planted before the rally. “You cannot goad what was about to happen,” said Mr van der Veen.

  • Mr van der Veen also said the January 6 rally was “kidnapped” by extremists, including far-left anti-Nazi activists. But the Republican leaders have denied this claim. “Some say the riot was caused by Antifa,” House minority leader Kevin McCarthy said last month. “There is absolutely no evidence of this and conservatives should be the first to say this.” (In connection with this, Mr. Trump has used false statements about Antifa as smoke protection for a growing right-wing threat.)

  • The lawyers relied heavily on Mr. Trump’s single use of the word “peaceful” when he urged supporters to march to the Capitol while minimizing the use of the word “fight” 20 times. “No thinking person could seriously believe that the President’s January 6 speech on the ellipse was in any way inciting violence or riot,” said van der Veen. “The proposal is obviously absurd. Nothing in the text could ever be construed as encouraging, condoning, or inciting for illegal activity of any kind. “

  • The defense team argued that the Senate “had no jurisdiction” to bring a former president who is now out of office to justice, that Mr. Trump’s behavior was protected by the first amendment and that it was nowhere near the legal definition for “inciting” would correspond. In a letter last week, 144 leading First Amendment attorneys and constitutional scholars across the political spectrum called this argument “legally frivolous.”

  • Trump team lawyers also portrayed the process as rash, claiming Mr Trump was not treated properly. “Trump attorneys seem to be complaining that they didn’t have enough time to see ‘the evidence’,” said Mark Leibovich, Times Magazine’s chief correspondent. “But of course most of the evidence was visible beforehand.”

Did a friend forward the briefing to you? Login here.

The Impeachment Briefing is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Categories
Politics

Why Trump is tying Part 230 to stimulus checks, protection invoice

Why Trump is tying Section 230 to stimulus checks, defense bill

President Donald Trump

Carlos Barria | Reuters

President Donald Trump is putting pressure on his Republican allies over a law that has protected social media companies for decades.

In his final weeks in office, Trump launched a sweeping attack on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects tech companies from being held responsible for what users post on their platforms.

Trump wants Section 230 to be gone. He has linked the issue with the passage of a major annual defense spending bill and, more recently, the prospect of approving an increase in coronavirus relief checks from $ 600 to $ 2,000.

“If the Republicans don’t have a death wish, and if it’s the right thing to do, they have to approve the $ 2,000 payments as soon as possible. $ 600 is not enough!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday.

“Get rid of Section 230, too – Don’t let Big Tech steal our country or let the Democrats steal the presidential election. Get tough!” he wrote.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle – including President-elect Joe Biden – have made complaints about Section 230 and some have taken steps to reform the provision. But there is little appetite on Capitol Hill to immediately repeal, much less add such a repeal to the $ 740 billion defense bill or the latest pandemic relief laws.

Here’s what you should know about Section 230 and where it is:

How it started

Section 230 was drafted by former Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., And Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Following a 1995 court ruling against the Prodigy online service.

This company was sued for defamation after an anonymous user accused an investment firm of fraud on its platform. The court ruled that since Prodigy was moderating some of the posts on the platform, it should be treated like a publisher.

Cox and Wyden, who disagreed with this decision, introduced Section 230 to protect tech companies from becoming legally liable for their users’ content if they chose to moderate it. The law allows companies to participate in the “Good Samaritan” moderation of material without being treated like a publisher or speaker under the law.

How it goes

More than two decades later, the prospect of Section 230 repeal is likely to be a deal breaker for many lawmakers.

In countless discussions about the reform of liability protection, the members largely agreed that some of its protective measures are important for the continued functioning of an open and relatively secure Internet.

For example, the law not only protects tech platforms from being held accountable for their users’ contributions, but also allows them to remove “offensive” messages. While the term is open to the platforms’ interpretations, this part of the law allows companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube to quickly remove news of terrorism, violence, or self-harm without fear of a misjudgment bringing them into trouble .

And while conservatives aim to have fewer restrictions placed on their posts, the removal of Section 230 could result in even more restrictions. Without the liability cover, platforms could be encouraged to review more content before it can be uploaded.

Some Democrats have also resented the law. Biden disliked Section 230 and told the New York Times in January that tech platforms like Facebook should “be removed immediately.” However, this means seems to go beyond the wishes of many Democrats, which often include placing more responsibility on platforms for moderating bodies, as permitted in Section 230.

“You’re mad on Twitter”

Jaap Arriens | NurPhoto | Getty Images

The National Defense Authorization Act, usually passed with overwhelming support from both parties and veto-proof majorities, is a comprehensive defense law that authorizes $ 740 billion in spending and outlines Pentagon policies.

This year’s legislation includes a 3% pay increase for U.S. troops, a plan to rename military facilities with the names of Confederate leaders, and a number of other provisions. In mid-December, the NDAA passed the House and the GOP-led Senate with veto-safe majorities in both chambers.

Even so, Trump vetoed the bill last week, in large part because of the lack of language to repeal Section 230.

The move put many GOP lawmakers in the uncomfortable position of overriding a possible veto of a Republican president who commands strong support within his party. The House of the Democratic Majority voted to overturn Trump’s veto on Monday and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Stands ready to push a similar vote in his chamber.

Trump, who refuses to admit his loss to Biden in an election where Republicans exceeded expectations, is still putting pressure on his political allies to meet his Section 230 demand.

“Weak and tired Republican ‘leadership’ will allow the bad defense law to be passed,” Trump tweeted Tuesday morning.

“Say goodbye to the termination of VITAL Section 230,” he wrote before listing other complaints to the NDAA. “A shameful act of cowardice and total submission of weak people at Big Tech. Negotiate better bill or get better leaders NOW! The Senate shouldn’t approve the NDAA until this is fixed !!!”

The president signed the Coronavirus Ease and Government Spending Act on Sunday. That bill includes $ 600 in direct payments for Americans – but days before it was signed, Trump requested that those payments be increased to $ 2,000.

McConnell in the Senate on Tuesday outlined three priorities Trump put before Congress in signing this Covid bill: larger direct payments, questions about Section 230, and unfounded concerns about widespread electoral fraud.

“This week the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus,” said McConnell.

It is unclear how these plans will feed into recent negotiations on coronavirus legislation. Legislators on both sides of the aisle had already pushed back Trump’s request after eleven hours to include the repeal of Section 230 in the NDAA, saying it was irrelevant to its passage.

“First, 230 has nothing to do with the military,” Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, told reporters earlier this month.

“We should abolish 230, but you can’t do that in this bill. It’s not part of the bill,” added Inhofe.

“You’re pissed off on Twitter. We all know it. You are ready to veto the Defense Act on anything that has anything to do with your ego and nothing to do with defense,” said Adam Smith, Democrat, and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said after Trump’s veto threat.

Meanwhile, some GOP senators, such as Senator Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) and Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Said they would support Trump’s veto of the NDAA to repeal or reform Section 230.

Last week, Graham wrote on Twitter that he would not vote to override the president’s veto. Graham didn’t vote for the bill for the first time.

In addition, Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation earlier this month ending Section 230 protection by January 1, 2023 unless Congress acts earlier. The draft law is intended to encourage legislators to take action on much-discussed reforms that have not yet reached a consensus. Graham introduced other bills that would change the protection of Section 230 but would not completely revoke it.

Categories
World News

Home set to vote on overriding Trump veto of $740 billion protection invoice

House set to vote on overriding Trump veto of $740 billion defense bill

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, the United States, on Friday, December 18, 2020.

Sarah Silbiger | Bloomberg | Getty Images

WASHINGTON – The House was due to vote Monday on whether to overturn President Donald Trump’s veto of an annual defense spending bill.

An override would be seen as a bipartisan reprimand against the Republican president in the final days of his administration.

The house, led by Spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Will meet at 2 p.m. (CET). The vote to overturn Trump’s rejection of the massive defense law, which authorizes a $ 740 billion spending cap and outlines Pentagon policy, is expected around 5 p.m. If it is passed, the override measure will then go to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said his house would vote on lifting the veto on Tuesday.

The bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, was passed on December 8 with the support of more than three-quarters of the chamber. A large majority of the GOP-controlled Senate also passed the bill, giving both houses a higher percentage of yes-votes than the two-thirds required to defeat a presidential veto.

The comprehensive defense law is usually passed with strong support from both parties and veto-proof majorities, as it funds America’s national security portfolio. It was legally signed for nearly six consecutive decades.

The passage of the law will at least secure pay increases for soldiers and keep important defense modernization programs going.

Trump offered a number of reasons to oppose this year’s 4,517-page NDAA, questioning the bill as to both what it contains and what is missing.

The president has called for the bill to protect social media companies from the protection of language under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from being held liable for what users say on their platforms. Trump, who used Twitter extensively during his presidency, has long accused media companies of bias.

In his veto message to Congress, Trump wrote that the NDAA “has made no significant changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” He called on Congress to lift the measure.

The president previously said the move posed a serious threat to US national security as well as electoral integrity, but gave no further explanation.

Trump’s ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., wrote on Twitter that he would not vote to overturn the president’s veto. Graham didn’t vote for the bill for the first time.

Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, passed a law on December 15 that would end Section 230 protection by January 1, 2023.

Categories
Politics

Trump vetoes $740 billion NDAA protection invoice

Trump vetoes $740 billion NDAA defense bill

President Donald Trump listens during a White House video conference call with military personnel on November 26, 2020.

Erin Schaff | The New York Times | Bloomberg | Getty Images

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed the comprehensive defense bill, which authorizes a $ 740 billion ceiling on spending and outlines Pentagon policy.

“Unfortunately, the law lacks critical national security measures, contains provisions that our veterans and our military history disregard, and contradicts my administration’s efforts to put America first in our national security and foreign policies,” Trump wrote in a long statement to Congress.

“It is a ‘gift’ to China and Russia,” added the president, without giving any specific details.

Earlier this month, the National Defense Authorization Act passed both Houses of Congress with veto-proof margins, meaning any veto by Trump would likely be overridden.

Congress must now vote again to override Trump. The house is expected to return from a vacation break on Monday, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said his chamber would vote on lifting the veto on Tuesday.

This year’s 4,517-page defense law, which is usually passed with strong support from both parties and veto-proof majorities, finances America’s national security portfolio. It was legally signed for nearly six consecutive decades.

The passage of the law will at least secure pay increases for soldiers and keep important defense modernization programs going.

“Donald Trump has just vetoed a raise for our troops so he can defend dead Confederate traitors,” Senator Chuck Schumer wrote on Twitter, highlighting one of Trump’s problems with the must-pass defense law.

“The Democrats will vote for it,” added Schumer.

“Worryingly, Trump is using his final hours in office to sow chaos, including denying our service members a long overdue raise and risk levy; our families paid family vacations, childcare, shelter and health and our veterans the benefits they need and deserve.” House spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi wrote in a statement.

“Next week, on December 28th, the House, with the support of both parties, will override the veto,” she wrote.

Other senior democratic lawmakers also criticized Trump.

“The Kremlin is actively attacking our cyber networks. Instead of advocating our national security, the president is playing down Russia’s involvement – which contradicts the US secret service – and has now only vetoed laws that contain actionable points we can hold Putin accountable for this kind of belligerent behavior, “Senator Jeanne Shaheen, DN.H., a senior member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, wrote in a statement.

“This is not about politics, this is about the security of the United States and the safety of our men and women in uniform,” added Shaheen.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Wrote in a statement that he was speechless following Trump’s decision to withhold signature on the NDAA.

“Immediately after what is possibly the most massive cyber attack in our country’s history, the President will remove the new instruments and authorities that we need for our country’s cyber defense,” wrote Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

“I urge Republican colleagues not just to speak up, but to stand up and look forward to a strong, bipartisan vote,” he added.

Trump’s ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., wrote on Twitter that he would not vote to overturn the president’s veto. Graham didn’t vote for the bill for the first time.

Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, passed a law on December 15 that would end the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by January 1, 2023. Section 230 protects technology giants like Facebook and Twitter from being legally liable for what is published on their platforms.

Trump threatened to veto the mammoth defense law earlier this month if lawmakers failed to take action to remove Section 230.

He has repeatedly accused Twitter, his favorite social media platform, of unfairly censoring him.

Trump renewed the threat on Thursday.

In his message to Congress, Trump wrote that the NDAA “made no significant changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” He called on Congress to lift the measure.

The president previously said the move posed a serious threat to US national security as well as electoral integrity, but gave no further explanation. Trump has also claimed that the bill is in favor of China.

The President’s problem with Section 230 came to light this summer after Twitter added warnings to several of its tweets that alleged mail-in polls were fraudulent. Trump has still not granted election as President-elect Joe Biden.

The NDAA in its current form does not include any Section 230 action.

Legislators on both sides of the aisle have pushed back Trump’s 11th hour demand, stating that the repeal of Section 230 is irrelevant to the passage of the Pentagon’s top bill.

“”[Section] 230 has nothing to do with the military, “James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, R-Okla., Told reporters on December 2nd.” I agree with his views that we should get rid of 230 – but you can’t do it on this bill, “added Inhofe, an ally of Trump.

On the same day, John Thune, RS.D., the Senate majority whip said, “I don’t think the Defense Act is the place to sue the fight against Section 230,” according to The Hill.

Trump has also insisted that the Defense Spending Act include language that prevents military bases from being renamed to commemorate numbers from the Confederate era.

The Republican-led Senate Armed Forces Committee approved a ruling by Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. That summer urging the Pentagon to rename military assets named after symbols of the Confederation, the group of states made up of the United States separated and fought the union in civil war.

Trump rejected the idea in a multi-part Twitter post in June, claiming that the Confederate names of the bases have become part of the nation’s great “legacy”.

“It has been suggested that up to 10 of our legendary military bases be renamed, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc. These monumental and very powerful bases are part of a great American heritage and a history of winning, victory and freedom, “wrote Trump on Twitter.

“The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES in these sacred fields and won two world wars. Therefore, my administration will not even consider renaming these great and fabulous military facilities,” the president wrote.

– CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger contributed to this report.

Categories
Politics

Senate passes $740 billion protection invoice as Trump veto menace looms

Senate passes $740 billion defense bill as Trump veto threat looms

An F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 265 (Reinforced), 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), prepares for takeoff from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) prior to a strike exercise inflatable maritime target.

Lance Cpl. Joshua Brittenham | US Marine Corps | FlickrCC

WASHINGTON – The Senate passed a colossal defense policy bill on Friday despite multiple threats from President Donald Trump to veto the measure.

At least 75 members of the Republican-led Senate voted for the massive annual defense bill of $ 740 billion, a number larger than the two-thirds majority it would take to defeat Trump’s promised veto.

With the weight of the House and Senate behind the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the bill hits Trump’s desk with overwhelming support from Congress.

The NDAA, which is usually passed with strong support from both parties and veto-proof majorities, approves spending totaling 740 billion US dollars and outlines Pentagon policies.

Earlier this month, Trump threatened to veto the must-pass defense law if lawmakers fail to remove legal protections for social media companies.

Trump is calling for the repeal of a federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech giants like Facebook and Twitter from legal liability for what is posted on their platforms.

Last week, Trump described the provision as a “liability protection gift” for “Big Tech” and called for it to be “terminated entirely”, otherwise he would not use this year’s NDAA.

The president also said the move posed a serious threat to US national security and electoral integrity, but did not provide any further explanation. Trump has also said that Twitter, his favorite social media platform, wrongly censored him.

The President’s problem with Section 230 came to light this summer after Twitter added warnings to several of its tweets that alleged mail-in polls were fraudulent. Trump has still not allowed Democrat Joe Biden to hold the US presidential election.

US President Donald Trump speaks after the swearing-in ceremony of James Mattis as Secretary of Defense on January 27, 2017 at the Pentagon in Washington, DC.

Almond Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

This year’s legislation includes a 3% pay increase for US troops, a plan to rename military facilities with the names of Confederate leaders, and a number of other provisions.

The NDAA, in its current form, does not contain any action related to Section 230.

This is not the first time the president has targeted the NDAA. Earlier this year, Trump said he would veto the measure if it included language for changing U.S. military facilities named after Confederate generals.

Categories
Politics

Biden defends nomination of not too long ago retired Gen. Austin for Protection secretary

Biden defends nomination of recently retired Gen. Austin for Defense secretary

WASHINGTON – President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday defended his decision to appoint retired four-star Army General Lloyd Austin as his Secretary of Defense, a personnel election that could become one of the future president’s most controversial.

Under the National Security Act of 1947, Congress prohibited anyone from serving as secretary of defense for seven years after active service. But Austin only left the army four years ago, and he would require a special waiver from Congress to circumvent the seven-year rule.

Biden wrote in The Atlantic, tacitly admitting that Austin’s nomination was against civilian requirements, but argued that the strength of Austin’s qualifications outweighed the potential damage caused by blurring the civil-military divide.

“I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DoD – as does Austin,” Biden wrote.

“Austin also knows that the Secretary of Defense has different responsibilities from an officer-general and that the civil-military dynamic has been under great pressure over the past four years,” Biden wrote.

If this were confirmed by the Senate, the 1975 graduate of West Point would be the first black Pentagon leader to break through one of the more permanent glass ceilings of the US government.

U.S. Central Command Commander General Lloyd Austin III holds a press conference on Operation Inherent Resolve, the international military effort against the Islamic State Group (IS), on October 17, 2014 at the Pentagon in Washingon, DC.

Paul J. Richards | AFP | Getty Images

Austin also has a personal relationship with Biden after gaining the President-elect’s trust and confidence in leading the global coalition against ISIS, which began in 2014, while Biden was Vice President and Austin led US Central Command.

Biden also emphasized in his Atlantic essay that despite Austin’s recent active service, he understands “that our military is only an instrument of our national security”.

“To keep America strong and secure, we must use all of our tools,” wrote Biden. “He and I share an obligation to empower our diplomats and development experts to guide our foreign policy, using violence only as a last resort.”

Still, news of Austin’s likely nomination this week on Capitol Hill was met with skepticism, and several key Senators said they were not sure they would vote to give Austin the waiver necessary to take the position of Secretary of Defense .

“That’s the exception, not the rule,” Majority Whip John Thune, RS.D., told reporters Tuesday. “I’m not including or excluding it. But I think it’s something we need to consider when the time comes.”

Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester also said he was unwilling to give Austin a waiver, even though the retired commanding officer would be “a great secretary”.

“I think this guy is going to be a great secretary,” Tester told reporters. “I just think we should look at the rules.”

Congress put aside its concerns about a military officer’s leadership of the Pentagon in 2016 when President Donald Trump addressed retired four-star general of the U.S. Marine Corps, Jim Mattis, who at the time had only been out of uniform for three years .