Archives for category: Elections
President-elect Trump appointed a man who has actively sabotaged global health to be in charge of our nation’s public health system. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a dangerous quack, whose conspiracy theories put millions of lives at risk.
Why did Trump choose a man to lead HHS whose ideology subverts public health? Well, he promised RFK Jr. the job in exchange for his endorsement. Why does Trump fill key positions at HHS with others whose views or experience are derided by mainstream scientists? Clearly, he is being advised by RFK Jr., so he can surround himself with like-minded people.
The effect of these appointments on the career scientists and physicians at HHS will be devastating. There is sure to be a brain drain. Trump could cripple our nation’s public health system for years to come.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in line to lead the Department of Health and Human Services in the next Trump administration, is well-known for promoting conspiracy theories and vaccine skepticism in the United States.
But Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has also spent years working abroad to undermine policies that have been pillars of global health policy for a half-century, records show.
He has done this by lending his celebrity, and the name of his nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, to a network of overseas chapters that sow distrust in vaccine safety and spread misinformation far and wide.
He, his organizations and their officials have interfered with vaccination efforts, undermined sex education campaigns meant to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa, and railed against global organizations like the World Health Organization that are in charge of health initiatives.
Along the way, Mr. Kennedy has partnered with, financed or promoted fringe figures — people who claim that 5G cellphone towers cause cancer, that homosexuality and contraceptive education are part of a global conspiracy to reduce African fertility and that the World Health Organization is trying to steal countries’ sovereignty.
One of his group’s advisers, in Uganda, suggested using “supernatural insight” and a man she calls Prophet Elvis to guide policymaking. “We do well to embrace ethereal means to get ahead as a nation,” she wrote on a Ugandan news site this year.
These people, more than leading scientists and experienced public health professionals, have existed in Mr. Kennedy’s orbit for years. The ideas spread by him and his associates abroad highlight the unorthodox, sometimes conspiratorial nature of the world occupied by a man who stands to lead America’s health department, its 80,000 employees and its $1.8 trillion budget.
Please open the link to continue reading.
The Miami Herald noted that Trump is considering dropping Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of Defense and selecting Florida Governor Ron DeSantis instead. So it published a story reviewing DeSantis’s statements about how he would deploy the military. Read and be informed.
The Miami Herald reports:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis repeatedly vowed during his presidential campaign to send troops to the U.S. southern border, authorize lethal force against migrants attempting to cross between ports of entry, and even consider firing missiles into Mexico — an extraordinary use of U.S. military power that has since been endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump. Now, DeSantis may have a chance to fulfill that promise, among other controversial proposals, should Trump ask him to lead the Pentagon. The Republican governor is said to be in discussions with Trump and his transition team about replacing Pete Hegseth, a Fox News television personality plagued by sex and drinking scandals, as his nominee for defense secretary….
At one of the GOP primary debates, DeSantis said he would declare a national emergency and send troops to the southern border to deploy lethal force against drug cartels attempting to smuggle drugs into the country. Throughout the campaign, DeSantis was repeatedly pressed to explain how the military would determine whether individuals crossing the border had any connection to the drug trade. “I am gonna declare a national emergency, I’m not gonna send troops to Ukraine but I am gonna send them to our southern border,” he said. “When these drug pushers are bringing fentanyl across the border, that’s gonna be the last thing they do. We’re gonna use force and we’re gonna leave them stone-cold dead….”
In another exchange during the primary, DeSantis told CBS that he would consider all available military options — including using force in Mexico itself — to combat the illegal drug trade. “The tactics can be debated,” he said, asked whether he would fire missiles into Mexico. “That would be dependent on the situation.” DeSantis has also spent millions of dollars in recent years supporting Texas in deterring migrants from entering the country through state-led border security initiatives. Florida aided in some of Texas’ efforts that have come under scrutiny, including reports that officers were ordered to push small children and nursing babies back into the Rio Grande.
DOMESTIC DEPLOYMENTS
DeSantis, as governor, has already demonstrated a willingness to deploy state troops under his control for unconventional purposes, often unrelated to the immediate needs of the state. He sent members of the Florida State Guard to aid Texas’ state efforts to police the border — despite questions over their coordination with federal border patrol — and, in 2020, sent 500 Florida National Guardsmen to Washington in response to protests following the death of George Floyd….
RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES
DeSantis also promised to purge the military of “woke” policies, such as highlighting diversity, equity and inclusion and allowing transgender personnel to serve as their preferred sex, claiming the policies were undermining military effectiveness and suppressing recruitment. “It is time to rip the woke out of the military and return it to its core mission,” DeSantis said during the campaign. “We must restore a sense of confidence, conviction, and patriotic duty to our institutions — and that begins with our military….”
On the campaign trail, DeSantis also frequently questioned the value of sending financial and military support to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia. He opposed its membership bid to NATO and questioned the mission of NATO itself during the primary, calling on the transatlantic alliance to focus on the growing threat from China.
A 2021 study commissioned by the Pentagon on recruitment strategies found that “wokeness” did not register among the top 10 reasons why Americans were enlisting at record low numbers.
“Our research shows that the top barriers to service are concerns about death or injury, PTSD, emotional issues, and leaving friends and family — not political issues,” a Pentagon official told McClatchy last year. “Concerns about vaccines and ‘wokeness’ are among the least to be raised as reasons not to join the military….”
On the campaign trail, DeSantis also frequently questioned the value of sending financial and military support to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia. He opposed its membership bid to NATO and questioned the mission of NATO itself during the primary, calling on the transatlantic alliance to focus on the growing threat from China.
“I think NATO was fine for the Cold War. It made sense,” he said. “Now we’re in a situation where a lot of those countries aren’t doing their fair share in terms of their defenses, and yet we’re supposed to provide blanket security for that, where our interests may diverge around the world.”
At one point, DeSantis called the war between Ukraine and Russia a “territorial dispute.” He quickly changed his message after facing criticism and said that Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine and Putin was a “war criminal.”
Ukraine, DeSantis added, has a “right to that territory.”
“If I could snap my fingers, I’d give it back to Ukraine 100%,” DeSantis told the New York Post’s Piers Morgan in March 2023. “But the reality is what is America’s involvement in terms of escalating with more weapons, and certainly ground troops I think would be a mistake. So, that was the point I was trying to make, but Russia was wrong to invade. They were wrong to take Crimea.”
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article296548929.html#storylink=cpy
Politico posted an article today claiming that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was gaining approval by focusing on his criticism of Big Pharma and Big Ag.
The article claims that RFK is a normal politician! He wants people to eat healthy foods!He is against ultra processed foods, even if you saw the photo of him eating a Big Mac on Trump’s plane.
Despite initial resistance, Bobby is winning people over:
Less than a month later, however, some of Kennedy’s other views — especially on food — are surprisingly taking root on Capitol Hill. There’s still considerable resistance to Kennedy — and no certainty that he gets confirmed by the Senate. But his attacks on Big Ag and Big Pharma are resonating and RFK is finding allies among some populists who share the goal of taking on big corporate interests.
Ignore the fact that he is opposed to vaccines. Ignore the fact that dozens of children died in Samoa after he brought news that (in his view) measles vaccines cause measles.
Ignore the fact that he recently claimed that heroin improved his school performance.
Shame on Politico.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should not run our nation’s healthcare system. Maybe a food safety program. But NOT the Department of Health and Human Services!
He is an extremist who opposes science.
Trump is continuing to ignore the fact that some appointees serve for a set term, to insulate them from politics. Trump does not want his appointees to be insulated from his control. The current IRS commissioner’s term expires in 2027 but Trump announced his replacement today.
The same thing happened with the FBI. The incumbent, Christopher Wray, was appointed by Trump in 2017 to replace James Comey, who was fired by Trump. Wray is supposed to serve ten years but Trump has announced his choice, which suggests that he intends to fire Wray.
Trump’s choice for IRS Commissioner is Billy Long, a former Congressman from Missouri who never served on the tax-writing committee.
President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he would nominate Billy Long, formerly a Republican congressman representing Missouri, to lead the Internal Revenue Service, effectively pledging to fire the tax collector’s current leader, a Biden appointee.
Mr. Trump’s choice, announced on his social media website, would shake up the I.R.S. at a pivotal moment. The Biden administration has poured billions of dollars into modernizing the agency and beefing up its tax collection efforts in an effort to improve customer service and crack down on tax cheats.
In 2022, President Biden chose Daniel Werfel, a former management consultant and civil servant who had worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, to lead the overhaul of the I.R.S. His term was set to last until 2027.
Republicans have deeply opposed the Biden administration’s vision for the tax agency, which included providing roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to the I.R.S. over a decade. G.O.P. lawmakers successfully pushed to cancel $20 billion of that money, and are eyeing further cuts. The I.R.S. is unpopular with the public, and Republicans have long attacked it as invasive and inept.
Additional funding for the I.R.S. helps raise the money for the government by more effectively enforcing tax laws and requiring Americans to pay the taxes they owe, according to budget experts.
Mr. Long, a former auctioneer, did not serve on the House tax-writing committee during his time in Congress. But he did put his auctioneering skills to use while in Washington….
Presidents do not typically select new I.R.S. commissioners when they come into office, and the Senate will have to confirm Mr. Long. President Biden waited for the term of Mr. Trump’s first choice to lead the tax agency, Charles P. Rettig, to end before selecting Mr. Werfel.
NPR reports on the latest vote tally in the Presidential race. It undermines Trump’s repeated claims that the voters gave him a “mandate” to impose his campaign pledges.
The margin for the popular vote in this year’s presidential election is the second-closest since 1968, and it’s still tightening. With 96% of the vote in, Trump has 49.97% and Vice President Harris has 48.36%, according to the Associated Press. These results show that Trump doesn’t exactly have the “unprecedented and powerful mandate” he claimed on election night. The margin shows how closely divided the country is politically and that any shift to the right is marginal. Here’s what these results mean, plus a graphic that breaks down the popular vote throughout the years.
I was interviewed by Josephine Lee of The Texas Observer. She asked about growing up in Houston and my thoughts about Trump’s education agenda. It’s a conversation, not an article. I will write more on this subject in the future.
Heather Cox Richardson writes here about President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter, which was condemned widely in the media, even in liberal publications like The Atlantic and The New Yorker. in her post, she wrote first about Jane Mayer’s expose of Pete Hegseth’s drunken sprees, then turned to the pardon.
She writes:
Also last night, President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden after repeatedly saying that he would not.
Trump-appointed Special Counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden on firearms and tax charges, but as former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance made clear in her Civil Discourse, Hunter Biden would not have been charged if he had been anyone other than the president’s son. He was charged with possession of a firearm by someone who is addicted to illegal drugs, a charge that prosecutors do not usually bring. Biden owned a gun for eleven days and apparently lied on the paperwork for it by saying he was not a drug addict when he was, in fact, in the throes of addiction.
The other charges stem from Hunter Biden’s failure, while dealing with addiction, to pay about $1.4 million in federal income taxes, which he has since paid in full plus interest and penalties. Vance explains that the government usually handles cases like his with administrative or civil penalties rather than criminal prosecution, as it did in the case of Trump henchman Roger Stone, with whom the government reached a settlement in 2022 for more than $2 million in unpaid income taxes, interest, and penalties without criminal charges.
But President Biden’s pardon covers not just those charges, but also “those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” The pardon’s sweeping scope offers an explanation for why Biden issued it after saying he would not.
Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch notes that Biden’s pardon came after Trump’s announcement that he wants to place conspiracy theorist Kash Patel at the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Filipkowski studies right-wing media and points out that Patel’s many appearances there suggest he is obsessed with Hunter Biden, especially the story of his laptop, which Patel insists shows that Hunter and Joe Biden engaged in crimes with Ukraine and China.
House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) spent two years investigating these allegations and turned up nothing—although Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia used the opportunity to display pictures of Hunter Biden naked on national media—yet Patel insists that the Department of Justice should focus on Hunter Biden as soon as a Trump loyalist is back in charge.
Notably, Trump’s people, including former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his ally Lev Parnas, spent more than a year trying to promote false testimony against Hunter Biden by their Ukrainian allies. Earlier this year, in the documentary From Russia with Lev, produced by Rachel Maddow, Parnas publicly apologized to Hunter Biden for his role in the scheme.
As legal commentator Asha Rangappa noted: “People criticizing the Hunter Biden pardon need to recognize: For the 1st time, the FBI and Justice Department could literally fabricate evidence, or collaborate with a foreign government to ‘find’ evidence of a ‘crime,’ with zero accountability. That’s why the pardon goes back to 2014.”
And yet, much of American media today has been consumed not with the story that Trump has appointed a deeply problematic candidate to run what could be considered the nation’s most important department, overseeing about 3 million personnel and managing a budget of more than $800 billion, or with the reality that Biden’s distrust of our legal system under Trump is a profound warning for all of us.
Instead, they have focused on President Biden’s pardon of his son, many of them condemning what they say is Biden’s rejection of the rule of law.
Some have suggested that Biden’s pardoning his son will now give Trump license to pardon anyone he wants, apparently forgetting that in his first term, Trump pardoned his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax evasion, campaign finance offenses, and witness tampering and whom Trump has now tapped to become the U.S. ambassador to France.
Trump also pardoned for various crimes men who were associated with the ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian operatives working to elect Trump. Those included his former national security advisor Michael Flynn, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and former allies Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. Those pardons, which suggested Trump was rewarding henchmen, received a fraction of the attention lavished on Biden’s pardon of his son.
In today’s news coverage, the exercise of the presidential pardon—which traditionally gets very little attention—has entirely outweighed the dangerous nominations of an incoming president, which will have profound influence on the American people. This imbalance reflects a longstanding and classic power dynamic in which Republicans set the terms of public debate, excusing their own objectionable behavior while constantly attacking Democrats in a fiery display that attracts media attention but distorts reality.
The degree to which the media endorsed that abusive power dynamic today does not bode well for its accurate reporting during Trump’s upcoming term. It also leaves the public badly informed about matters that are important for understanding modern politics
Margaret Sullivan is a veteran journalist who served as the last ombudsman for the New York Times. Her blog American Crisis is valuable for its support of a free press and for its criticism of newspapers that sanewash and normalize Trump.
Many of Donald Trump’s choices for Cabinet posts and other positions in his new administration have appalled me. To hit some lowlights: RFK Jr. with his dangerous ideas about vaccines and his history of wildly inappropriate behavior; Tulsi Gabbard, whom Russian state TV is referring to as “girlfriend”; Brendan Carr, one of the authors of the authoritarian playbook known as Project 2025; pure loyalist Pam Bondi, as attorney general, replacing the even more inappropriate Matt Gaetz.
But none have shaken me as much quite as much as Kash Patel, whom Trump wants to name the director of the FBI. Before the election, I wrote in the Guardian about the high stakes for press rights. After reviewing what a foe of the press Trump was the first time around, I sounded the alarm, with a particular focus on Patel:
There is nothing to suggest that Trump would soften his approach in a second term. If anything, we can expect even more aggression. Consider what one of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants, Kash Patel, has said.
“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel threatened during a podcast with Steve Bannon. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”
If named FBI chief, Patel is sure to help bring Project 2025 into action. Again from the Guardian column:
Under Project 2025, seizing journalists’ emails and phone records would get easier. The editorial independence of Voice of America would be sharply curtailed; in fact, the global organization might be shut down altogether. Former officials who talk to reporters would be punished. Funding for NPR, PBS and public broadcasting would dry up.
“A pretty grim picture,” was the conclusion of Joshua Benton of Harvard University after analyzing Project 2025 from the perspective of press rights. “The first time around, there was at least a modicum of uncertainty about what a Trump administration would actually do,” Benton wrote in Nieman Lab. “The second time, voters knew better, and they rejected it. The third time? Well, no one can say it’ll come as a surprise.”
Kash Patel at a rally for Donald Trump in Arizona on Oct. 13, 2024. Patel, Trump’s pick for the FBI, has expressed an alarming intent to go after the press / Getty Images
Remember, in his first term, Trump wanted then-FBI director James Comey to bring him a “head on a pike” when government insiders leaked to journalists — often providing information that was important for the American public to know. Patel, no doubt, will be eager to do this. And if raids and imprisonment of journalists follow, it’ll be exactly what the boss has wanted all along.
As many have pointed out, when would-be authoritarians take power, one of the first things they want to do is stamp out independent journalism. We can’t let that happen.
So, how can our most important journalism institutions react? With big doses of courage, a refusal to obey in advance and insistence on standing their ground. I hope that top newsroom leaders — the decision-makers at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Wall Street Journal, the broadcast networks and others — are clearly communicating to their staffs that they’re not going to knuckle under.
American Crisis is a community-supported project where I explore how journalism can help save democracy. Please consider joining us!
For inspiration, they ought to read a post by journalist Paul Horvitz (he worked at the late, great International Herald Tribune, among other papers), who wrote to me last week to share his manifesto. Here’s a section, and you can read the rest on his Substack:
In the United States of Donald Trump, American journalism faces a defining test.
Will it be the sleepwalking servant of a propaganda machine? Or will it reclaim its role as public servant, tenacious watchdog, and guardian of democracy?
Because we are not in normal times, these are not rhetorical questions. The coming year may well see the Department of Homeland Security offer journalists stage-managed tours of migrant jails to create a facade of humane treatment. Should the press participate?
The Trump regime will surely sanitize the language it uses to describe these camps, whose legal basis is questionable. Will a compliant press blindly repeat the euphemism “detention centers?” In 1930s Germany, millions of “asocials” were taken into “protective custody” or “preventive custody.” Words matter.
When an angry U.S. President phones the executive editor of The Washington Post or its billionaire owner to complain about “negative” coverage, will the attempt to intimidate be revealed only years later in a book or immediately placed on the front page?
Our alarming situation — we are on a path to American fascism — demands a far more assertive, scrappy, and resolute press. Some news organizations aren’t ready to be aggressive because they don’t accept their broader responsibility in a free society. They have been fact purveyors, always mindful of their own commercial viability. These news companies will continue to be enablers, justifying their behavior by championing strict impartiality, rigorous objectivity, and fast facts.
Horvitz nails it.
Meanwhile, I’m collecting examples of sanewashing, false equivalence and pussyfooting around the harsh reality of another Trump administration. Here’s a headline that even the satirical social media account New York Times Pitchbot said he couldn’t compete with; it appeared over a prominent Times staff columnist’s offering last week: “Thomas Friedman: Trump’s Path to a Nobel Peace Prize?”
Also in the Times, this euphemistic headline: “Trump’s Choices for Health Agencies Suggest a Shake-up Is Coming.” The sub-headline mentioned “ideas that are outside the medical mainstream.” Y’think? Author and scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat expressed her objection: “Shake-up is hardly appropriate for the engineering of mass sickness by withholding vaccines and reducing insurance coverage so few can get medical help.” Language needs to be much stronger and more direct, especially in headlines and news alerts since that’s as far as many people ever get.
At the same time, I’ve noticed a lot of strong, important reporting in the Times, which remains essential. Here’s a gift link to one such story.
Thanks so much to all subscribers to American Crisis. I truly appreciate your interest and support. The paywall remains down so all may read these posts in full and may participate in the comments. The discussion has been robust and I’m grateful for the thoughtful contributions.
One last item: Greg Sargent of The New Republic invited me on his podcast last week to talk about Trump and the press. We covered everything from why The Times got rid of its public editor role (and why I predict it’s never coming back) to whether the mass cancellations at the Washington Post may motivate decision-makers to recommit to their mission. We also talked about the risk that news organizations may self-censor, given Trump’s threats of retribution against the press — and what to do about it.
Here’s the podcast recording and a transcript, if (like me) you prefer to read than listen.
Jane Mayer, superstar writer for The New Yorker, has scored a major scoop with her detailed account of Pete Hegseth’s secret life. She has details that have thus far eluded the major daily newspapers.
Hegseth, of course, is Trump’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense. This is one of the most crucial and demanding jobs in government. The Defense Department has a budget of more than $800 billion and almost three million employees. The Secretary must be prepared to make consequential decisions of life and depth with in-depth knowledge and experience.
Pete Hegseth is not that man.
Mayer writes:
A trail of documents, corroborated by the accounts of former colleagues, indicates that Hegseth was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.
A previously undisclosed whistle-blower report on Hegseth’s tenure as the president of Concerned Veterans for America, from 2013 until 2016, describes him as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity—to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization’s events. The detailed seven-page report—which was compiled by multiple former C.V.A. employees and sent to the organization’s senior management in February, 2015—states that, at one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club, where he had brought his team. The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time, and other members of his management team sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers, whom they divided into two groups—the “party girls” and the “not party girls.” In addition, the report asserts that, under Hegseth’s leadership, the organization became a hostile workplace that ignored serious accusations of impropriety, including an allegation made by a female employee that another employee on Hegseth’s staff had attempted to sexually assault her at the Louisiana strip club. In a separate letter of complaint, which was sent to the organization in late 2015, a different former employee described Hegseth being at a bar in the early-morning hours of May 29, 2015, while on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, drunkenly chanting “Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!”
In response to questions from this magazine, Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for Hegseth, replied with the following statement, which he said came from “an advisor” to Hegseth: “We’re not going to comment on outlandish claims laundered through The New Yorker by a petty and jealous disgruntled former associate of Mr. Hegseth’s. Get back to us when you try your first attempt at actual journalism….”
The whistle-blower report makes extensive allegations. It describes several top managers being involved in drunken episodes, including an altercation at a casino and a hotel Christmas party at which food was thrown from the balcony. Hegseth, it says, was “seen drunk at multiple CVA events” between 2013 and 2015, a time when the organization was engaged in an ambitious nationwide effort to mobilize veterans to vote for conservative candidates and causes…
In October, 2014, C.V.A. instituted a “no alcohol” policy at its events. But the next month, according to the report, Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy while overseeing a get-out-the-vote field operation to boost Republican candidates in North Carolina. According to the report, on the evening before the election, Hegseth, who had been out with three young female staff members, was so inebriated by 1 a.m. that a staffer who had driven him to his hotel, in a van full of other drunken staffers, asked for assistance to get Hegseth to his room. “Pete was completely passed out in the middle seat, slumped over” a young female staff member, the report says. It took two male staff members to get Hegseth into the hotel; after one young woman vomited in some bushes, another helped him into bed. In the morning, a team member had to wake Hegseth so that he didn’t miss his flight. “All of this happened in public,” according to the report, while C.V.A. was “embedded” in the Republican get-out-the-vote effort. It went on, “Everyone who saw this was disgusted and in shock that the head of the team was that intoxicated….”
In December, 2014, the group held an office Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in Washington. Once again, according to the report, Hegseth was “noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to his room.” The report stated, “His behavior was embarrassing in front of the team, but not surprising; people have simply come to expect Pete to get drunk at social events.”
Earlier in his career, in 2007, Hegseth was hired to lead a small veterans’ group called Vets for Freedom, which advocated for expanding the war in Iraq. By 2009, VFF was virtually bankrupt, with $1,000 in the bank, and nearly $500,000 in debts. The billionaire backers lost confidence in him and merged VFF with another vets’ group to minimize his role.
Mayer quotes Margaret Hoover, an advisor to VFF during Hegseth’s tenure, who said to CNN:
“I watched him run an organization very poorly, lose the confidence of donors. The organization ultimately folded and was forced to merge with another organization who individuals felt could run and manage funds on behalf of donors more responsibly than he could. That was my experience with him.” Hoover stressed that V.F.F. was an exceedingly small organization, with fewer than ten employees, and a budget of between five million and ten million dollars. She told CNN, “And he couldn’t do that properly—I don’t know how he’s going to run an organization with an eight-hundred-and-fifty-seven-billion-dollar budget and three million individuals.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 