SANTA FE, N.M. — The Trump administration is adding another militarized zone to the southern U.S. border to support border security operations — this time in California.

The Department of Interior on Wednesday said it would transfer jurisdiction along most of California’s international border with Mexico to the Navy to reinforce “the historic role public lands have played in safeguarding national sovereignty.”

The newly designated militarized zone extends nearly from the Arizona state line to the Otay Mountain Wilderness, traversing the Imperial Valley and border communities including Tecate.

Since April, large swaths of border have been designated militarized zones, empowering U.S. troops to apprehend immigrants and others accused of trespassing on Army, Air Force or Navy bases, and authorizing additional criminal charges that can mean prison time. More than 7,000 troops have been deployed to the border, along with an assortment of helicopters, drones and surveillance equipment.

The military strategy was pioneered in April along a 170-mile stretch of the border in New Mexico and later expanded to portions of the border in Texas and Arizona.

The Interior Department described the newest national defense area in California as a high-traffic zone for unlawful crossings by immigrants. But Border Patrol arrests along the southern U.S. border this year have dropped to the slowest pace since the 1960s, amid President Donald Trump’s push for mass deportations.

“By working with the Navy to close long-standing security gaps, we are strengthening national defense, protecting our public lands from unlawful use, and advancing the President’s agenda,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a news release.

An emergency declaration by Trump has thrust the military into a central role in deterring migrant crossings between U.S. ports of entry. Legal experts say the strategy flouts a ban on law enforcement by the military on U.S. soil and thrusts the armed forces into a potentially politicized mission.

The new militarized zone was announced Wednesday as a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of those troops to the state.

Trump called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops in June without Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approval to further the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Members of Congress are seeking to more closely monitor the Defense Department’s plans to modify or downsize military hospitals and clinics by requiring more oversight and adding years to a ban on reducing the services’ number of medical personnel.

The proposed fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act released this week calls for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and service surgeons general to review any proposed changes to military treatment facilities to determine whether they would affect military readiness.

Under the legislation, the Defense Health Agency director also will have to explain how service members, families, retirees and other beneficiaries would receive medical care if changes to military facilities affect their access to medical care.

In a statement accompanying the bill, House and Senate negotiators said they were concerned about the effects that downsizing facilities or personnel could have on operations.

“We expect that any proposed restructuring, realignment, or modification to military medical treatment facilities will be conducted in collaboration with the appropriate Department of Defense stakeholders … to ensure that operational readiness is not impacted by any proposed changes,” they wrote.

The provisions follow a flurry of questions from Congress this year over the Defense Department’s plans to reorganize the military health system, to include downsizing or modifying some military treatment facilities.

When the Defense Health Agency was created, it was given responsibility for managing the military services’ hospitals and clinics as well as the authority to reconfigure staffing and consolidate facilities.

The agency originally planned to realign 50 facilities, including 38 that would serve military personnel only, while the services aimed to cut roughly 12,800 military health billets. Under the plan, an estimated 200,000 active-duty family members and retirees were to be shifted to nonmilitary providers managed by the Tricare health program.

A list of the affected facilities was published in 2020, but the reforms were paused early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Later, the plan was adjusted to build capacity at some facilities by bringing back patients and improving training opportunities for medical personnel.

In 2023, another list was published of 32 facilities slated for realignment, and lawmakers have since raised concerns regarding several hospitals that weren’t on that list.

Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., said in July that Keller Army Community Hospital at West Point would lose its inpatient beds, downsized to a clinic.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., sought protections in the Senate defense spending bill for a full-service hospital currently under construction at Fort Leonard Wood following rumors that it would open next year as an ambulatory clinic.

And Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., demanded answers regarding the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon amid concerns that it, too, was slated to lose its inpatient, emergency room and surgical services.

Ossoff wrote Dr. David Smith, acting DHA director, asking for more information on the organization’s plans for the hospital. Smith responded this month, saying the review is ongoing and no final decision has been made.

“There are significant pressures on the Defense Health Program for Fiscal Year 2026 and beyond,” Smith wrote in a letter published Tuesday by WRDW/WAGT in Augusta, Georgia.

“The Department as a whole is undertaking a comprehensive review of where to optimally assign its military medical personnel in order to achieve the best outcomes in quality, safety and readiness of the force and is working with the Military Departments to mitigate access to care and capacity challenges,” Smith wrote.

During a conference on military policy issues hosted by the Military Officers Association of America on Oct. 28, acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Stephen Ferrara said the review process is fluid.

“I think there is always a lot of rumors about whether there’s a report that’s going to come out, and that’s not the case. It’s like if you looked at any corporation that has 100 hospitals or stores, they should be looking at them to see where it makes sense to dedicate their resources,” Ferrara said.

As part of the reform process, the military services had originally planned to reduce the number of uniformed personnel serving in military hospitals and clinics. The proposed bill extends a restriction placed by Congress on this effort by five years, stretching it from 2027 through 2032.

In addition to the provisions addressing military health facilities, beneficiaries could see more money in their pockets regarding travel reimbursement for specialty care. Currently, travel costs are only reimbursed for those who must go 100 miles or more for care; the bill reduces the distance to 75 miles.

The bill also directs the Defense Department to reopen chiropractic clinics that have been closed on installations. While chiropractic care is not covered by the Tricare health program, some hospitals and clinics contained clinics that treated active-duty personnel. Congress wants the DOD to reopen any clinics that were closed and provided at least 400 appointments per month.

For expecting mothers who had hoped to see broader childbirth options, the final bill does not include a provision that would have let beneficiaries switch to Tricare Select when they became pregnant. It also dropped a pilot program that would have covered midwife services from providers who are not nurses.

In terms of service members’ health, the bill requires the Defense Department to conduct a study of cancers among rotary-wing pilots and air crew and a study on the psychological health of combat drone operators.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela as tensions mount with the government of President Nicolás Maduro.

Using U.S. forces to seize an oil tanker is incredibly unusual and marks the Trump administration’s latest push to increase pressure on Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the United States. The U.S. has built up the largest military presence in the region in decades and launched a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The campaign is facing growing scrutiny from Congress.

“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” Trump told reporters at the White House, later adding that “it was seized for a very good reason.”

Trump said “other things are happening,” but did not offer additional details, saying he would speak more about it later. When asked what would happen to the oil aboard the tanker, Trump said, “Well, we keep it, I guess.”

The seizure was led by the U.S. Coast Guard and supported by the Navy, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official added that the seizure was conducted under U.S. law enforcement authority.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and produces about 1 million barrels a day. Locked out of global oil markets by U.S. sanctions, the state-owned oil company sells most of its output at a steep discount to refiners in China.

The transactions usually involve a complex network of shadowy intermediaries, as sanctions have scared away more established traders. Many are shell companies, registered in jurisdictions known for secrecy. The buyers deploy so-called ghost tankers that hide their location and hand off their valuable cargoes in the middle of the ocean before they reach their final destination.

Maduro did not address the seizure during a speech before a ruling-party organized demonstration in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital. But he told supporters that the country is “prepared to break the teeth of the North American empire if necessary.”

Maduro, flanked by senior officials, said only the ruling party can “guarantee peace, stability, and the harmonious development of Venezuela, South America and the Caribbean.”

Maduro previously has insisted the real purpose of the U.S. military operations is to force him from office.

During past negotiations, among the concessions the U.S. has made to Maduro was approval for oil giant Chevron Corp. to resume pumping and exporting Venezuelan oil. The corporation’s activities in the South American country resulted in a financial lifeline for Maduro’s government.

The seizure comes a day after the U.S. military flew a pair of fighter jets over the Gulf of Venezuela in what appeared to be the closest that warplanes had come to the South American country’s airspace. Trump has said land attacks are coming soon but has not offered more details.

The Trump administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign, which has killed at least 87 people in 22 known strikes since early September, including a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.

Some legal experts and Democrats say that action may have violated the laws governing the use of deadly military force.

Lawmakers are demanding to get unedited video from the strikes, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional leaders Tuesday he was still weighing whether to release it. Hegseth provided a classified briefing for congressional leaders alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

It was not immediately clear Wednesday who owned the tanker or what national flag it was sailing under. The Coast Guard referred a request for comment to the White House.

Associated Press writer Regina Garcia Cano in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.

The U.S. Navy on Friday salvaged an F/A-18F Super Hornet and MH-60R Seahawk helicopter that went down in the South China Sea on Oct. 26, the U.S. 7th Fleet said this week.

Task Force 73 — along with Task Force 75, Naval Sea Systems Command’s supervisor of salvage and diving and CTG 73.6’s Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit — recovered both aircraft from a depth of around 400 feet.

“Everyone involved brought critical expertise ensuring we could safely and successfully bring these aircraft back under U.S. custody,” said Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Andersen, the CTF 73 officer in charge of the recovery effort.

“This operation highlights the importance of naval integration, readiness, and the unmatched capability of our salvage and diving teams,” he said.

The retrieved aircraft are being sent to an unnamed U.S. Indo-Pacific military installation for further analysis.

Navy tries to recover helicopter, jet that crashed in South China Sea

The causes of the crashes are under investigation.

The USNS Salvor, a Safeguard-class salvage ship operated by Military Sealift Command, arrived Nov. 12 to conduct recovery efforts.

Both aircraft, which were assigned to the USS Nimitz, went down less than an hour apart while on routine operations.

The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group deployed assets to help rescue three members from the helicopter, which was assigned to the “Battle Cats” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 73.

The two crew members piloting the F/A-18F, assigned to the Strike Fighter Squadron 22 “Fighting Redcocks,” ejected before the crash and were rescued.

Canceled by President Grover Cleveland. Restored by then-Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt — the Army-Navy football game is in its 135th year.

The first game, played on the Plain at West Point on Nov. 29, 1890, set the tone for the rivalry, with both teams meting out heavy punishment.

Navy’s captain, Red Emrich, was knocked unconscious twice during the game but continued to play, while Army quarterback, Kirby Walker, was also knocked unconscious twice and had to be carried off the field.

A photo from the first #armynavy game in 1890 played at West Point. Navy won 24-0! #gonavybeatarmy pic.twitter.com/lNgei1Rxnl

— USNA Museum (@USNAMuseum) December 8, 2014

From there the intensity of the rivalry grew, coming to a head during the 1893 game. After the achingly low score of 6-4, the stands erupted into several bloody melees. To make matters worse, an incident between a rear admiral and a brigadier general nearly led to a duel after the Navy victory.

Amid the hubbub, Cleveland stepped in and banned the contest indefinitely, and for the next five years the rivalry was defused.

However, in 1897 Roosevelt deftly sought to bring back the match. In a letter to the Secretary of War Russell Alger under President William McKinley, Roosevelt wrote, “I should like very much to revive the football games between Annapolis and West Point.”

Roosevelt said that “if the authorities of both institutions agreed to take measures to prevent any excesses such as betting and the like, and to prevent any manifestations of an improper character — if as I say all this were done — and it certainly could be done without difficulty — then I don’t see why it would not be a good thing to have a game this year.” Alger and McKinley concurred, and the series resumed in 1899.

World War I would interrupt the rivalry twice — the games were suspended in 1917 and 1918. However, during World War II, the game itself interrupted the war. In 1944, after No. 1-ranked Army beat No. 2-ranked Navy 23-7, Army coach Earl “Red” Blaik received a telegram from the Pacific: “The greatest of all Army teams—STOP—We have stopped the war to celebrate your magnificent success.” It was signed “MacArthur."

So this year give thanks to the Man in the Arena — and whoever you’re pulling for, make sure to guard your goat, guard your mule.

The Army-Navy game will be held Saturday, Dec. 13, at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, Maryland, and will be broadcast on CBS. Kickoff is scheduled for 3 p.m. EST.

The U.S. Army on Tuesday charged a OB-GYN with secretly filming the medical exams of dozens of people.

“The U.S. Army Office of Special Trial Counsel preferred four charges and 61 specifications against Maj. Blaine McGraw,” the Army’s Office of Special Trial Counsel said in a statement, adding that the offenses occurred between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2025 and that there were 44 victims.

Over 50 of the specifications were for “indecent visual record,” five were of conduct unbecoming of an officer, one was for willful disobedience of a superior officer and one was for making a false statement.

The Army said that the majority of alleged incidents happened during examinations with female patients at the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and that one victim — not a patient — was unknowingly recorded at a private home.

The doctor is currently being held in a Texas jail on pre-trial confinement after apparently “violating conditions of the commander,” the Army said in a separate statement.

McGraw was also accused of sexual misconduct, including the secret filming of a breast and pelvic exam, in a 13-page civil lawsuit filed in November in Bell County, Texas.

Protect our Defenders, a national nonprofit organization that combats sexual violence in the military, said in a Tuesday statement that it is representing victims in the case and provided a link for other potential victims to seek legal help at no cost.

Before he practiced at Fort Hood, McGraw treated patients at the medical center in Hawaii from June 2019 to June 2023. Tripler announced last month that it was planning to notify McGraw’s former patients about the investigation and about how to contact Army investigators and reach out to the hospital for support.

“Survivors of military abuse deserve justice, accountability, and independent support. The situation at Fort Hood is a sobering reminder that servicemembers can still face profound risks from individuals they should be able to trust,” said Nancy Parrish, the organization’s CEO.

By 1944 the United States had entered its fourth year of the Second World War. The invasion to retake Europe had begun June 6, and the American public was transfixed by its military forces clawing back Europe from the clutches of Nazi Germany.

Amid this backdrop came the game of the century that, albeit briefly, delivered a respite from the far-flung battles across the globe and drew attention back to a good, old-fashioned American football rivalry.

“The Army-Navy game symbolized the continuation of peacetime rivalries in a time of national crisis,” author Randy Roberts wrote in “A Team for America: The Army-Navy Game That Rallied a Nation at War.”

“In a very real sense, it stood for exactly what Americans most desired, a return to the normality of American life.”

Yet the matchup almost didn’t happen. A little less than three years earlier, when the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor plunged the U.S. into World War II, there were calls from politicians and those within the military for Americans to set aside peacetime frivolities, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“You can’t train a man to be a fighter by having him play football and baseball,” said Cmdr. James Joseph “Gene” Tunney, the Navy’s director of physical training and boxing’s former heavyweight champion. College football, he said, “has no place in war or preparing for war.”

Others disagreed.

“The British are going all out for sports as a morale builder, despite their proximity to the Luftwaffe and robot bombs,” Rep. Samuel A. Weiss, D-Penn, said in 1944. “Why, they have scheduled sixty-five sports events over there, thirteen of them major events expected to draw between 65,000 and 125,000 people. Our government realizes that if the British feel the need for public sports events so keenly, we certainly ought to do the same thing when we’re practically out of danger here.”

Cmdr. Thomas J. Hamilton, the head of the Navy’s Pre-flight and Physical Training program and a former head coach at Annapolis, felt similarly to Weiss, and, since he had the ear of much of the military brass, managed to shoehorn collegiate sports back on the menu.

The war itself had been a boon to both of the service academies’ football programs.

According to SB Nation, a dismal 1-7-1 record in 1940 prompted the United Press to describe the U.S. Military Academy Cadets as “a national calamity,” and military officials seriously considered mothballing the football team.

However, due to the war, the widespread influx of young men into the ranks of the U.S. military meant a swell of talent.

Further still, West Point, determined to snap its five-game losing streak against the U.S. Naval Academy Midshipmen, hired Earl “Red” Blaik in 1941, who was, according to SB Nation, “spartan and abstemious by nature.” His most profane epithet was a blistering “Geez, Katy.”

Yet his soft-spoken manner belied spectacular football acumen. His insistence on clean fundamentals and timing earned him the title of “that metronomic drill devil,” but his team was the better for it.

Interest in the game, originally set for Dec. 2, 1944, at the Naval Academy’s 12,000-seat stadium, swelled, with the rivalry matchup relocating to the 66,000-seat Municipal Stadium in Baltimore just a mere two weeks before kickoff. Tickets sales went toward war bonds and sold out in 24 hours, raising $58.6 million for the war.

One of the country’s preeminent sports writers at the time, Grantland Rice, wrote that it would be “one of the best and most important football games ever played.”

Army entered the contest with an undefeated 8-0 record, while Navy, coached by Cmdr. Oscar Hagberg, who had just returned from a Pacific submarine command, came in at 6-2.

Led by running backs Felix “Doc” Blanchard and Glen Davis — known as Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside, respectively — Army had decimated their opponents throughout the 1944 season, outscoring them 481-28. In fact, their last defeat had come in 1943 — at the hands of the Midshipmen.

Not to miss out on the spectacle was that of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, Gen. Hap Arnold, commander of the Army Air Forces, and Adm. Ernest King, chief of naval operations.

And, while not televised — that would come the following year when Army was ranked No. 1 and Navy No. 2 — the eyes and ears of millions of Americans at home and abroad turned their attention from the battlefield to the gridiron.

“Win for all the soldiers scattered throughout the world,” came the pregame telegram from Army Gen. Robert Eichelberger, a former West Point superintendent stationed in the South Pacific.

Both teams entered the field that day in spectacular fashion, with the Navy contingent sailing across the Chesapeake Bay to arrive at the field, while the Army men were carried in on troopships escorted by Navy destroyers.

Winning the toss and electing to kick off, the Cadets struggled to get anything going offensively in the first quarter. So too did the Midshipmen. However, the defensive slog, noted New York Times sportswriter Allison Danzig, meted out “unusual ferocity of the give and take.”

By the end of the third quarter it was a mere 9-7 with Army in the lead after a safety. The game finally broke up in the fourth quarter with Army scoring two more touchdowns to win 23-7 against their archrival.

Despite throwing five interceptions and fumbling the ball three times, Army kept control, outgaining the Midshipmen 181-71 on the ground with Navy only completing 14 of 24 passes for 98 yards.

In 1944, after five years of Navy victories, Army beat Navy 23-7. General MacArthur cabled his congratulations to the team: "THE GREATEST OF ALL ARMY TEAMS. WE HAVE STOPPED THE WAR TO CELEBRATE YOUR MAGNIFICENT SUCCESS." #ArmyNavy pic.twitter.com/w0E8p808dS

— MacArthur Memorial (@MacArthur1880) December 5, 2020

“It’s just about the best Army team that I have ever seen,” said Hagberg between bites of a post-game ham sandwich. “Our offense just couldn’t get going. They whipped us, and that’s just about all there is to it.”

“I think it was just a case of the No. 1 team in the country beating the No. 2 team in the country,” Blaik stoically stated in the aftermath.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, supreme allied commander of the Southwest Pacific Area, was much less impassive in his praise, famously wiring Blaik: “The greatest of all Army teams. … We have stopped to war to celebrate your magnificent success.”

The U.S. military flew a pair of fighter jets over the Gulf of Venezuela on Tuesday in what appears to be the closest American warplanes have come to the South American country’s airspace since the start of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign.

Public flight tracking websites showed a pair of U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter jets fly over the Gulf — a body of water bounded by Venezuela and only about 150 miles at its widest point — and spend more than 30 minutes flying over water. A U.S. defense official confirmed that a pair of jets conducted a “routine training flight” in the area.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations, could not say if the jets were armed but noted that they stayed in international airspace during their flight.

The official likened the training flight to previous exercises that were aimed at showing the reach of U.S. planes and said the move was not meant to be provocative.

The military has previously sent B-52 Stratofortress and B-1 Lancer bombers to the region, but those planes flew up to and along the coast of Venezuela. There was no indication that those aircraft ever flew as close to the country’s territory as the F/A-18 fighter jets on Tuesday.

The flights are the latest action the U.S. military has taken as it has built up its largest presence in the region in decades and launched a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. President Donald Trump says land attacks are coming soon but has not offered any details on location.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has insisted the real purpose of the U.S. military operations is to force him from office.

The Trump administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign, which has killed at least 87 people in 22 known strikes since early September, including a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.

Lawmakers are demanding to get unedited video from the strikes, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional leaders Tuesday he was still weighing whether to release it. Hegseth provided a classified briefing for congressional leaders alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other top national security officials.

The same day, Adm. Alvin Holsey, who will be retiring from U.S. Southern Command in this week, spoke separately with the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Flightradar24, one of the websites that allowed the public to see the jets flying in real time, said the planes were the most tracked flights on its site at the time.

Venezuela has claimed that the body of water is part of the country’s national territory, but those claims have been challenged by U.S. legal scholars and the military for decades.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional leaders Tuesday that he was still weighing whether to release the full video of an attack on an alleged drug boat that killed two survivors, even as he faced intensifying demands from Congress for disclosure.

Hegseth provided a classified briefing for congressional leaders alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other top national security officials. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said that when he asked the defense secretary whether he would allow every member of Congress to view the video of the attack from September, Hegseth’s response was: “We have to study it.”

But lawmakers are demanding a full accounting from the Department of Defense on the strikes that killed two people who were clinging to the wreckage of an initial strike. Legal experts say that action may have violated the laws governing the use of deadly military force. The situation has awakened the Republican-controlled Congress to its oversight role after months of frustration about the trickle of information from the Pentagon.

A list of US military strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels

Schumer described the briefing as “very unsatisfying” and added that “Democrats and Republicans had a right to see it, wanted to see it, and should see it.”

Separately Tuesday, the U.S. Navy admiral who is retiring early from command of the campaign to destroy vessels allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela spoke to key lawmakers overseeing the U.S. military. The classified video call between Adm. Alvin Holsey, who will be retiring from U.S. Southern Command in the coming days, and the GOP chair and ranking Democrat of the Senate Armed Services Committee represented another determined step by lawmakers to get answers about the operation.

Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to discuss the specifics of the call, but described Holsey as a “great public servant.” He also said that the Pentagon is weighing whether releasing the video would disclose classified information.

In its annual defense authorization bill, which was crafted by both Republicans and Democrats, Congress is demanding that the Pentagon turn over unedited video of the strikes, as well as the orders authorizing the attacks. The legislation threatens to withhold a quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget if he refuses.

“There is a growing demand that everyone get a right in the Senate to see it,” said Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He added that Holsey answered the senators’ questions but also said that “there are still many questions to be answered.” Reed later added that Holsey did not give a reason for his retirement other than saying it was a personal decision.

Congress presses for more information

Lawmakers are trying to understand the purpose and parameters of President Donald Trump’s campaign, which has struck 22 boats and killed at least 87 people since it started in September. Trump has also been making threats against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, sending a fleet of warships near the South American country, including the largest U.S. aircraft carrier.

On Tuesday, the U.S. military flew a pair of fighter jets over the Gulf of Venezuela in what appears to be the closest American warplanes have come to the country’s airspace since the start of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign.

Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command just over one year ago, but in October, Hegseth announced that Holsey would be retiring early from his post. As commander of U.S. forces in the region, Holsey oversaw a command structure that has in recent years been mostly focused on building stability and cooperation across much of the region.

Trump’s drug boat campaign, however, has added a new, deadly dynamic to its mission. Rather than trying to interdict drug-carrying vessels, as forces like the U.S. Coast Guard have traditionally done, the Trump administration asserts that the drugs and drug-smugglers are posing a direct threat to American lives. Officials say they are applying the same rules as the global war on terror to kill drug smugglers.

Trump this week justified the strike by claiming that the two suspected drug smugglers were trying to right the part of the boat after it had capsized in the initial attack. However, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the special operations commander who ordered the second strike, told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing last week that he ordered the second strike to ensure that the cocaine in the boat could not be picked up later by cartel members.

The entire House Armed Services Committee will also hear from Bradley next week, said Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the panel.

“We need an all-member briefing for the House of Representatives,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told The Associated Press.

For the last several months, the Trump administration has brandished videos of the strikes — black and white footage of boats exploding into flames — on social media.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called it a “little strange” for officials to now claim that full, unedited video of the strike is classified and cannot be released even to members of Congress. He and other Democrats also say that the logic underpinning the entire operation is deeply problematic.

“They are using expensive, exquisite American military capabilities to kill people who are the equivalent of corner dealers,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Lawmakers are also questioning what intelligence the military is using to determine whether the boats’ cargo is headed for the U.S. As they have looked closer at the Sept. 2 strike, lawmakers learned that the destroyed boat was heading south at the time of the attack and that military intelligence showed it was headed toward another vessel that was bound for Suriname.

Still, it remains to be seen whether the Republican-controlled Congress will push back on the Trump administration’s campaign. Many have so far stood behind it, but worry is also growing about the prospect of war.

House Speaker Mike Johnson missed the classified briefing -- the only leader to do so, according to two people familiar with the private session who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Johnson’s absence was notable from the speaker, who is second in line of succession to the president, especially as Congress is expected to have the final say on the military’s use of the nation’s war powers.

War powers resolution vote

A group of senators — three Democrats and one Republican — is also preparing to force a vote on legislation as soon as next week that would halt Trump’s ability to use military force against Venezuela directly without congressional approval.

The senators have already tried unsuccessfully to pass a similar resolution, but almost all Republicans voted against it. However, the senators say there is now renewed interest from GOP lawmakers.

“These follow on strikes of people who are wounded in the ocean is really against our code of military justice,” said Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who is sponsoring the legislation. “They are illegal.”

Associated Press reporter Ben Finley contributed.

The U.S. Navy has activated its first information warfare squadron in an effort to leverage intelligence and cyber expertise for carrier strike group commanders.

Dubbed Information Warfare Squadron Two, it is one of two squadrons approved to be set up within a 48-month pilot program approved by the service in June, which will see information squadrons formed on the east and west coasts and evaluate their performance to enhance doctrine, according to a service release. Intended to streamline intelligence and analysis, these squadrons will consist of staff with expertise in information warfare drawn from various naval commands.

IWRON Two is commanded by Capt. Jon O’Connor, who formally assumed command at a Dec. 5 ceremony in Norfolk, Virginia. Members of the new force include service members from the Navy Information Operations Command, Naval Information Warfare Training Group, Navy Cyber Defense Operations Command, Strike Group Oceanography Team and the Fleet Intelligence Detachment DC.

The force is modeled after successful approaches adopted by destroyer squadrons and air wings, according to the release. It is unique in concentrating a variety of functions and responsibilities pertaining to information warfare under a single commander.

Vice Adm. Mike Vernazza of Naval Information Forces said the move represents a major shift in the Navy’s approach to information warfare.

“For too long, information warfare has been a collection of vital but often disparate capabilities. Today, we change that,” Vernazza said in the release.

“The IWRON construct represents a bold step forward. We are integrating and employing advanced IW capabilities and delivering them as a unified force across the spectrum of conflict. We are employing IW warfighting effects in a way that has never been demonstrated before. To get to outcomes we haven’t had, we need to do things we haven’t done. … This is one of them,” Vernazza said.

The second information warfare squadron is planned to be stood up on the West Coast in the coming year.

On the eve of America’s semiquincentennial, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is honoring its forefathers as it prepares to face off against the U.S. Naval Academy on Saturday.

In its 10th season collaborating with Nike, the Army football program alongside the U.S. Military Academy’s Department of History and War Studies have unveiled its latest specialty uniform, 1775, for the Army-Navy game.

The uniform, from helmet to cleats, features details reflecting the history and traditions that have been the hallmark of the service for 250 years.

To celebrate the Army’s birth, the service academy is traveling back to 1775 to honor the ordinary citizens who “rendered extraordinary sacrifices for the nation,” according to the West Point uniform website.

Marbled white uniforms with their numbers stitched in purple honor “those who served and never returned,” according to West Point Athletics, and serve as a “symbol of strength of American democracy.” The purple stitching represents both the Military Badge for Merit that was issued by George Washington during the American Revolution and present-day sacrifices of soldiers, Gold Star Families and Purple Heart veterans wounded in service.

Emblazoned on the front of the Nike-made jersey is the West Point seal surrounded by a chain, representing the 65-ton iron barrier that stretched across the Hudson River at West Point, securing the entire river valley for the patriots. The “Great Chain” was one of the most significant engineering feats of the American Revolution and was a lifeline to Washington’s nascent Continental Army.

“The river,” writes Hudson Valley Magazine, “separated the northeast from the rest of the country. If the British took control of the river, the head would be cut off from the body, and both sides knew what would follow.”

The easily identifiable typography on the uniforms mirrors the style of the U.S. Constitution, which the players, upon graduation and commissioning, will swear to uphold in a compact that has “guided our nation throughout its vaunted history,” writes the West Point website.

The helmet features 1775, the year the Army was founded, on the back alongside the Army Seal, which “serves as a constant reminder that this team’s players represent more than just the [U.S. Military] Academy when they step on the field,” according to the Army’s website.

Etched atop the helmet is the espontoon, a spear point symbolizing the Army’s role as the tip of the spear for the nation’s military might.

In 2024, the school chose to honor the 101st Airborne Division, highlighting the unit’s service during its role in the Battle of the Bulge and the Defense of Bastogne during World War II.

Units honored with past West Point football uniforms include:

• 2016: 82nd Airborne Division
• 2017: 10th Mountain Division
• 2018: 1st Infantry Division
• 2019: 1st Cavalry Division
• 2020: 25th Infantry Division
• 2021: U.S. Army Special Forces Command
• 2022: 1st Armored Division
• 2023: 3rd Infantry Division
• 2024: 101st Airborne Division

The Army-Navy game will be held Saturday, Dec. 13, at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, Maryland, and will be broadcast on CBS. Kickoff is scheduled for 3 p.m. EST.

The U.S. Navy last week released a redacted version of its report on the USS Harry S. Truman’s Feb. 12 collision with a merchant vessel.

The public version of the March 19 report, now on the Navy’s Freedom of Information Act Reading Room site, identifies errors it says led to the collision and makes recommendations for how they might be avoided in the future.

Vice Adm. Jeffrey T. Anderson, commander of U.S. 6th Fleet, began the investigation Feb. 15, three days after the Truman collided with the Besiktas-M near Port Said, Egypt.

“Though no lives were lost in this incident,” the report says it “discusses how the outcome could easily have been much different.”

The aircraft carrier, then five months into a deployment, was able to continue its mission after the collision.

The report identified several human factors that played a part in the crash, including fatigue and schedule pressure.

Watch teams aboard vessels are required to be able to get 7 1/2 hours of sleep for every 24-hour day, the report said. But deck watchstanders reportedly said they only got two to four hours of sleep, split between their twice-a-day watches.

The watchstanders were described as having stood two-section watches, meaning six hours on watch and six hours off watch, a schedule the report described as “ugly.”

“A 6/6 rotation results in a ‘watch week’ of 84 hours, which exceeds the Navy Manpower Analysis Center (NAVMAC) model of 56 hours by 150%, and a ‘work week’ of 98 hours, 120% above baseline,” the report said.

Other watchstanders said that they had to choose between meals and sleep, often eating only one meal a day, according to the report.

The investigation also found that those who reported five to seven hours of sleep appeared to be over-reporting their sleep.

Navy releases ‘catastrophic’ findings involving USS Harry S. Truman

Watchstanders had concerns over the Truman’s speed leading up to the collision, 19 knots, but none of them expressed their concerns to the officer of the deck, navigator or commanding officer.

Some department heads also said the operational tempo was “excessive and hampered their ability to properly plan associated evolutions and supporting watchbills.”

The report said emotional stressors could also have affected sailors’ performance, but no sailors the command spoke to cited any impact from those stressors.

The report went on to cite four root causes for the collision, starting with the officer of the deck demonstrating poor seamanship, allowing the Truman to transit so fast that it was hard to avoid a collision.

The officer of the deck did not take traffic density in the area in which it crashed into the merchant vessel into account and did not make an appropriate assessment of the likelihood of a collision, given the circumstances, the investigation said.

The officer of the deck also did not take the proper steps to avoid a collision, failing to alter course enough to avoid the ensuing crash, and did not properly inform watchstanders of the navigational situation, the report found.

Second, the Truman’s navigator failed to safely navigate the vessel through its perilous situation, the report said.

The navigator failed to provide leadership to the officer of the deck and the watchstanders during the Truman’s transit and failed to advise the Truman’s commanding officer and officer of the deck on the safest course to be steered, the investigation said.

Third, the watch teams failed at the basic principles of bridge resource management, or assisting the vessel’s command center in the safe navigation of the vessel.

The seamanship, ship-handling training and experience of the watch teams were low, the report said, so they were unable to recognize certain errors as they occurred.

Finally, the Truman’s commanding officer, Capt. Dave Snowden, “abdicated his responsibility” for safe navigation during the approach to the Suez Canal to the navigator and officer of the deck, the report found.

The Navy dismissed Snowden as the carrier’s CO a week after the collision.

The investigating team could not speak to the Besiktas-M crew or obtain evidence from the vessel, so it could not fully gauge how much that vessel’s actions contributed to the collision.

Nevertheless, the report said the merchant vessel did not keep its course and speed, violated the rules of the road and demonstrated poor seamanship.

Investigators cited other contributing factors, including the Truman’s senior leaders’ treatment of certain risks as acceptable, as a result of the high operational tempo. It also cited overconfidence and complacency by the carrier’s leaders and the bridge team, who failed to plan for the Suez Canal approach and were unprepared to safely mitigate subsequent events.

The command’s investigations led to several recommendations, including that the commander of Naval Air Forces should craft a crew endurance policy as its own stand-alone instruction that would include mandates for circadian watch rotation and meal and work schedules.

The report also recommended that the commanders of the Naval Safety Command, Naval Air Forces and Naval Surface Forces assess areas of improvement and emphasize the importance of risk assessment.

The investigation called for the commanders of Naval Air Forces and Naval Surface Forces to consider developing training modules for commanding officers and executive officers on the best ways to manage fatigue, potentially through the use of wearable technology to monitor sleep and performance in the same way professional athletes do.

The portion of the report on “Other Opinions—What Could Have Happened?" was redacted.

The Defense Department on Tuesday launched a major push to get military personnel, civilian employees and contractors to use generative artificial intelligence capabilities, located on its own website.

Google Cloud’s Gemini for Government is the first AI capability to be launched on GenAI.mil, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a video posted on social media Tuesday.

“The future of American warfare is here, and it’s spelled AI,” Hegseth said in the video.

“This platform [GenAI.mil] puts the world’s most powerful frontier AI models, starting with Google Gemini, directly into the hands of every American warrior,” he said.

Users must have a common access card from the department to log onto GenAI.mil; it cannot be accessed by unauthorized personnel.

Hegseth said the department is not “sitting idly by” as adversaries take advantage of rapid technological advancements.

“At the click of a button, AI models on GenAI can be utilized to conduct deep research, format documents and even analyze video or imagery at unprecedented speed,” Hegseth said in the video.

In a written statement also released Tuesday by the Pentagon, Hegseth said the department is “pushing all of our chips in on artificial intelligence as a fighting force.”

Today, we are unleashing https://t.co/NzcgVsCcI2

This platform puts the worlds most powerful frontier AI models directly into the hands of every American warrior.

We will continue to aggressively field the world’s best technology to make our fighting force more lethal than ever… pic.twitter.com/jqAhN32zjQ

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) December 9, 2025

The Pentagon also said its AI work followed President Donald Trump’s July order “to achieve an unprecedented level of AI technological superiority.”

Gemini for Government will use “intelligent agentic workflows,” or AI processes where autonomous programming makes decisions and takes actions with minimal human involvement, and will allow defense personnel to experiment more with these capabilities, the department said.

“There is no prize for second place in the global race for AI dominance,” Emil Michael, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said in a statement. “We are moving rapidly to deploy powerful AI capabilities like Gemini for Government directly to our workforce. AI is America’s next Manifest Destiny, and we’re ensuring that we dominate this new frontier.”

Elon Musk’s xAI, Anthropic and OpenAI are some of the other AI programs the department has considered to help with national security missions. Intelligence analysis, logistics and data collection are some of the duties that the department hopes could be improved by using AI.

The Pentagon said it will provide free training to all department employees on how to use the GenAI.mil website. Those training sessions are meant to build employees’ confidence in using AI tools, and teach them how to use those capabilities to their greatest potential.

The department stressed the need for security when using this program, and said all tools on the GenAI website will be considered controlled unclassified information, or CUI, and secured well enough to be used operationally.

Gemini for Government is web-grounded against Google Search to keep the information it produces accurate and dramatically reduce “the risk of AI hallucinations.”

The Pentagon said its Office of Research and Engineering’s AI Rapid Capabilities Cell led to the development of these capabilities.

A package of investigations released this week about the carrier Harry S. Truman’s loss of three F/A-18 Super Hornets and collision with a merchant vessel in four separate mishaps on its last deployment to the Middle East is raising grave concerns about training gaps and sailors’ lack of focus and professionalism when fulfilling their duties.

Among the culprits, according to the investigations, were fatigue, stress amid an intense tempo of combat operations, undermanning and unit cultures that stressed a get-it-done mentality rather than ensuring competency or bandwidth for certain tasks.

But buried in one of the reports is another concern: that the arrival of readily accessible Wi-Fi onboard ships is reducing crews’ commitment to professional excellence.

The finding appears in the investigation into the loss of a Super Hornet on May 6 due to an arresting wire that broke as the aircraft was attempting to land — an incident attributed to poor maintenance and “eroding of standards” to the point of “abject failure.”

The jet’s pilots were able to eject before the aircraft was lost in the Red Sea and suffered only relatively minor injuries.

While that indictment is broad, the 56-page document notes one possible contributor to the breakdown.

“There is a lack of motivation among the [Truman] arresting gear sailors to earn their qualifications,” the investigation finds. “Witnesses attributed this lack of motivation to several factors.”

Among these, it adds, is the availability of Wi-Fi on the carrier.

“Many Sailors spend their down time on their phones rather than studying for qualifications,” the report notes.

Later in the investigation, it raises the issue of Wi-Fi driven distractions again.

“Sailors struggled to stand [under instruction periods] to earn higher qualifications due to lack of personnel to man watch stations during flight operations,” investigators found. “Sailors did not take the initiative to earn qualifications outside of their shift due to a lack of a comprehensive training plan, lack of a [delinquent in qualifications] list, low motivation, and Wi-Fi availability.”

Enclosures providing evidence for these findings are referenced in the investigation, but were not publicly released.

Wi-Fi on board carriers — a new development in recent years made possible, in part by the Starlink satellite network established by the Elon Musk-led company SpaceX — has largely been hailed as a welcome way to modernize ship deployments, raise morale and keep sailors better connected with their families and home life.

In late 2024, Navy Capt. Chris “Chowdah” Hill, skipper of the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, told reporters he’d seen great benefit from the service during a recent deployment to the Red Sea.

“If you’re a sailor and you’re having a bad day, you don’t always want to go to your chain of command,” Hill, who used social media during the deployment to highlight various sailors, said, according to a DefenseScoop report. “You go to your external support network — your mom, your dad, your spouse. And this offered an instantaneous way to do that.”

He contrasted what he saw as improved morale with the past reputation of the aging carrier underway, which Hill said had earned the moniker “Cell Block 69,” a play on its hull identifier.

A January report from The War Zone also found Wi-Fi brought morale benefits underway to the crew of the carrier Abraham Lincoln, though it alluded to concerns over sailors’ dependency on their connected devices.

“The next generation of sailors grew up with a cell phone in their hand, and they are uncomfortable without it,” Lincoln’s commanding officer, Capt. Pete “Repete” Riebe, said, according to the report. “I don’t necessarily like that, but that’s reality, and if we want to compete for the best folks coming into the Navy, we need to offer them bandwidth at sea.”

The recently released mishap probe found, in particular, that motivation to earn arresting gear qualifications among sailors was low, with just 14 out of 22 Truman sailors in ranks E-6 and below assigned to the arresting gear progressing beyond basic familiarization. Three sailors earned no arresting gear qualifications during the deployment, due in part to a lack of push from leaders to earn more qualifications, the probe found.

It also found that the leading chief petty officer for the arresting gear at the time of the mishap had a low knowledge level of the gear’s workings. The investigation found that he and had been trying to earn more qualifications, but a superior had tried to “throttle back” his progress so he could use the education to benefit his career development later on.

No recommendations regarding phones or Wi-Fi use were made public as part of the investigation.

“The hard reality is that multiple individuals at all levels of leadership were complicit in allowing the [Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment] maintenance program to degrade to the level of abject failure,” Rear Adm. David-Tavis Pollard, president of the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey, wrote in an endorsement of the investigation. “… The resultant failure put the lives of aviators and sailors at risk and only through luck did they escape grievous harm.”

“Bittersweet.”

That’s the shorthand the Navy uses to indicate a potential friendly fire situation. But in the minutes before midnight Zulu time on Dec. 21, 2024, it was already too late to make the call and avert the disaster by the time commanders saw it coming.

According to a command investigation published this month into the events that led to the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg shooting down an F/A-18 Super Hornet from the nearby carrier Harry S. Truman and narrowly missing taking out another, a rapid series of missteps — and a long pattern of rushed training and failed equipment — contributed to the embarrassing and costly error.

The 152-page investigation, released as part of a package of probes into mishaps on the Truman deployment that included a collision and an arresting wire failure, found the friendly-fire incident was entirely avoidable and caused by established patterns of miscommunication and oversights.

From 11:25-11:26 p.m., while the Truman conducted flight operations in the Red Sea, the Gettysburg fired two SM-2 surface-to-air missiles at the two friendly Super Hornets, hitting the first and causing the pilots to eject, and missing the second. A third Super Hornet was also targeted, the investigation revealed, but not fired on.

“The [Gettysburg commanding officer] had low situational awareness, and his [command information center] team was unable to help him regain it,” an investigation overseen by Rear Adm. Kavon Hakimzadeh, commanding officer of Carrier Strike Group 2, concluded.

To underscore the cautionary tale that the incident represents to the Navy, Hakimzadeh advised that the report be provided to dozens of Navy units and commands so they can use it to change policies and practices. Capt. Justin Hodges, Gettysburg’s commanding officer, was relieved from his post in January 2025; Navy officials have declined to specify what other accountability actions they’ve taken.

According to the investigation, the first indication to Truman’s Carrier Strike Group 8 that something was seriously wrong came at 11:25, when the group’s JAG observed “blue tracks” on what had previously been falsely identified as a foreign anti-ship cruise missile, one of dozens Iran-backed Houthi missiles that had been bombarding the Navy within recent months.

Then, a chilling call came over a voice circuit: “Stop shooting at us.”

In the minutes that followed, information spread about the possibility of a friendly fire incident, but no orders were given.

“From the initial report of engagement at [11:25], [the battle watch captain] did not negate an engagement [or direct] to break engage, hold fire, or cease fire for almost five minutes,” the investigation found.

Accounts in the investigation from the pilot and weapons systems officer of the Super Hornet that would be shot down — alongside social media posts verified by investigators — reveal how this chaos appeared from the sky.

The pilot and WSO, the probe found, were watching the Gettysburg at the time of the friendly fire missile launch, initially thinking the ship was targeting the one-way attack drone they had also been seeking. When they saw the SM-2 reach apogee and change course in their direction, they knew they were being targeted.

“Are you seeing this?” The pilot asked the WSO, according to the investigation.

“Yeah, I’m watching it,” the WSO responded. The pilot then asked him if “he wants to get out,” indicating an ejection from the aircraft.

“I will basically have my life flash before my eyes and assess we had no options … I will just pull the handle not saying eject over [comms] or anything,” he’d later tell investigators.

In accounts shared with squadron mates, posted by a third party to social media earlier this year and republished in the investigation, the pilot, call sign “Fig,” recalled the ejection:

“It was the most violent 5 seconds of anything I’ve ever experienced,” the pilot wrote. “Canopy immediately gone, I remember seeing the canopy bow disappearing below my sight line, and it getting dark. Arms and legs flail everywhere, I never said “eject” or anything on [the interior communications system] just pulled. felt the opening shock of the parachute, and as soon as I looked up at a good parachute, I heard what I assess as the missile fusing, just a loud ‘POP.’"

In the second targeted aircraft, the pilot and WSO saw the missile explosion that indicated the first Super Hornet had been hit. Instead of opting to eject immediately, they began evasive maneuvers, using afterburners to help the jet pick up speed. As they watched the missile continue to follow them, the pilot told the WSO he thought they needed to eject. But they waited a moment, seeing the rocket motor on the missile fade and burn out. It passed their aircraft, they said about one to two plane-lengths behind them.

“Both [the second jet’s] pilot and WSO note the aircraft shake as the missile passed the aircraft, and see the missile explode in the water,” the investigation found.

While such personal accounts are not typically made public on social media and caused consternation when the leaders discovered details of the friendly-fire incident were already publicly known, the investigation offered a reason for the unauthorized disclosures.

“The aircrew was upset that no action was being taken to correct the incident from occurring again, and that there seemed to be a lack of accountability,” investigators found.

The Truman had arrived in the Red Sea ten days before the friendly fire incident, joining what was already a “highly dynamic and kinetic theater,” as investigators put it, in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Houthi forces had tried to engage Navy assets more than 200 times since then, according to a chart shared in the investigation. The Gettysburg sailed into theater four days later, on Dec. 18.

For weeks prior to the friendly fire shoot down, key systems had been consistently failing, the investigation found. The performance of Link 16, the military communication network connecting the ships and fighter jets, had “noticeably degraded,” and there were regular outages. Likewise, the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system had sustained a series of “casualties,” in which it wasn’t working correctly, that had gone essentially unaddressed by the strike group.

While Gettysburg and Truman were deployed together, they’d spend nearly 60% of their underway time apart, investigators found. And joint training they’d undergone left some dissatisfied.

“We never really got a chance to learn from the integration,” a strike group official said. “… I would have liked to have a group sail longer than two days. We never got the chance to say ‘that does not work … let’s try something else.’ We just had to be like, that’s done, that’s done, and move down the list. We then had to move on to the next thing.”

On the night of the friendly fire strike, confusion started in planning, with a carrier air wing air defense brief that was not fully approved by the air and missile defense commander or circulated to all units involved. After the launch of planned strikes around 5 p.m., Link 16 went down, from about 6 p.m. to just after 9 p.m. A quicker-than-anticipated response by the Houthis to the Navy’s strikes complicated matters, prompting a change that got more aircraft re-tasked as defensive counter-air assets (DCA) against incoming drones and missiles.

Hodges, the Gettysburg CO, would tell investigators he was “surprised” at the re-tasking of strike jets as DCA, even calling up his chain of command to voice concern. As aircraft completed a return to the ship after their night on mission, some communications went unacknowledged. Gettysburg observers believed all friendly aircraft had been recovered. The two Super Hornets that would ultimately be targeted got tagged as “unknown” rather than “friendly.”

“Expectation and false belief” that Link 16 and IFF were working properly, alongside watchstanding distractions, would culminate in the near-deadly error.

While causes of the mishap are clear enough, many of the conclusions of the investigation, including accountability actions, are redacted in the version that was publicly released. It remains to some extent uncertain how the Navy will prevent future at-sea mishaps at a similar scale.

“This incident provides our Navy an introspective opportunity to improve our combat effectiveness across the enterprise,” Vice Adm. George M. Wikoff, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, said in signing off on the investigation. “As the Fleet Commander, I failed to effectively assess the total risk accumulated within the [Truman carrier strike group] when considering material readiness and strike group proficiency in this combat environment. An accurate assessment would have inspired a questioning attitude and more effective backup in support of their operations.”

U.S. service members will receive a 3.8% pay increase beginning Jan. 1 under the final version of the annual defense bill announced by the House and Senate on Sunday night.

The proposed fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act makes several changes to Defense Department personnel policy, including a 3.8% across-the-board military pay raise consistent with the Trump administration’s proposed budget request, as well as personnel policy alterations designed to improve troops’ quality of life.

Under the bill, service members with families not only will receive a pay raise, they also will get more money each month when they deploy or are separated from their families for 30 days or more for training or other reasons.

The legislation increases family separation allowance from $250 to $300 per month.

Proposed defense bill would fund Golden Dome, next-gen fighters

It also allows expecting parents to use their parental leave within two years after the birth or adoption of a child and aims to make improvements to military and family housing.

“We’re pleased to announce that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the FY26 NDAA that supports service members and strengthens our national defense,” chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees — Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. — said in a statement Monday.

The proposed legislation authorizes $900.6 billion for the department, more than $8 billion over the president’s budget request. While the bill authorizes the higher amount, congressional appropriators, who dictate the actual funding, will determine the legislation’s final top-line, which could shift as a result.

However, defense appropriators have signaled that they will protect the 3.8% pay raise proposed by Trump. The increase means that an E-4 with four years of service would see a boost in base pay of roughly $134 a month.

The increase in family separation allowance follows a refusal by the Defense Department to increase the amount paid to those separated from their family for at least 30 days or more. Congress in the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act allowed DOD to boost the $250 per month allowance to up to $400 a month, but the department never implemented an increase.

The new bill alters the law to ensure that at least $300 a month minimum is paid for the allowance with a top-line of $400 per month.

Under the legislation, active-duty service members and activated Guard and reserve members also will be able to take parental leave at any time up to two years after the birth or adoption of a child.

The services’ policies currently allow active-duty service members and activated Guard and reserve members to take up to 12 weeks of leave if they give birth, have a spouse who gives birth, adopt a child or become foster parents. But the leave must be taken within 12 months of the birth or adoption event — a limitation that often prevented service members from taking their full leave especially in years when they moved or deployed.

The two-year extension request must be approved by the first general or flag officer in a service member’s chain of command — a change that prevents commanders from denying the leave.

An item not included in the bill that was originally was in both the House and Senate versions is the expansion of coverage for in vitro fertilization for troops and spouses. The Defense Department covers the process for service members whose infertility is related to service-connected injury or illness, but all others must pay out-of-pocket, either at cost at a limited number of military hospitals or in the private sector.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a co-sponsor of the IVF proposal, said Sunday that House Speaker Mike Johnson was working to kill the provision. Johnson had succeeded in removing the proposal from the bill from last year’s House NDAA and appears to have done it again in last-minute negotiations.

“[Johnson’s] stripping away something that a bipartisan group in Congress has said, ‘You know what, we want our military men and women and their families to be able to have access to IVF.’” Duckworth said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union show. “The president of the United States promised on the campaign trail to make IVF available to all Americans. And I can’t think of a better place to make it available than the men and women who wear the uniform of this great nation.”

Johnson’s office did not reply to a request for comment by publication. Johnson released a statement Sunday on the NDAA, praising the legislation but not mentioning the IVF provision.

Johnson said the bill, as it stands, codifies presidential orders that address “woke ideology at the Pentagon, securing the border, revitalizing the defense industrial base and restoring the warrior ethos.”

“Under President Trump, the U.S. is rebuilding strength, restoring deterrence, and proving America will not back down. President Trump and Republicans promised peace through strength. The FY26 NDAA delivers it,” Johnson said.

The legislation includes a provision that bars transgender persons from serving on women’s athletic teams at U.S. service academies, in compliance with a Jan. 20 executive order by Trump that recognizes two sexes — male and female — in the federal government.

But it also creates the reestablishment of “women’s initiative teams” in each of the service departments to study and address barriers for women in recruitment, retention and professional advancement.

The inclusion of the reinstatement of the teams — a proposal by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., an Air Force veteran, and others — is a direct rebuke of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to eliminate the teams and other offices that address gender equality in the services.

Hegseth in September also disbanded the Defense Advisory Committee for Women in the Services after saying earlier in the month that it would be reinstated after a review. In announcing the termination, Hegseth said the committee was “divisive” and focused on “advancing a … feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness.”

“I am proud that this year’s bipartisan bill continues to fortify the work and provisions of the Quality of Life panel [part of the House Armed Services Committee] while addressing the urgent technological and strategic needs of our military,” Houlahan said in July while working to have protection of the women’s teams placed into the bill.

As part of an effort to reduce service members’ risk of head injury during training, the bill also creates 10 new positions across the services, including blast safety officers responsible for overseeing assessments and risk management related to overpressure caused by weapons handling and firing.

The officers are to ensure that military personnel understand the health risks of blast exposure and follow protocols for decreasing risk, including personal protective equipment, adhering to minimum safe distance rules in training and using sensors to collect data on exposure.

The Defense Department announced last year several new measures to protect troops from overpressure injuries caused by weapons use, including safe distances and cognitive assessments.

The bill does not include any references to changing the name of the department to the Department of War as Hegseth and Trump now refer to it. Congressional approval is required for a formal name change.

The House is expected to vote on the bill this week, with the Senate expected to address it the week of Dec. 15 before it heads to Trump’s desk to become law.

HONOLULU — Survivors of the 1941 Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor have long been the center of a remembrance ceremony held each year on the military base’s waterfront.

But today only 12 are still alive — all centenarians — and this year none were able to make the pilgrimage to Hawaii to mark the event Sunday.

After 84 years, USS Arizona’s unknowns may soon be identified

That means no one who attended had firsthand memories of serving during the attack, which killed more than 2,300 troops and catapulted the U.S. into World War II. The development is not a surprise and is an evolution of an ongoing trend. As survivors fade, their descendants and the public are increasingly turning to other ways of learning about the bombing.

“The idea of not having a survivor there for the first time — I just, I don’t know — it hurt my heart in a way I can’t describe,” said Kimberlee Heinrichs, whose 105-year-old father Ira “Ike” Schab had to cancel plans to fly in from Oregon after falling ill.

Survivors have been present every year in recent memory except for 2020, when the Navy and the National Park Service closed the observance to the general public because of coronavirus pandemic health risks.

“I can still see what was happening.”

The ceremony began with a moment of silence at 7:55 a.m. local, the same time the attack began on Dec. 7, 1941. Solemn rituals followed.

Fighter jets flew overhead in “missing man formation,” in which one jet peels off to symbolize those lost. Survivors typically present wreaths to honor the dead, though active-duty troops have assumed this job in recent years. Survivors also would rise to salute active duty sailors who themselves salute as their ship passes the USS Arizona Memorial, which sits above submerged hull of the battleship sunk in the attack.

About 2,000 survivors attended the 50th anniversary event in 1991. A few dozen have showed in recent decades. Last year, only two made it. That is out of an estimated 87,000 troops stationed on Oahu that day.

Many survivors were jovial despite the occasion, happy to catch up with old friends and pose for photographs. Even so, harrowing recollections were seldom far from their minds.

In 2023, Harry Chandler gazed across the water while telling an Associated Press reporter how he was raising the flag at a mobile hospital in the hills above the base when he saw Japanese planes fly in and drop bombs. Chandler and his fellow Navy hospital corpsmen jumped in trucks to help the injured.

He spoke of seeing the Arizona explode, and of hearing sailors trapped on the capsized USS Oklahoma desperately tapping on their ship’s hull to summon rescue. He helped care for Oklahoma sailors after crews cut holes in the battleship.

“I can still see what was happening,” Chandler said. He died the next year at a senior living center in Tequesta, Florida.

Lessons from the past

The bombing has long held different meanings for different people, the historian Emily S. Rosenberg wrote in her book “A Date Which Will Live: Pearl Harbor in American Memory.”

Some say it highlights the need for a well-prepared military and a vigilant foreign policy. To some it evokes then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt administration’s “ineptitude or deceit” and the unfair scapegoating of the military. Others focus on the “treachery” of Japan or the heroic acts of individual troops, she wrote.

Asked what he wanted Americans to know about Pearl Harbor, Chandler said: “Be prepared.”

“We should have known that was going to happen. The intelligence has to be better,” he said.

Lou Conter, who was Arizona’s last living survivor when he died last year at 102, told the AP in 2019 he liked to attend to remember those who lost their lives.

“It’s always good to come back and pay respect to them and give them the top honors that they deserve,” Conter said.

Heinrichs’ father has been six times since 2016. The former tuba player on the USS Dobbin likes to go not only to remember those killed but also in place of his late band mates; his three brothers who fought in World War II; and the now-deceased Pearl Harbor survivors he has met.

Recording the remembrances before the survivors are gone

Retired National Park Service Pearl Harbor historian Daniel Martinez said the circumstances resemble the early 20th century when Civil War veterans were dying in increasing numbers. Awareness grew that soon they wouldn’t be able to share their stories of Gettysburg and other battles, he said.

Martinez knew something similar could happen with Pearl Harbor survivors and recorded their oral histories. During a 1998 convention, he conducted interviews 12 hours a day for three days. The Park Service today has nearly 800 interviews, most on video.

“They remain as a part of the national memory of a day that changed America and changed the world,” Martinez said.

The Park Service shows some in its Pearl Harbor museum and aims to include more after renovations, said David Kilton, the agency’s Pearl Harbor interpretation, education and visitor services lead.

The Library of Congress has collections from 535 Pearl Harbor survivors, including interviews, letters, photos and diaries. Over 80% are online. They are part of the library’s Veterans History Project of firsthand recollections of veterans who served in World War I onward. Many were recorded by relatives, Eagle Scouts and other amateurs interested in documenting history.

The Sons and Daughters of Pearl Harbor Survivors gives presentations in schools and marches in parades to share the stories of their families. The California chapter has added six new members this year, including two great-grandchildren of survivors.

“When they’re all gone, we’re still going to be here,” said Deidre Kelley, the group’s president. “And it’s our intent to keep the memory alive as long as we’re alive.”

Lt. Kermit Tyler’s eyes lit up at what he saw on his screen: a large blip 132 miles north of the Hawaiian island of Oahu.

It was just after 7:02 a.m., and the skeleton crew working the night shift at the Aircraft Information Center at Fort Shafter also were mystified by the reading that had caught Tyler’s eye.

Could their radar equipment be malfunctioning? Just how many planes were incoming?

And most importantly — were they American?

It was Dec. 7, 1941, and the world would soon be shocked by the deadly events that followed, drawing the U.S. into World War II.

Meanwhile, as those American crews watched their radar, a small, 40-ton submarine known only by its assigned battle number, HA-19, was cutting through the waves nearby, wrote Bill Newcott for the National Geographic.

Even before the first Japanese bomb fell on Pearl Harbor, the HA-19 and four other Type A Kō-hyōteki-class midget submarines were meant to deal the first blow to the “sleeping giant” in the harbor.

Most didn’t get that far, however.

“Because the small subs had to surface frequently for fresh air, four of them were sighted by patrolling ships and destroyed with depth charges,” wrote Newcott.

It was here — just outside the harbor’s edge — that the first spirited American defense of Pearl occurred — not from fierce, modern destroyers, but from the USS Ward, a Wickes-class destroyer from a seemingly bygone era — the ship first touched water in 1918.

Tragically, however, an incident report by Ward’s crew wasn’t heeded. If it had, the U.S. would not have been caught so off guard by the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“I was not at all certain that this was a real attack,” Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, later said of Ward’s report.

According to the Naval History and Heritage command, at least one of the midget subs was able to enter the harbor before being sunk there by USS Monaghan.

The HA-19, on the other hand, never even got close.

Ensign Kazuo Sakamaki and Chief Warrant Officer Kiyoshi Inagaki, the two-man crew inside HA-19, had difficulties from the outset. Their gyrocompass didn’t work, and they spent the early hours of Dec. 7 bumping along the rocks and coral reef outside Pearl Harbor.

In fact, when the Japanese bombardment began, HA-19 could be found there — stuck.

According to The National World War II Museum, it was there that the USS Helm spotted the foundering vessel and opened fire.

“The shells fell close enough to knock Sakamaki unconscious as Inagaki dived the submarine away from trouble. After pulling themselves together, the pair made more attempts at entering the harbor, battering the bow of the submarine to the point the torpedoes would no longer fire. Seawater entered through the crushed nose of HA-19 and slowly began to surround the batteries, which were now emanating toxic fumes,” the museum wrote.

With no chance of survival inside the doomed vessel, the two men decided to abandon ship and prepared to engage in hand-to-hand combat to the death once on shore.

But before they could, the fumes overwhelmed the pair, knocking them unconscious. They awoke that evening, having missed the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Only Sakami made it to shore alive. Inagaki drowned after he attempted to set off an explosive charge to destroy the midget sub.

Crawling ashore, Sakamaki soon faced down the tips of American rifles. He begged to be killed, but the GIs refused to acquiesce.

Thus, Sakamaki garnered the dubious distinction of becoming the first Japanese POW of World War II.

Since that day of infamy, four of the five Japanese midget submarines have been found, with the HA-19 currently on display in Fredericksburg, Texas in the National Museum of the Pacific War.

Some historians contend, controversially, that one of the midget submarines managed to fire its torpedoes at the USS Oklahoma or the USS West Virginia and may still be lurking below the depths of the harbor.

Even so, “You have 300 aircraft in the sky and five midget subs,” Robert Citino, senior historian at The National WWII Museum, told History.com. “Even if each one had a direct hit, there was so much more ordnance flying through the air than gliding under the seas. In the shadow of that, the submarines become a footnote.”

When Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, Philip M. Rasmussen was a 23-year-old second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Assigned to the 46th Pursuit Squadron at Wheeler Field on the island of Oahu, he was one of the few American pilots to get into the air while enemy planes were still in the skies over Hawaii. Rasmussen, who would be awarded a Silver Star for his actions that day, went on to fly many other combat missions in World War II, including a bombing run over Japan, for which he later received the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Following assignments in the Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East, Rasmussen became the chief of operations at Eglin Air Force Base, and he retired in 1965 with the rank of lieutenant colonel. He died in 2005 at age 86 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

The following narrative is adapted from an oral history interview with Rasmussen that was conducted in 1991.

I entered into flight training in September of 1940. I completed my training [at] the end of April ’41 and then immediately was transferred to my first assignment, which was to Wheeler Field. Our mission was to defend against the airborne attack on the islands. There was no mention of another country, but I’m sure we all had various feelings about the potential that we were going to be involved in a war with Japan.

In fact, in my diary, I mentioned on December 2 that I had gotten a letter from my father and he thought that we were going to have trouble with the Japanese. And on December [5] I made a comment in my diary that the diplomatic efforts between United States and the president had failed, and it looked serious. But at the same time we’re thinking: “We’re 3,000 miles from Japan. How could anything happen here?”

We never had identification photos of Japanese aircraft. In fact, when we got in a fight and when a Japanese aircraft arrived, I was confused about which ones were fighters and which ones were bombers. We had heard some rumors about the Zeroes being a very maneuverable aircraft, built very lightly and having pretty fair firepower, and that was about it.

About 10 minutes to 8 [on the morning of December 7], I was in the barracks for the unmarried officers. I was standing in the latrine and looking out the window at the hangar line, which was about three, four hundred feet from where I was standing. And I noticed an aircraft dive down [at] the hangar and pull up very sharply, and an object dropped from this plane. And then I saw this huge orange explosion of smoke and orange flames. And when this airplane pulled up, I saw the two meatballs, or the two round circles identifying it as a Japanese aircraft. I knew immediately that it was a Japanese aircraft.

I yelled down the hallway — I was in my pajamas — and I yelled down the hallway that we were being attacked by the Japanese. And I ran to my room and I strapped a webbed belt around my waist and, and a 45-caliber pistol in my holster that was on this belt, and put on a pair of shoes and ran for the flight line.

And as I was running toward the flight line, aircraft were strafing — well, I thought they were strafing and trying to shoot me, because I could hear these bullets whistling by me and I’m sure that they had far more serious objectives than hitting this lone guy running along down toward the flight line.

I wasn’t wasting any time because, as I was running down toward the flight line, I saw the airplanes were lined up wingtip to wingtip. And the Japanese had started to bomb and strafe the aircraft at the end of the line. Each airplane was exploding and igniting the one next to it because they were so close together. There were a few [Curtiss] P-36s that were closer to the hangar line, a little farther away from the other aircraft. And I ran down to one of those and jumped into that plane, got it started, and then an armorer came over with a belts of 30-caliber and 50-caliber ammunition on his shoulder, then jumped on the wing.

I taxied over during, apparently, a lull there, because as I taxied over toward earthen revetments surrounding the airfield, I don’t recall being attacked. As I looked around I didn’t see any aircraft that looked like they were about to strafe me. I managed to get over to one of the earthen revetments, and the armorer and I proceeded to load the P-36 with the 30-caliber and 50-caliber ammunition. The guns on the P-36 fired synchronously through the propeller, and the 30-caliber was on the left side of the pilot and the 50-caliber was on the right side.

You think of machine-gun fire as being a very rapid sound, but because you couldn’t shoot your prop, you had to shoot between the prop as the prop turned. It was sort of almost like a funeral cadence in speed.

As we assembled the four aircraft, Lou Sanders, the squadron commander, and Gordon Sterling and John Backer and myself, we all had done exactly the same thing that I described myself as doing, when I taxied the aircraft over.

And we took off in formation, headed toward Pearl Harbor, to make a turn to the north and we came around the field, circled around the field, climbing. We headed north because along the whole mountain range to the east, the clouds had built up over the mountains. We were trying to remain out of the clouds, and climbed to altitude and just clawing for altitude, because that was so important, in combat, to have altitude. We had that much sense.

We charged our guns at this time. In the P-36, you had a charging handle for each gun. You pull back a lever, pull it back as far as your ear, and then you let it snap forward, and that arm would snap forward and put a bullet in your chamber. Well, I did that with the 30-caliber, and then I pulled the 50-caliber back and let it slide forward, and the gun started firing by itself. So I had to pull it back and keep it cocked to keep the gun from firing. It had nothing to do with me depressing the trigger, because it was a solenoid on that gun that had gone bad on me.

As we climbed we headed east. We had received instructions shortly after being airborne to go to Bellows Field. We were climbing and then trying to get over in that direction as quickly as possible, and as soon as we topped the clouds, at between nine and 10,000 feet, we had instructions to go to Kaneohe Bay, which was more or less on the way to Bellows anyway — same general direction.

[When] we got to Kaneohe Bay, we saw that it was under attack. We saw about eight aircraft that were over land, making a turn, preparing to make another attack on Kaneohe Bay. And we dove down and were going to jump these aircraft — in other words, attack them. We intercepted them at about 6,500 feet. We had all separated in the process of making our attacks, individually, and this one airplane came by from my right side to the left. I lit him with my 50-caliber and let the handle slide home, and it started firing all by itself. I could see the bullets stitching the fuselage, and from the engine aft, and he caught on fire and peeled down.

Just at that same time, this other Japanese aircraft tried to ram me. I was convinced that he was trying to ram me and I pulled up very sharply to my right. And as I pulled up to my right, my airplane shuddered, and my canopy blew off and I lost control of the plane momentarily.

As the plane was falling off, I managed to work the controls around, and I found out that my rudder control would not work. The rudder would just slide in and out on either side, which meant that I still had some aileron control and elevator control. I ducked into the clouds that were below us, and in toward the mountains, and stayed in those clouds. There were about eight to 10 cloud covers. I was popping in and out of clouds, trying to stabilize the aircraft, trying to find out whether I’d been hurt or not because I had felt this blow on the top of my head, and I had not worn a helmet.

I just had a headset on, and when I had got the airplane finally straightened out a little bit, straight and level, I gingerly reached up to see how much was left of the top of my head. All I found was a bunch of shredded Plexiglas in my hair. I didn’t have a scratch anywhere.

There wasn’t time. Our actions were preceding our thoughts. That’s almost the way I could just describe it. Our actions were sort of programmed. It was a reaction to a situation. I think it’s the best way I can describe it.

Sadly, the feeling of reality didn’t come until my airplane was hit. And then all of a sudden I realized that I was in a great deal of danger, and that’s the reason why I ducked into the clouds and tried to get out of that direction.

Fear didn’t kick in. I guess it’s like an automobile accident. You suddenly crash into somebody and you have a moment’s pause before you start thinking, and then you get pretty nervous about the situation. But all the way back to the field I was so busy trying to keep that airplane in the air that I didn’t have time to think of anything else. I had my control stick way over in [the] right-hand corner of my cockpit in order to keep the airplane level, and I was using my trim tabs like mad and trying to maintain control of the aircraft.

As I was heading back toward Wheeler, Lew Sanders picked me up. He pulled up close to me and was shaking his head and trying to find out what was wrong, and I said, “Everything is okay. I’m all right.” And so he escorted me back to Wheeler. As we came over Schofield Barracks the friendly forces [had] organized themselves pretty well and were starting to shoot at us. But fortunately, they missed us.

The Wheeler Field people knew that we were friendly aircraft. There were no more Japanese around. As I turned on the base legs and put my view down, I noticed [that] my indicator showed my gear was not down. So on final I was pumping hydraulic fluid with the emergency pump to get the gear down. Just before I touched down I got the gear down, and I cut the engine and landed on the wet grass. The dew was still on the grass. We had no runway. It was just a grassy field, and we had a concrete ramp for parking the aircraft. But the aircraft just took over by itself because I had no brakes—my hydraulics had been shot out. I had no rudder. I couldn’t control the torque of the airplane, and I just spun around a couple of times till it came to a stop.

And then I sat there in, benumbed, really, and I noticed some men running over from the hangar line to see if I was okay, and I finally got up out of the cockpit. I was soaking wet, and it wasn’t just from sweat. And I got on the ground and I looked at the airplane and just—I was just dazed a little bit. I think that’s the only way I can explain it. I didn’t have any coherent thoughts.

I went back to the barracks and took off my pajamas and put on a flying suit and came back down the line to see what I could do because the ammunition was still exploding in the hangars. All the planes that [were] salvageable had been salvaged in that period of time, and there were very few of them that were salvaged.

This painting actually shows the time that I was hit. You can see the bullet holes in the airplane. The tail wheel is being shot off. My canopy is shattered. It was right after I had shot down one Japanese aircraft. Then [another] aircraft tried to ram me, and I had pulled up to avoid being rammed by him. You can see Kaneohe Bay under attack over here, and this is John Thacker, one of our group of four pilots, whose guns were all jammed. He couldn’t do anything. And this is Lew Sanders, who was after this [Japanese aircraft]. And this is our fourth man, Gordon Sterling, who was on fire and was shot down.

This Japanese pilot is still alive. He is quite ill, but he’s in Japan and he’s described how he tried to ram me.

And inside the fuselage shows the hole made by the entry of the 20 millimeter, and when it exploded, these radios absorbed the shock. I had no armor plate in back of me in these airplanes, and what saved my life was these radios that absorbed the shock.

It was like the age of chivalry, almost, with the knights and the way they were fighting and the combat that we engaged in, in World War II. That’s something that disappeared, like horse cavalry. I don’t anticipate, in any future war, that we’re going to have the type of dogfighting that we had. Most of the weapons that we use today fire at targets that are out of sight and that are picked up electronically. So the likelihood of this type of combat, this is part of history.

Early one morning in fall 1941 Takeo Yoshikawa encoded a brusque telegram for the Japanese foreign ministry’s home office in Tokyo. In its entirety, the message read: “Details unclear.” It was an admission of failure, and Yoshikawa’s apparent testiness is easy to understand. The 27-year-old intelligence officer had spent much of the previous evening submerged in the shallows of Oahu’s Mamala sey, attempting to study submarine barriers at the entrance to Pearl Harbor, only to come away with nothing but a deep chill.

His superiors in Japan had ordered him to get information on the barriers’ dimensions, formidability, and operation. Lacking any other source for the information and unable to view the underwater apparatus from afar, he decided to make an exploratory dive. To look like a local, or perhaps a Filipino laborer, he approached Ewa Beach shoeless, through a thick growth of elms. The undergrowth tore at his bare arms and the rocky, volcanic soil cut his feet. After dodging a Marine putting out his laundry, Yoshikawa made it to the water’s edge.

In the encroaching evening, the water was smooth as glass. Any disturbance of the surface would be immediately apparent. Despite his misgivings and the sting of the saltwater on his fresh wounds, Yoshikawa entered the bay and swam toward the mouth of Pearl Harbor. When he got near, he spotted a sentry and took up position underwater, holding a large rock to keep from surfacing and breathing through a pipe, which he had rigged with a periscope and camouflaged its exposed end with driftwood twigs and leaves.

He knew there would be no way to explain his presence if he was caught, so he remained submerged as long as he could. The tropical waters, while perfect for a casual dip, were cold enough to leach the heat from his lean, unmoving body. In the growing darkness, the sentry became increasingly difficult to see; Yoshikawa’s mind began to wander. Eventually, he imagined that he could hear the sentry and heard him leave. When he finally surfaced, the sentry was gone — but his work was done: he had thwarted Yoshikawa’s reconnaissance attempt. Shivering, half drowned, and covered in scratches, the spy made his way back to the Japanese consulate in Honolulu in the dead of night, defeated.

Or at least that was Yoshikawa’s story.

It is impossible to know what really happened, and inadvisable to take Yoshikawa’s word for it. The former Imperial Japanese Navy ensign — then posing as a clerk at the consulate — was an unreliable narrator.

Yoshikawa recalled his espionage exploits numerous times after the war — in two full-length memoirs (one published in 1963, the other in 1985), along with newspaper and magazine articles and in interviews with American and Japanese writers, reporters, and historians. At various times he recalled the same episodes differently, and in all of his accounts, pretends to personal qualities his actions clearly belie.

Complicating matters further, although Yoshikawa died in 1993, a Japanese publisher dealing mainly in nationalist tracts, Mainichi Ones, issued a revised version of his memoir in 2015 that made Yoshikawa’s story more nationalistic and, superficially at least, more plausible. An account of the Mamala Bay excursion occurs in all Yoshikawa’s full-length memoirs, richly detailed and casting him in a heroic light while explaining away his inability to obtain information on Pearl Harbor’s submarine defenses — one his few failures during his mission. Some measure of skepticism is in order.

Nonetheless it is possible, by combining what is known from American intelligence sources and Yoshikawa’s own recollections, to piece together a portrait of the man and his mission. The exercise is worth the effort, because Yoshikawa was indisputably effective as a spy. His activities made a direct contribution to the Japanese victory at Pearl Harbor.

Yoshikawa had aspired to be a naval aviator, but a debilitating stomach ailment sidelined him during training. In 1936 at age 22, fearing his career was over before it started, he gratefully accepted an offer to enter the Japanese Imperial Navy’s intelligence section. He immersed himself in the study of English and read anything he could on the U.S. Navy, its warships, its bases, and its strategies and tactics. He took particular pride in his mastery of works by American naval theorist and sea power advocate Alfred Thayer Mahan, later boasting, “I can still quote much of Mahan from those days.”

In 1940 the Imperial Navy charged him with his fateful mission to Pearl Harbor, which he called “a half-year of furtive existence in the twilight world of the spy in which all men are enemies and fear walks always beside one.” First, however, they seconded him to the foreign ministry, where he was to grow his hair out and learn the arts of diplomacy to establish his cover. The following year they sent him under official cover — as a diplomat named Tadashi Morimura — to the spacious consulate general in a quiet Honolulu neighborhood. There only the consul general, Nagao Kita, knew of Yoshikawa’s true mission.

Yoshikawa collected information anywhere he could find it. He scoured newspapers and community bulletins for scraps of useful facts. He chatted up servicemen and bought them drinks. On the pretense of taking casual strolls, he reconnoitered around military bases and Oahu’s major beaches, exploring them for possible landing sites. He gathered intelligence on the depth of Kaneohe Bay and natural obstacles in the harbor by the simple expedient of taking a glass-bottomed boat tour.

He repeatedly observed the island from the air in sightseeing trips, taking pains to bring along a different woman each time to give the impression that he was little more than a playboy with a successful MO and limited imagination. He established observation posts in secluded sugarcane fields, and in or near the establishments of friendly Japanese immigrants — the Nikkei.

The information he collected gave attacking Japanese pilots an excellent idea of what they were up against. Detailed documents recovered from downed enemy aircraft led investigators to conclude that Japan had spies on Oahu, including “persons having no open relations with the Japanese foreign service.”

Their report made many Americans imagine a far more extensive spy network than had ever existed, and ultimately contributed to the paranoia that led to the internment of more than 120,000 Japanese and Japanese American residents from the West Coast of the continental U.S. (although, ironically, sparing those in Hawaii).

In his postwar writings, Yoshikawa consistently took pains to absolve the Nikkei, and especially the Nisei—the American-born offspring of Japanese immigrants—of rendering him assistance. “Hawaii’s Nisei shared a deep sense of belonging to the United States,” he wrote with apparent chagrin; when entreated to do something for Japan, “They would refuse me with the line, ‘I am an American.’” However, it is indisputable that without the aid—witting or otherwise—of some Hawaiian Nikkei, Yoshikawa would not have been nearly as successful.

One who helped him was Taneyo Fujiwara, the proprietress of a Japanese teahouse, Shinchōrō, which commanded an excellent view of Pearl Harbor and was equipped with a substantial telescope. Yoshikawa used the telescope extensively, and often—after feigning drunkenness—spent the night unsupervised in the room where it was kept. (Interested readers can see the instrument at Shinchōrō’s successor establishment, Natsunoya Tea House, run by Laurence Fujiwara, Taneyo’s grandson.)

Another Nikkei who assisted him was John Mikami, a taxi driver the consular staff often employed. Yoshikawa befriended and hired Mikami for frequent sightseeing trips. Though Yoshikawa never informed Mikami of his mission, the cabby seemed to have divined the purpose of Yoshikawa’s excursions and went out of his way to point out details of military significance or show Yoshikawa vantage points for observing Oahu’s military installations.

Once Mikami took the spy to Schofield Barracks, command headquarters for the U.S. Army in Hawaii and home of the 25th Infantry Division. They somehow got onto the grounds and Mikami showed Yoshikawa around before heading for the exit, where he casually told the guard he had been attempting to take his fare to a tourist destination. The guard waved them on, despite the fact that Schofield is in the interior of the island far from any tourist attractions.

At least one person offered Yoshikawa knowing aid — German spy Bernard Julius Otto Kühn, whom German military intelligence had dispatched to assist the Japanese — but Yoshikawa resisted it. Under Yoshikawa’s protests Nagao Kita had ordered him to meet with Kühn and pay him on multiple occasions.

Brushes with American authorities and his frequent presence near sensitive facilities notwithstanding, Yoshikawa was careful to stay on the right side of the law, or as close to it as he possibly could. “Espionage essentially is at bottom an unromantic exercise in research methodology,” he said. “It is all there if you will only take the trouble to dig for it.”

He dug relentlessly — but cautiously and patiently as well. He never raised the suspicions of American authorities. They never even learned his real name. The only prewar mention of Yoshikawa in military intelligence files is a routine record about his visa status under his alias. Robert L. Shivers, the FBI’s man in Honolulu from August 1939 until April 1943, cultivated extensive contacts in Japan’s Nikkei community. But in his memoirs he admits that he never suspected Yoshikawa.

Yoshikawa maintained that he had no foreknowledge of the timing of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and it is likely he did not know anything concrete. The raid’s naval planners were stingy with information; even Prime Minister Hideki Tōjō did not learn the details until after the fleet had sortied. Nevertheless, Yoshikawa certainly suspected an attack was imminent.

In the first week of December he burned the notes, clippings, and photographs he had used to compile his reports. On December 6, Yoshikawa settled outstanding debts and treated Mikami to dinner at Shinchōrō. But some sensitive materials remained in the consulate’s locked code room. After the attack he had to await the arrival of the consulate’s cipher clerk, who had the only keys. American authorities turned up before he could burn all the evidence and caught him with a detailed, if only half-finished, hand-drawn map of Pearl Harbor. Yoshikawa’s luck had run out.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, American authorities confined the consular personnel to the compound grounds, and quickly arrested Kühn, whose extravagant spending habits had caught their attention. The German spy provided the Americans with a description of his Japanese paymaster; the Americans suspected Yoshikawa was the man. Still, considering the magnitude of the disaster they had suffered and that authorities were even then preparing to round up innocent Nikkei from the West Coast, they went remarkably easy on Yoshikawa.

Authorities eventually interned the consular staff in a comfortable — if remote — ranch in Arizona. Given the situation, their captors afforded them every courtesy; Yoshikawa and his colleagues could play tennis, use the sauna, get cocktails, and — if not for the uncertainty of the future — generally enjoy the good life. Yoshikawa found himself wondering if Americans interned in Japan would receive such treatment.

In spring 1942 (Yoshikawa believed it was May), the inevitable finally came to pass. An investigator came to question the consular staff. It soon became clear that Yoshikawa was his focus. Through four days of interrogation the spy maintained his innocence. Even when confronted with the map, he did not relent, claiming he had drawn it for the purpose of sightseeing. After the fourth day, Kita came to see him. Based on the investigator’s line of questioning and on Yoshikawa’s suspicious activities at the consulate, the rest of the consulate staff had concluded that he was a spy, that the Americans knew it, and that as long as he denied it they were in jeopardy. They prevailed upon Kita to ask Yoshikawa to turn himself in. Shocked, Yoshikawa said he would think about it.

But Yoshikawa had no intention of falling on his sword. “My duty ended when the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor,” he explained. “After that it was out of my hands. I was in no hurry to die a dog’s death in some ridiculous exhibition of a spirit of self-sacrifice.”

This was not in line with his training. The Imperial Japanese Naval Academy had placed a premium on developing an ethic of self-sacrifice in its students — of perseverance until death. Yoshikawa instinctively recoiled from this. Despite his efforts to internalize self-denial through Buddhist meditation, he remained, in his own words, “afraid to die.”

Yoshikawa’s resistance to indoctrination, groupthink, and the romanticization of sacrifice would later cost him his position in the navy. In the short term, however, his sense of self-preservation paid off. The next day, the interrogator told Yoshikawa that he and his colleagues were free to go. The American had had only a week to crack the case and had failed. The diplomatic corps of the United States, Japan, and Sweden had worked out an exchange of personnel; Yoshikawa and his colleagues were taken to New York in preparation for departure to Japan.

The suspicions around the spy were strong enough, however, that the authorities sought to hold Yoshikawa, and only Yoshikawa, back. The head of the Japanese diplomatic mission to the United States, Admiral Kichisaburō Nomura, maintained that the full mission would return or no one would, scuttling the exchange. The Americans relented and allowed Yoshikawa to join his colleagues. He was the last to board the ship before it cast off.

At the neutral Portuguese port of Lourenço Marques in southeast Africa (present-day Maputo, Mozambique), the Japanese crossed paths with the former American mission to Japan. Yoshikawa noted that the Americans were disheveled, their bags of poor quality, and their appearances haggard. Rather than inspiring him to reflect on his own good treatment as a prisoner, the sight convinced him all the more of the necessity of struggling against the United States — which had so much power and wealth, his reasoning went, it could afford to squander it on captives.

Insight of this sort coupled with moral myopia was characteristic of Yoshikawa. While he could discern injustice and evil, it rarely truly exercised him unless it applied to him personally.

After returning to Japan in August 1942 (accounts vary as to the exact date), Yoshikawa married, began a family, and continued naval intelligence work, mainly as an analyst. Because of his skill with English, he also interrogated Allied prisoners, condemning in his memoirs the savage abuse some of them received.

Yet neither the Japanese navy nor the government officially commended him for his contributions to the success of the Pearl Harbor attack — a sore point with Yoshikawa for the rest of his life. Eventually he ran afoul of his superiors. Sometime in June 1944 Yoshikawa surmised that reports of battle successes from frontline naval units were wildly exaggerated or wholly fabricated. He produced a more modest — more accurate — estimate based on Allied media reports and intercepted radio traffic, only to have his superiors accuse him of being “Americanized” and too credulous toward American propaganda.

Yoshikawa argued that if the frontline reports were accurate there would be no American warships afloat at all. But as was standard within the Imperial military at this time, politics trumped reality. Yoshikawa’s estimate was discarded. The Imperial Japanese Navy would lose three fleet carriers and more than 600 aircraft during a catastrophic defeat at the June 19-20 Battle of the Philippine Sea.

Yoshikawa resigned in disgust and spent the remainder of the war working at an aircraft plant. After the surrender, he made a small fortune on the black market before receiving word that Allied war crimes investigators were seeking him and other navy colleagues on suspicion of prisoner abuse.

Believing that the United States simply sought revenge on the Japanese navy’s intelligence personnel, Yoshikawa went into hiding, spending four years at two Zen Buddhist temples until the trials were over. He drifted around the country until about 1950, then returned to his family to start a new life. He opened a gas station in Shikoku, but never reconciled himself to the new Japan of the postwar era.

Shortly later, Gordon Prange, the chief historian on Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s occupation staff, somehow learned of Yoshikawa’s historic role and tracked him down. The former spy agreed to an interview and went to see Prange in Tokyo just before the September 1951 negotiation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that would mark the end of the occupation.

In the early 1960s, a pair of other projects—an article Yoshikawa cowrote with Marine Lt. Col. Norman Stanford, an assistant naval attaché in Japan, for the U.S. Naval Institute’s “Proceedings” magazine and a CBS News special he cooperated with to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the attack — led many right-wing nationalists to accuse Yoshikawa of selling out to the former enemy. Postwar anti-militarism was also near its height then, leading socialists, pacifists, and much of mainstream Japan to condemn him.

Yoshikawa lived out the remainder of his life subsisting on income from the gas station, his wife’s earnings as an insurance agent, and the proceeds from his memoirs and articles. He enjoyed enough esteem from his neighbors to be elected to the local town council twice. Nevertheless he became a bitter man. His memoirs are full of self-pity and bile. He faded into obscurity, a condition in which he died in 1993.

Since Takeo Yoshikawa’s death, his story has taken on new life — more recently in particular. A documentary on him by Japan’s national broadcaster aired in late 2014. The next year, the Mainichi Ones memoir appeared, altered to make Yoshikawa into a nationalist hero working for a righteous cause.

Yoshikawa, however, does not fill that role well. Though he displayed pride at his ability to help his country challenge the greatest power on earth, his authentic memoirs hint at doubts about the rightness of Japan’s cause. He describes tears coming to his eyes upon reading Japan’s declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire. But then he adds that upon rereading, he “could not help but think that it lacked a casus belli” — the Anglo-American transgressions against East Asia that it cited being “nothing more than backing Chiang Kai-shek.”

His descriptions of captivity in American hands contain grudging acknowledgment that they treated him well. He displays something like regret about his role in making Japan’s attack a success and speaks of understanding the hostility Americans hold toward him.

The Mainichi Ones memoir has eliminated much of that ambivalence. We see Yoshikawa moved to tears by the Imperial Rescript, without the later doubts. His actions become more heroic. The volume “corrects” what its revisers (sometimes accurately and sometimes not) perceive to be errors in Yoshikawa’s original manuscript and distorts his narrative to make Americans seem more racist than Yoshikawa had ever implied.

In his authentic 1985 memoir, Yoshikawa describes how in Hawaii no one would sell rice to the consular staff, temporarily confined to the consulate grounds, because of their perceived involvement in the Pearl Harbor attack. In the 2015 revision, no one will sell rice to “Japs” — an unlikely prospect on an island where one-third of the population was of Japanese descent. Elsewhere Yoshikawa tells of being escorted through New York, where passersby mumble something about “Japs” under their breath. In the Mainichi Ones version, these people now shout the epithet in the captives’ faces.

Given that Yoshikawa changed his story and that that story has been altered since his death, there will always be some doubt about any part of it that cannot be independently corroborated. What can be said for certain is that Yoshikawa was a patriotic man from a naval background who conscientiously performed his assigned duties. Those duties, however, only helped his country commit to an ultimately disastrous course. This was something his country never let him forget during his lifetime, but now seems to be in the process of forgetting itself.

Marine Corps officials have identified a Marine who died Wednesday at Camp Pendleton, California, following a tactical training vehicle mishap.

Pfc. Tanner F. Rubio, 21, died Dec. 3 in a training accident that a service release stated was unrelated to the currently ongoing Exercise Steel Knight 25, which is taking place across installations in California and Arizona.

The service did not provide any additional details about the mishap.

A native of Dixon, California, Rubio joined the Marine Corps in January 2025, and was subsequently assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marines at Pendleton’s Camp Horno area, according to his service record.

“The tragic loss of Pfc. Rubio is one felt across the 1st Marine Division,” said Maj. Gen. Thomas Savage, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division. “He will be sorely missed, but his honorable service to his country will not be forgotten. All of us at the Blue Diamond will keep him and his family in our thoughts and prayers.”

The incident is currently under investigation, Marine Corps officials stated.

I MEF is the Marine Corps’ largest Marine Air-Ground Task Force, or MAGTF, in the service, and is primarily made up of the 1st Marine Division, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and 1st Marine Logistics group.

Since its inception, the 101st Airborne Division — made even more famous by Stephen Ambrose’s “Band of Brothers” — has fought in every major war, from jumping behind the lines on D-Day to fighting in decades of battle in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its unit patch, the screaming eagle overlaid on a black shield, is perhaps the most recognizable insignia in the U.S. Army. Its history, however, is less so.

While the bald eagle is a national emblem, the 101st’s screaming eagle insignia pays homage to a genuine war bird from the Civil War.

Captured as an eaglet in 1861 by Ahgamahwegezhig (Chief Big Sky) of the Lac du Flambeau Band of the Lake Superior Ojibwe, the bird was soon sold to Daniel McCann of Chippewa County, Wisconsin, for a bushel of corn.

According to the Army, the bird was originally kept as a family pet, but due to the bird’s rapidly growing size and expense, McCann actively sought to sell the yet-to-be-named bird to passing units of Wisconsin troops enroute to their muster site at Camp Randall in Madison.

Eventually, he was sold off for $2.50 to Capt. John E. Perkins, commanding officer of a militia company called the “Eau Claire Badgers.”

Named “Old Abe” after President Abraham Lincoln, the bald eagle became a part of the 8th Wisconsin Infantry — and a legend in his own right.

After Perkins’ unit entered federal service, it was redesignated as Company C, 8th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment, but with Old Abe on Perkins’ arm, the unit was quickly nicknamed the “Eagle Regiment.”

Old Abe - the bald eagle on our unit patch - was 100% real.

Here he is with his unit, the 8th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment, arriving in St. Louis in 1861 pic.twitter.com/gSvHeSIQHZ

— 101st Airborne Div. (@101stAASLTDIV) October 14, 2020

Carried into combat by a sergeant while perched on a black shield attached to a wooden pole, Old Abe rode into battle alongside the 8th Wisconsin’s national and regimental colors, witnessing 37 battles and skirmishes, including the violent clashes at Vicksburg and Corinth in Mississippi.

His original owner, Perkins, died on May 11, 1862, from wounds sustained during the Battle of Farmington on May 9. However, at the time of Perkins’ death, Old Abe had already been folded in as an official member of the Wisconsin unit.

In the lulls between battles, Old Abe helped to keep the men entertained by spreading his wings on command — and, to the delight of the soldiers, dancing. He was also a notorious pilferer of food.

An inspirational symbol for the 8th Wisconsin, Old Abe was — like the seizing of an enemy regimental flag — marked for capture.

According to the Wisconsin Historical Society, Col. Rufus Dawes recalled, “Our eagle usually accompanied us on the bloody field, and I heard [Confederate] prisoners say they would have given more to capture the eagle of the Eighth Wisconsin, than to take a whole brigade of men.”

The bounty for Old Abe grew, with Confederate Gen. Sterling Price thundering during the Battle of Corinth “that bird must be captured or killed at all hazards; I would rather get that eagle than capture a whole brigade or a dozen battle flags.”

Despite this, Old Abe remained firmly in the hands of his Wisconsin handlers, mustering out alongside the unit in 1864.

Donated to the state of Wisconsin by the men of the 8th, Old Abe lived out his days in the state capitol building or on display at roving political, social and cultural causes.

Unfortunately, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society, his living “conditions while in the government’s care declined over time and he suffered from exhaustion, exposure and malnutrition on a number of occasions.”

In 1881, a small fire broke out in the basement of the capitol building. Old Abe survived the flames, but sickened from smoke inhalation, the famous war eagle died within a month.

His legacy, however, as the face of both lethal airborne and air assault combat capabilities, lives on with the 101st. Adopted in 1921 as the unit’s patch insignia, Old Abe has become one of the most identifiable profiles both within the U.S. Army and beyond.

A raid by U.S. forces and a local Syrian group aiming to capture an Islamic State group official instead killed a man who had been working undercover gathering intelligence on the extremists, family members and Syrian officials have told The Associated Press.

The killing in October underscores the complex political and security landscape as the United States begins working with interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa in the fight against remnants of IS.

According to relatives, Khaled al-Masoud had been spying on IS for years on behalf of the insurgents led by al-Sharaa and then for al-Sharaa’s interim government, established after the fall of former President Bashar Assad a year ago. Al-Sharaa’s insurgents were mainly Islamists, some connected to al-Qaida, but enemies of IS who often clashed with it over the past decade.

Neither U.S. nor Syrian government officials have commented on al-Masoud’s death, an indication that neither side wants the incident to derail improving ties. Weeks after the Oct. 19 raid, al-Sharaa visited Washington and announced Syria would join the global coalition against IS.

Still, al-Masoud’s death could be “quite a setback” for efforts to combat IS, said Wassim Nasr, a senior research fellow with the Soufan Center, a New York-based think tank focused on security issues.

Al-Masoud had been infiltrating IS in the southern deserts of Syria known as the Badiya, one of the places where remnants of the extremist group have remained active, Nasr said.

The raid targeting him was a result of “the lack of coordination between the coalition and Damascus,” Nasr said.

In the latest sign of the increasing cooperation, the U.S. Central Command said Sunday that American troops and forces from Syria’s Interior Ministry had located and destroyed 15 IS weapons caches in the south.

Confusion around the raid

The raid occurred in Dumayr, a town east of Damascus on the edge of the desert. At around 3 a.m., residents woke to the sound of heavy vehicles and planes.

Residents said U.S. troops conducted the raid alongside the Syrian Free Army, a U.S.-trained opposition faction that had fought against Assad. The SFA now officially reports to the Syrian Defense Ministry.

Al-Masoud’s cousin, Abdel Kareem Masoud, said he opened his door and saw Humvees with U.S. flags on them.

“There was someone on top of one of them who spoke broken Arabic, who pointed a machine gun at us and a green laser light and told us to go back inside,” he said.

Khaled al-Masoud’s mother, Sabah al-Sheikh al-Kilani, said the forces then surrounded her son’s house next door, where he was with his wife and five daughters, and banged on the door.

Al-Masoud told them that he was with General Security, a force under Syria’s Interior Ministry, but they broke down the door and shot him, al-Kilani said.

They took him away, wounded, al-Kilani said. Later, government security officials told the family he had been released but was in the hospital. The family was then called to pick up his body. It was unclear when he had died.

“How did he die? We don’t know,” his mother said. “I want the people who took him from his children to be held accountable.”

Faulty intelligence

Al-Masoud’s family believes he was targeted based on faulty intelligence provided by members of the Syrian Free Army.

Representatives of the SFA did not respond to requests for comment.

Al-Masoud had worked with al-Sharaa’s insurgent group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, in its northwestern enclave of Idlib before Assad’s fall, his cousin said. Then he returned to Dumayr and worked with the security services of al-Sharaa’s government.

Two Syrian security officials and one political official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, confirmed that al-Masoud had been working with Syria’s interim government in a security role. Two of the officials said he had worked on combating IS.

Initial media reports on the raid said it had captured an IS official. But U.S. Central Command, which typically issues statements when a U.S. operation kills or captures a member of the extremist group in Syria, made no announcement.

A U.S. defense official, when asked for more information about the raid and its target and whether it had been coordinated with Syria’s government, said, “We are aware of these reports but do not have any information to provide.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a sensitive military operation.

Representatives of Syria’s defense and interior ministries, and of U.S. envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, declined to comment.

Increased coordination could prevent mistakes

At its peak in 2015, IS controlled a swath of territory across Iraq and Syria half the size of the United Kingdom. It was notorious for its brutality against religious minorities as well as Muslims not adhering to the group’s extreme interpretation of Islam.

After years of fighting, the U.S.-led coalition broke the group’s last hold on territory in late 2019. Since then, U.S. troops in Syria have been working to ensure IS does not regain a foothold. The U.S. estimates IS still has about 2,500 members in Syria and Iraq. U.S. Central Command last month said the number of IS attacks there had fallen to 375 for the year so far, compared to 1,038 last year.

Fewer than 1,000 U.S. troops are believed to be operating in Syria, carrying out airstrikes and conducting raids against IS cells. They work mainly alongside the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in the northeast and the Syrian Free Army in the south.

Now the U.S. has another partner: the security forces of the new Syrian government.

Airwars, a London-based conflict monitor, has reported 52 incidents in which civilians were harmed or killed in coalition operations in Syria since 2020.

The group classified al-Masoud as a civilian.

Airwars director Emily Tripp said the group has seen “multiple instances of what the U.S. call ‘mistakes,’” including a 2023 case in which the U.S. military announced it had killed an al-Qaida leader in a drone strike. The target later turned out to be a civilian farmer.

It was unclear if the Oct. 19 raid went wrong due to faulty intelligence or if someone deliberately fed the coalition false information. Nasr said that in the past, feuding groups have sometimes used the coalition to settle scores.

“That’s the whole point of having a hotline with Damascus, in order to see who’s who on the ground,” he said.

A Pentagon inspector general report confirmed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent sensitive operational information about an impending strike in Yemen over his personal cell phone, potentially endangering the mission objectives and troops carrying it out.

The report, which was dated Dec. 2 and publicly released Thursday, found that Hegseth has the authority to decide whether information should be classified, and he determined the details he shared in a March 15 Signal chat “were either not classified or that he could safely declassify and use to create an ‘unclassified summary’ to provide to the Signal chat participants.”

One of those chat participants was, apparently unknowingly to Hegseth and other government officials, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who later that month published a bombshell report on the security breach.

Even if rules against disclosing classified information were not breached, the IG said Hegseth’s sharing of nonpublic information so close to an airstrike operation carried significant risks.

In the chat, the IG said, Hegseth disclosed the “quantity and strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes.”

“Using a personal cell phone to conduct official business and send nonpublic DoD information through Signal risks potential compromise of sensitive DoD information, which could cause harm to DoD personnel and mission objectives,” the report said.

The release of the long-awaited report reignited the controversy that followed Goldberg’s initial reports on the chats, which came to be known as Signalgate.

Some lawmakers called for Hegseth’s resignation in blistering statements.

“This was a rookie mistake that could have had dire consequences for our service members who put their lives on the line for our nation every day,” said House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Sarah Elfreth, D-Md.

“I am calling for [Hegseth’s] immediate resignation. In the coming days, I will use every tool at my disposal to hold him publicly accountable and restore the public’s faith in those who lead us and are responsible for our national security,” she said.

The Pentagon pushed back on the report, highlighting the IG’s observation that Hegseth had the authority as secretary to declassify information.

The report “totally exonerates Pete Hegseth,” Timothy Parlatore, Hegseth’s attorney and adviser, said in a video interview with conservative media outlet Real America’s Voice, which the Pentagon shared on its social media accounts.

“There’s no classified material in those texts,” Parlatore said. “Everything he declassified, he has within his authority to declassify.”

The IG said that then-U.S. Central Command commander Army Gen. Erik Kurilla sent four emails on March 14 and 15 that were classified “secret” and “not releasable to foreign nationals” to Hegseth and the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlining plans for the strike, including operational details and updates. There were no markings within the emails indicating some elements were classified and others were not, the IG said, so investigators concluded all information in CENTCOM’s emails was classified.

On the day of the strike, Saturday, March 15, Hegseth and two assistants were at his home at Fort McNair in a temporary sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. Hegseth sent information about the upcoming strike to a group chat, labeled “Houthi PC Small Group” that also included Vice President JD Vance, now-former national security adviser Mike Waltz, and Goldberg, who Waltz had added to the group, apparently by mistake.

Hegseth sent messages outlining, to the minute, when two waves of F-18 Hornet fighters were planned to launch, and approximately when each group of jets would hit their targets. Hegseth’s message also detailed plans for drone and Tomahawk missile strikes, the report said.

The strike plan information “substantially restated details” from CENTCOM commander Kurilla’s first email from March 14, which was marked SECRET/NOFORN, the IG said.

Former defense officials who spoke with Defense News at the time said such specific information about strike packages would typically be considered classified. Had information on the specific timing of aircraft launches, and their arrival at the targets, fallen into the hands of the Houthi terrorists the U.S. was targeting, the Houthis could have more easily targeted U.S. aircraft, experts said.

Hegseth declined the IG’s request for an interview, but provided a written statement in July, in which he said he determined that information did not need to be classified.

“I took non-specific general details which I determined, in my sole discretion, were either not classified, or that I could safely declassify [and created an] unclassified summary” of CENTCOM’s strike details, Hegseth said in his written response.

The IG concluded Hegseth does have the authority to decide what information should be classified.

But the IG said that his use of Signal, an unapproved commercially available messaging program on his personal cell phone, to send sensitive nonpublic operational information a few hours before the strikes occurred did not comply with the department’s rules on using personal devices for official business.

The Defense Department allows the use of personal devices for official government business, and the use of nonapproved, commercially available messaging applications, only in certain circumstances such as an emergency and if other official communications methods are unavailable, impractical or unreliable.

The report said that a DOD lawyer provided more context for the IG to consider, but did not provide supporting documentation to verify its claims. For that reason, the IG said, it did not include the provided context in the report’s release.

A Navy admiral told lawmakers Thursday that there was no “kill them all” order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth but grave questions and concerns remain as Congress scrutinizes an attack that killed two survivors of an initial strike on an alleged drug boat in international waters near Venezuela.

Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley “was very clear that he was given no such order, to give no quarter or to kill them all,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, as he exited a classified briefing.

While Cotton, R-Ark., defended the attack, Democrats who were also briefed and saw video of the survivors being killed questioned the Trump administration’s rationale and said the incident was deeply concerning.

“The order was basically: Destroy the drugs, kill the 11 people on the boat,” said Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Smith, who is demanding further investigation, said the survivors were “basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat, drifting in the water.”

Bradley was joined at the Capitol by Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for briefings at a potentially crucial moment in the unfolding congressional investigation into how Hegseth handled the operation. There are questions about whether the strike may have violated the law.

Congressional investigation gets underway

Lawmakers want a full accounting after The Washington Post reported that Bradley on Sept. 2 ordered an attack on the survivors to comply with a directive from Hegseth to “kill everybody.” Legal experts say the attack amounts to a crime if the survivors were targeted.

Cotton said that from watching the video, he “saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for United States back over so they could stay in the fight.”

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, described the survivors’ state differently. “You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, were killed by the United States,” he said.

Underpinning President Donald Trump’s campaign against suspected traffickers is his argument that drug cartels amount to armed combatants because their cargo poses a threat to American lives.

Smith acknowledged there was likely cocaine on the boat, but he objects to the Republican administration’s rationale for continued attacks on alleged drug runners who may or may not be heading to the United States. “That’s really the core of the problem with all of this,” he said. “That incredibly broad definition, I think, is what sets in motion all of these problems about using lethal force and using the military.”

Cotton said it was “gratifying” that the U.S. military was taking “the battle” to cartels. Other lawmakers, including a handful of Republicans, worry that the campaign is pushing against the bounds of laws that govern armed conflict.

Among those also briefed were the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees and the Intelligence Committee in each chamber. Several of the lawmakers in the briefings declined to comment as they exited.

Democrats are demanding the release of the full video of the Sept. 2 attack, as well as written records of the orders and any directives from Hegseth. Republicans, who control the national security committees, have not publicly called for those documents, but have pledged a thorough review.

Who is Adm. Bradley?

At the time of the attack, Bradley was the commander of Joint Special Operations Command, overseeing coordinated operations between the military’s elite special operations units out of Fort Bragg in North Carolina. About a month after the strike, he was promoted to commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

His military career, spanning more than three decades, was mostly spent serving in the elite Navy SEALs and commanding joint operations. He was among the first special forces officers to deploy to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. His latest promotion to admiral was approved by unanimous voice vote in the Senate this year, and Democratic and Republican senators praised his record.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has described Bradley as among those who are “rock solid” and “the most extraordinary people that have ever served in the military.”

But lawmakers like Tillis have also made it clear they expect a reckoning if it is found that survivors were targeted. “Anybody in the chain of command that was responsible for it, that had vision of it, needs to be held accountable,” he said.

What else are lawmakers seeking?

The scope of the investigation is unclear, but there is other documentation of the strike that could fill in what happened. Obtaining that information, though, will largely depend on action from Republican lawmakers — a potentially painful prospect for them if it puts them at odds with the president.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he and the Senate Armed Services Committee chair, GOP Sen. Roger Wicker have formally requested the executive orders authorizing the operations and the complete videos from the strikes. They are also seeking the intelligence that identified the vessels as legitimate targets, the rules of engagement for the attacks and any criteria used to determine who was a combatant and who was a civilian.

Republican lawmakers who are close to Trump have sought to defend Hegseth.

More than 80 people have been killed in the series of strikes that started in September.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said it was clear that Hegseth is responsible, even if the defense secretary did not explicitly order a second attack.

“He may not have been in the room, but he was in the loop,” Blumenthal said. “And it was his order that was instrumental and foreseeably resulted in the deaths of these survivors.”

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.