Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders cancellation of DOD ties with Columbia beginning in 2026-27 academic year; Columbia Spectator, February 27, 2026

JOSEPH ZULOAGA AND DORA GAO, Columbia Spectator; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders cancellation of DOD ties with Columbia beginning in 2026-27 academic year

"Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the cancellation of the Department of Defense’s ties with Columbia beginning in the 2026-27 academic year, arguing that Columbia and other universities are “woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” in a Friday video posted on X.

In the video, Hegseth announced the “complete and immediate cancellation” of the DOD’s “attendance” at Columbia and other universities, marking the administration’s latest escalation against higher education. Friday’s announcement will also affect Columbia’s Ivy League peer institutions—Brown University, Princeton University, and Yale University—and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others."

If A.I. Is a Weapon, Who Should Control It?; The New York Times, February 28, 2026

Ross Douthat, The New York Times ; If A.I. Is a Weapon, Who Should Control It?

"We spent the Cold War worrying mostly about military folly, and A.I. entered into our anxieties even then: the Soviet Doomsday Machine in “Dr. Strangelove,” the game-playing computer in “WarGames” and of course the fateful “Terminator” decision to make Skynet operational.

But for the last few years, as A.I. advances have concentrated potentially extraordinary power in the hands of a few companies and C.E.O.s — themselves embedded in a Bay Area culture of science-fiction dreams and apocalyptic fears — it’s become more natural to worry more about private power and ambition, about would-be A.I. god-kings rather than presidents and generals.

Until, that is, the current collision between the Department of Defense and Anthropic, the artificial intelligence pioneer, over whether Anthropic’s A.I. models should be bound by the company’s ethical constraints or made available for all uses the Pentagon might have in mind."

OpenAI Reaches A.I. Agreement With Defense Dept. After Anthropic Clash; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

Cade Metz , The New York Times; OpenAI Reaches A.I. Agreement With Defense Dept. After Anthropic Clash

"OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, said on Friday that it had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to provide its artificial intelligence technologies for classified systems, just hours after President Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using A.I. technology made by rival Anthropic.

Under the deal, OpenAI agreed to let the Pentagon use its A.I. systems for any lawful purpose, a term required by the Pentagon. But OpenAI also said it had found a way to ensure that its technologies would adhere to its safety principles by installing specific technical guardrails on its systems."

Trump Orders Government to Stop Using Anthropic After Pentagon Standoff; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

 Julian E. Barnes and Sheera Frenkel , The New York Times; Trump Orders Government to Stop Using Anthropic After Pentagon Standoff

"President Trump on Friday ordered all federal agencies to stop using artificial intelligence technology made by Anthropic, a directive that could vastly complicate government intelligence analysis and defense work.

Writing on Truth Social, Mr. Trump used harsh words for Anthropic, describing it as a “radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about.”

Shortly after Mr. Trump’s announcement, and 13 minutes after a Pentagon deadline, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designatedthe company a “supply-chain risk to national security.” The label means that no contractor or supplier that works with the military can do business with Anthropic.

The move is all but unheard-of, legal experts said. It strips an American company of its government work by using a process previously deployed only with foreign companies the United States considered security risks."

Pentagon Standoff Is a Decisive Moment for How A.I. Will Be Used in War; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

Adam Satariano, Julian E. Barnes and Sheera Frenkel , The New York Times; Pentagon Standoff Is a Decisive Moment for How A.I. Will Be Used in War

The Pentagon’s contract dispute with Anthropic is part of a wider clash about the use of artificial intelligence for national security and who decides on any safeguards.

"The fight between the Department of Defense and the artificial intelligence company Anthropic has ostensibly been about a $200 million contract over the use of A.I. in classified systems.

But as the two sides careen toward a 5:01 p.m. Friday deadlineover terms of the contract, far more is at stake.

Amid the legalese and heated rhetoric are questions being asked globally about how to use A.I., what the technology’s risks are and who gets to decide on setting any limits — the makers of A.I. or national governments.

Underlying it all is fear and awe over the dizzying pace of A.I. progress and the technology’s uncertain impact on society."

Pentagon Attacks Anthropic Chief as Deadline Looms in Standoff; The New York Times, February 27, 2026

 Julian E. Barnes and Sheera Frenkel, The New York Times ; Pentagon Attacks Anthropic Chief as Deadline Looms in Standoff

The A.I. firm had rejected military officials’ latest offer. Anthropic has until 5:01 p.m. on Friday to give them unrestricted access to its model.

"A standoff between the Pentagon and the artificial intelligence company Anthropic appeared to be deepening as the two sides hurtled toward a 5:01 p.m. deadline Friday that military officials gave the firm to either allow them unrestricted access to its most advanced model or face consequences.

Defense Department officials criticized Anthropic’s leader after the company on Thursday rejected their latest offer to settle the dispute. The Pentagon has threatened to either cut the company off from government business by declaring it a supply chain threat or force it to provide its frontier model without restrictions under the Defense Production Act.

Emil Michael, a top Pentagon official who oversees artificial intelligence, attacked Dario Amodei, the chief executive of Anthropic, who on Thursday released a statement about why the company would not agree to the Defense Department’s latest terms.

“It’s a shame that @DarioAmodei is a liar and has a God-complex,” Mr. Michael wrote late Thursday. “He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk. The @DeptofWar will ALWAYS adhere to the law but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.”"

US DoD to Anthropic: compromise AI ethics or be banished from supply chain; CIO, February 25, 2026

 John E. Dunn, CIO; US DoD to Anthropic: compromise AI ethics or be banished from supply chain

"Defense Secretary Hegseth has threatened to compel Anthropic to give the military free rein with AI, say reports.

A growing rift between the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Anthropic over how AI can be used by the military has led to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issuing a blunt ultimatum: work with us on our terms or risk being banned from Pentagon programs.

According to news site Axios, Hegseth gave Anthropic until Friday, February 27 to agree to its terms during a tense meeting this week. If no agreement is reached, the company would risk being deemed a “supply chain risk,” with Hegseth even threatening to invoke the Cold War-era Defense Production Act to compel cooperation, the report said.

The DoD’s view is that it should be free to use Anthropic’s AI for “all lawful purposes,” regardless of ethical boundaries set by the company itself. Anthropic, by contrast, wants to set narrower guardrails."

Anthropic ditches its core safety promise in the middle of an AI red line fight with the Pentagon; CNN, February 25, 2026

Clare Duffy , Lisa Eadicicco, CNN; Anthropic ditches its core safety promise in the middle of an AI red line fight with the Pentagon

"Anthropic, a company founded by OpenAI exiles worried about the dangers of AI, is loosening its core safety principle in response to competition.

Instead of self-imposed guardrails constraining its development of AI models, Anthropic is adopting a nonbinding safety framework that it says can and will change.

In a blog post Tuesday outlining its new policy, Anthropic said shortcomings in its two-year-old Responsible Scaling Policy could hinder its ability to compete in a rapidly growing AI market.

The announcement is surprising, because Anthropic has described itself as the AI company with a “soul.” It also comes the same week that Anthropic is fighting a significant battle with the Pentagon over AI red lines."

Pentagon threatens Anthropic punishment; Axios, February 16, 2026

Dave Lawler, Maria Curi, Mike Allen, Axios; Pentagon threatens Anthropic punishment

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is "close" to cutting business ties with Anthropic and designating the AI company a "supply chain risk" — meaning anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military has to cut ties with the company, a senior Pentagon official told Axios.

The senior official said: "It will be an enormous pain in the ass to disentangle, and we are going to make sure they pay a price for forcing our hand like this."

Why it matters: That kind of penalty is usually reserved for foreign adversaries. 

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told Axios: "The Department of War's relationship with Anthropic is being reviewed. Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight. Ultimately, this is about our troops and the safety of the American people."

The big picture: Anthropic's Claude is the only AI model currently available in the military's classified systems, and is the world leader for many business applications. Pentagon officials heartily praise Claude's capabilities."

Don’t deny military community unbiased coverage issues that matter to them; Stars and Stripes, February 5, 2026

BERN ZOVISTOSKI, Stars and Stripes; Don’t deny military community unbiased coverage issues that matter to them

[Kip Currier: Powerful testimonial of the importance of free and independent presses]

"Bern Zovistoski was editor of European Stars and Stripes from 1991 to 1996.

When Congress intervened several decades ago (1990) to change the way Stars and Stripes operated on behalf of the U.S. military worldwide, there was evidence of “undue influence” by the uniformed leadership.

The new directives adopted by the Department of Defense were aimed at eliminating military control over what to publish (or not publish) and to provide service members a newspaper that emulated the best aspects of American journalism, without censorship of any kind.

As the first editor of European Stars and Stripes under the revised policies, I was hired as a “colonel equivalent” with responsibility for ensuring fair and accurate news coverage, arriving at Stripes in Darmstadt, Germany, just 10 days before the massive air attack that launched Operation Desert Storm against Iraq.

I saw what the situation had been.

For nearly the next six years, I saw a remarkable team of civilian journalists and military members transform the newspaper into one with strong editorial integrity that offered service members unvarnished news and information — which, of course, they deserved.

During my tenure, I benefited from an excellent relationship from the two publishers with whom I worked: Air Force Col. Gene Townsend, who hired me, and Air Force Col. Steven Hoffman. Both supported my efforts to the hilt.

In fact, I learned during my tenure that a good number of officers supported our efforts.

When the Gulf War ensued, we deployed reporters just as many U.S. newspapers did, and in short order our daily circulation surged from about 80,000 to 250,000 — and many of those readers were engaged in battle.

Who would deny these men and women an unbiased view of the monumental events in which they were involved?

Based on all the signals from the Trump administration’s people, they would.

I had held virtually every position in the newsroom in my career up to this point, including 25 years at The Times-Union in Albany, N.Y. — 18 in a managerial role.

I learned that the purpose of a newspaper is to provide truthful news to its readers.

There were many instances during my nearly six-year tenure that demonstrated some military leaders wanted to — and tried to — alter what we were doing to serve our readers.

But believe me, none succeeded.

In closing, I believe this anecdote sums up our success:

When I arrived at Stripes, there were no letters to the editor.

Oh, an occasional question was printed, with a “company policy” answer by the military. In essence, our readers were not given an opportunity to receive answers to their questions or even to ask questions.

We implemented a policy that enabled any and every reader to write a letter to the editor — expressing whatever they wished — and required the writer sign his or her name!

We were deluged with letters.

That was a biggie (although common in U.S. newspapers that we were emulating).

This action confirmed that the newspaper truly belonged to the readers and served them.

It’s doubtful President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or anyone else in the current federal administration understands — or, perhaps, it’s because they do, and that’s their problem.""

Pentagon says it will ‘refocus’ Stars and Stripes content; Stars and Stripes, January 15, 2026

COREY DICKSTEIN, Stars and Stripes; Pentagon says it will ‘refocus’ Stars and Stripes content

[Kip Currier: Forward this Stars and Stripes article about Pete Hegseth's plans for the military newspaper to as many as possible. It's valuable perspective to hear from Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin and members of Congress.]

[Excerpt]

"The Pentagon said on social media Thursday it would take over editorial content decision-making for Stars and Stripes in a statement from the Defense Department’s top spokesman.

“The Department of War is returning Stars & Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters. We are bringing Stars & Stripes into the 21st century,” Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s top public affairs official and a close adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, wrote in a statement posted to X. “We will modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.”

The statement appears to challenge the editorial independence of Stars and Stripes, which while a part of the Pentagon’s Defense Media Activity has long retained independence from editorial oversight from the Pentagon under a congressional mandate that it be governed by First Amendment principles.

The move was met with pushback from several Democratic senators, who accused the Pentagon of tampering with the newspaper’s reporting.

Stars and Stripes, which is dedicated to serving U.S. government personnel overseas, seeks to emulate the best practices of commercial news organizations in the United States. It is governed by Department of Defense Directive 5122.11. The directive states, among other key provisions, that “there shall be a free flow of news and information to its readership without news management or censorship.”

Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, in a note to Stars and Stripes’ editorial staff across the globe Thursday, said the military deserves independent news.

“The people who risk their lives in defense of the Constitution have earned the right to the press freedoms of the First Amendment,” Slavin wrote. “We will not compromise on serving them with accurate and balanced coverage, holding military officials to account when called for.”

Stars and Stripes first appeared during the Civil War, and it has been continuously published since World War II. It is staffed by civilian and active-duty U.S. military reporters and editors who produce daily newspapers for American troops around the world and a website, stripes.com, which is updated with news 24 hours a day, seven days a week...

Parnell’s post came a day after a Washington Post report revealed that applicants for positions at Stars and Stripes were being asked how they would support President Donald Trump’s policies. The questionnaire appears on the USAJobs portal, the official website for federal hiring. Stars and Stripes was unaware of the questions until the Post inquired about them, organization leaders said.

The Pentagon statement comes several years after the Defense Department attempted to shut down Stars in Stripes in 2020, during Trump’s first administration."

Pentagon taking over Stars and Stripes to eliminate ‘woke distractions’; The Hill, January 15, 2026

 ELLEN MITCHELL , The Hill; Pentagon taking over Stars and Stripes to eliminate ‘woke distractions’

[Kip Currier: It's unfortunate but not surprising to see that Pete Hegseth, given his actions to date, is taking "editorial control" of the Stars and Stripes newspaper that was started by Union soldiers on November 9, 1861, in the midst of the Civil War.]

[Excerpt]

"The Pentagon announced Thursday it would take editorial control of independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes to refocus coverage on “warfighting” and remove “woke distractions.”

The Department of War is returning Stars & Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters,” top Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement posted to X. “We will modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted Parnell’s statement.

Part of the Pentagon’s Defense Media Activity, Stars and Stripes has been editorially independent from Defense Department officials since a congressional mandate in the 1990s. The outlet’s mission statement states that it is “governed by the principles of the First Amendment.” 

In some form since the Civil War, Stars and Stripes has consistently reported on the military since World War II to an audience mostly of service members stationed overseas."

Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month; Ars Technica, January 13, 2026

BENJ EDWARDS , Ars Technica; Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month

"On Monday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he plans to integrate Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, into Pentagon networks later this month. During remarks at the SpaceX headquarters in Texas reported by The Guardian, Hegseth said the integration would place “the world’s leading AI models on every unclassified and classified network throughout our department.”

The announcement comes weeks after Grok drew international backlash for generating sexualized images of women and children, although the Department of Defense has not released official documentation confirming Hegseth’s announced timeline or implementation details."

U.S. Attacked Boat With Aircraft That Looked Like a Civilian Plane; The New York Times, January 12, 2026

 Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt, John Ismay, Julian E. Barnes, Riley Mellen and Christiaan Triebert,  The New York Times; U.S. Attacked Boat With Aircraft That Looked Like a Civilian Plane

"The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first attack on a boat that the Trump administration said was smuggling drugs, killing 11 people last September, according to officials briefed on the matter. The aircraft also carried its munitions inside the fuselage, rather than visibly under its wings, they said.

The nonmilitary appearance is significant, according to legal specialists, because the administration has argued its lethal boat attacks are lawful — not murders — because President Trump “determined” the United States is in an armed conflict with drug cartels.

But the laws of armed conflict prohibit combatants from feigning civilian status to fool adversaries into dropping their guard, then attacking and killing them. That is a war crime called “perfidy.”

New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights; The New York Times, December 4, 2025

Erik Wemple, The New York Times ; New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights

"The New York Times accused the Pentagon in a lawsuit on Thursday of infringing on the constitutional rights of journalists by imposing a set of new restrictions on reporting about the military.

In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, The Times argued that the Defense Department’s new policy violated the First Amendment and “seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done — ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements.”

The rules, which went into effect in October, are a stark departure from the previous ones, in both length and scope. They require reporters to sign a 21-page form that sets restrictions on journalistic activities, including requests for story tips and inquiries to Pentagon sources. Reporters who don’t comply could lose their press passes, and the Pentagon has accorded itself “unbridled discretion” to enforce the policy as it sees fit, according to the lawsuit."

A sickening moral slum of an administration; The Washington Post, December 2, 2025

George F. Will, The Washington Post; A sickening moral slum of an administration

"The killing of the survivors by this moral slum of an administration should nauseate Americans. A nation incapable of shame is dangerous, not least to itself. As the recent “peace plan” for Ukraine demonstrated.

Marco Rubio, who is secretary of state and Trump’s national security adviser, seemed to be neither when the president released his 28-point plan for Ukraine’s dismemberment. The plan was cobbled together by Trump administration and Russian officials, with no Ukrainians participating. It reads like a wish-list letter from Vladimir Putin to Santa Claus: Ukraine to cede land that Russia has failed to capture in almost four years of aggression; Russia to have a veto over NATO’s composition, peacekeeping forces in Ukraine and the size of Ukraine’s armed forces. And more."

Scouts ‘surprised and deeply saddened’ by Hegseth’s proposal to cut ties; The Hill, November 25, 2025

ELLEN MITCHELL , The Hill; Scouts ‘surprised and deeply saddened’ by Hegseth’s proposal to cut ties

"Scouting America responded on Tuesday to a reported memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seeking to cut ties with the organization, saying it was “surprised and disappointed” by the potential policy change, as the military has given its support to the Scouts since 1937. 

“The Scouting movement has had a strong relationship with our nation’s military going back more than a century,” according to the group. “From the tremendous support of the West Virginia National Guard at our National Jamborees to Scout troops that provide stability for the children of military families deployed around the globe, our nation’s military has walked side-by-side with Scouts for generations.”

It also noted that “an enormous percentage of those in our military academies are Scouts and Eagle Scouts.”

Hegseth is reportedly upset with the group for promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. His memo, first reported by NPR, accuses Scouting America — formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America — of attacking boy-friendly spaces and for being “genderless.” The memo has yet to be sent to Congress.

“The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys,” Hegseth wrote in the memo."

Lawmakers warn Hegseth may have committed war crimes following second-strike report; Politico, November 30, 2025

JACOB WENDLER, Politico; Lawmakers warn Hegseth may have committed war crimes following second-strike report

"Lawmakers from both parties raised alarms Sunday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth may have committed a war crime following a report that he ordered a follow-on attack to kill survivors of a boat strike in September.

The Washington Post reported last week that Hegseth authorized a highly unusual strike to kill all survivors of one of the Trump administration’s attacks in recent months on boats allegedly carrying drugs in international waters. POLITICO has not independently verified the Post’s reporting."

How the Coast Guard Revised Its Policy on Swastikas, Nooses and Bullying; The New York Times, November 24, 2025

 John Ismay, The New York Times ; How the Coast Guard Revised Its Policy on Swastikas, Nooses and Bullying

"The revisions set off a backlash. Seth Levi of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights group, called the new policy “a national embarrassment.”

Just hours later, on Thursday night, the Coast Guard’s leadership gave assurance that the public display of hateful symbols would continue to be banned. But whether a service member could display such symbols in private remained unclear...

Why did the Coast Guard make the changes?

Neither the Coast Guard nor the Homeland Security Department offered an explanation for why the “hate incident” category was eliminated, nor why officials felt the need to create a distinction between public and private displays of symbols like nooses and swastikas.

The ban on gender identity issues, however, came straight from the White House."

In reversal, Coast Guard again classifies swastikas, nooses as hate symbols; The Washington Post, November 21, 2025

Tara Copp

, 

Michelle Boorstein

, 

Hari Raj

 and 

Victoria Bisset

, The Washington Post; In reversal, Coast Guard again classifies swastikas, nooses as hate symbols

"In a stunning and hasty reversal, the U.S. Coast Guard announced late Thursday that swastikas and nooses are prohibited hate symbols — erasing an attempt to soften their definition after the plan elicited furious backlash.

The abrupt policy change occurred hours after The Washington Post first reported that the service was about to enact new harassment guidelines that downgraded the meaning of such symbols of fascism and racism, labeling them instead “potentially divisive.” That shift had been set to take effect Dec. 15.

In a memo to Coast Guard personnel, the service’s acting commandant, Adm. Kevin Lunday, said the policy document issued late Thursday night supersedes all previous guidance on the issue."