According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired.

Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, The Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of.

That’s not all.

Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state.

“First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.

'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024

Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top.

The Left, however, isn’t taking it well.

Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.”

One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.”

This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024

Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist.

For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military.

Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders.

Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time.

In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts.

In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides.

Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle.

Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end.

Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way.

The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II.

Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate.

The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government.

It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation.

They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon.

But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures.

Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability.

To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage.

Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad.

Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened.

If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China?

To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president.

If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military.

This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust.

Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people.

The Pentagon in follow-up statements to the NY Times has confirmed the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) systems will be sent to Israel, and that about 100 American troops will operate them.

This means that at least 100 American soldiers will be placed in positions likely to be targeted by another potential barrage of ballistic missiles from Iran, at a moment Israel is preparing its own counterattack in the wake of the the Oct.1st strikes (which witnessed about 200 missiles sent) on Israeli territory from the Islamic Republic. Each full missile battery and associated systems cost American taxpayers some $800 million to $1 billion.

All of this follows the Pentagon having weeks ago deployed thousands more US troops to the broader region amid escalation in Lebanon. Some of those forces were sent to Cyprus, and others likely to Gulf countries or possibly Jordan.

The Pentagon has tried to deflect from language which portrays the obvious: that without Congressional authorization American troops are entering an escalating overseas war zone to defend a foreign country.

The NY Times acknowledged the following exchange:

When asked on Sunday, Mr. Biden said only that he had ordered the Pentagon to deploy the system “to defend Israel. General Ryder said in his statement that the battery would “augment Israel’s integrated air defense system.” It was not immediately clear how quickly the missile defense system and troops announced on Sunday would arrive in Israel.

“This action underscores the United States’ ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel, and to defend Americans in Israel, from any further ballistic missile attacks by Iran,” the statement said. “It is part of the broader adjustments the U.S. military has made in recent months to support the defense of Israel and protect Americans from attacks by Iran and Iranian-aligned militias.”

So interestingly this is the new talking point from the national security state: Americans are being deployed to defend Americans who happen to still be in Israel. This certainly marks a new and interesting rationale.

This big “gift” is being sent to Israel even after rising tensions between Netanyahu and Biden…

So by deploying THAAD to Israel, we're not really solving the problem, just incentizing Iran to build up more missiles. So what we are actually doing is tieing ourselves further into the Israel-Iran missile/BMD race for only short term benefits.

— Decker Eveleth (@dex_eve) October 13, 2024

One regional observers has observed that this is Netanyahu’s longtime dream come true:

Journalist Séamus Malekafzali argued the U.S. deployment of troops and the THAAD system shows that “the Israelis are clearly planning something for Iran that is going to cause a retaliation they know their own systems are unable to take.”

“U.S. troops being deployed to Israel in this matter is seismic,” Malekafzali added. “The U.S. military is now inextricably involved in this war, directly, without any illusions of barriers. Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish: making the U.S. fight Iran on Israel’s behalf.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Saturday had actually issued some soft criticism of Israel after two UN peacekeeping troops in south Lebanon were wounded by Israeli fire an a UNIFIL command post.

Austin “expressed his deep concern about reports that Israeli forces fired on U.N. peacekeeping positions in Lebanon as well as by the reported death of two Lebanese soldiers” in a phone call with his Israeli counterpart.

Netanyahu has spent a year treating Biden like a doormat, Biden is nonetheless sending American troops to protect Israel, and afterwards Biden will probably go back to pretending as if America has no meaningful leverage over Israel https://t.co/YNrHoxkb8y

— Gregg Carlstrom (@glcarlstrom) October 13, 2024

As for the missile battery contingent of 100 US troops being sent to Israel, likely there were already US special forces and commanders who have been in Tel Aviv and near Gaza in an “advisory” role. But this clearly marks a new much more direct role of US forces in the conflict, especially given the Iranians have already threatened that if hostilities escalate, anti-air batteries in Israel will come under attack.

It directs the Navy to develop “readiness for the possibility of war with the People’s Republic of China by 2027,” pointing to China’s preparations for a possible invasion of Taiwan in the same year.

“The Navy emphatically acknowledges the need for a larger, more lethal force,” the document, titled “Navigation Plan for America’s Warfighting Navy,” states.

“By 2027, the Navy will be more ready for sustained combat as part of a Joint and Combined force, prioritizing the People’s Republic of China as the pacing challenge and focusing on enabling the joint warfighting ecosystem.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a single-party state, claims that Taiwan is a part of its territory that must be united with the mainland through any means necessary.

However, Taiwan is self-governed by a democratically elected government and has never been controlled by the CCP.

CCP leader Xi Jinping has nevertheless ordered the communist regime’s military wing to prepare for war and to develop the capabilities required to invade Taiwan.

The regime has since engaged in a more than decade-long shipbuilding spree, massively expanding its fleet, drone capabilities, and nuclear arsenal.

Most importantly, for a Taiwan invasion scenario, it has also launched its own advanced aircraft carriers and destroyers.

That poses a problem for the United States, as the U.S. Navy floats far fewer ships than the Chinese, and must spread them more widely to maintain its global military presence.

China, meanwhile, can position the vast majority of its naval and coast guard units close to home, where they can receive cover from land-based units and where it is easier to maintain their supply lines.

A congressional report published in July found that “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat” against China.

The July report also said that China is likely to increase its hostile behavior in the coming years to “normalize unlawful behavior” around Taiwan as it seeks to take advantage of the United States’ lack of ability to deter conflict.

Key to the new Navy document’s goals, therefore, is the fulfillment of Project 33, a naval initiative aiming to ready the force by eliminating delays in maintenance, scaling the use of autonomous and robotic systems, and increasing navy recruitment, among other things.

“We cannot manifest a bigger traditional Navy in a few short years, nor will we rely on mass without the right capabilities to win the sea control contest,” the document reads.

“Nearer-term operational challenges demand that we integrate proven robotic and autonomous capabilities as soon as possible.

“We must do so with a focus on how we will use these systems in war. By 2027, we will integrate proven robotic and autonomous systems for routine use by the commanders who will employ them.”

Scaling the deployment of autonomous systems is just part of the puzzle, with the document underscoring that the United States’ grim position in the Indo-Pacific “goes well beyond just the size of the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] Navy fleet.”

The document notes that China’s joint forces are developing into an integrated fighting force “specifically designed to defeat ours” and are backed by China’s massive industrial base.

The document also calls on the Navy to work with Congress to secure critical supply chains and lays out a vision in which all fleet headquarters in the service will field their own maritime operations centers.

The goal of the latter directive is to ensure that the U.S. Navy can continue to maintain superiority in command and control, military intelligence, and maneuvers, even against a numerically superior foe in a vast and distributed region.

“We must meet all the objectives in this Navigation Plan to field the people and capabilities needed to fight and win today, in 2027, and beyond,” the document states.

As NY Post noted:

Outraged family members of US troops hurt in the line of duty slammed Kamala Harris’ brazen claim that no Americans are serving in war zones — a statement which flies in the face of her own administration’s official list of active combat zones.

As many as 50,000 US service members currently patrolling countries and oceans across the Middle East and Africa are receiving either “hostile fire” or “imminent danger pay,” monthly payments of up to $225 for troops deployed in areas where they could easily be subjected to — or do come under — enemy attack, retired Army Col. and military analyst Jonathan Sweet told The Post.

Yet during Tuesday’s ABC debate with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the vice president to make it seem as if the Harris-Biden administration has heralded in a period of peace not seen in decades — and that all American military members are safe.

This was an attempt by the Harris campaign to paint a rosy picture of global affairs under their governance, conveniently overlooking the harsh truths.

“As of today there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century.” – Kamala Harris

Now, let’s dissect the implications of such a statement. Firstly, it’s essential to recognize the gravity of the situation where service members like Chief Warrant Officer Garrett Illerbrunner are critically injured in active duty. His father, Brad Illerbrunner, expressed profound disappointment and anger towards Harris’s misleading assertions.

“really [hit] below the belt… She doesn’t even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt.” – Brad Illerbrunner

“We’re still in war zones.” – Brad Illerbrunner

“trying to snow the public.” – Brad Illerbrunner

These poignant words from a distressed father highlight the disconnect between the administration’s narrative and the ground realities. How can such blatant disregard for the truth be justified? Is it merely a ploy to divert the public’s attention from the ongoing dangers faced by our troops?

Michael DiMino, a fellow at the think tank Defense Priorities, also criticized the vice president’s claims for failing to reflect the true conditions experienced by U.S. forces deployed overseas.

“fail a basic kind of smell test” – Michael DiMino

“If you’re in Jordan in the middle of nowhere to fight ISIS, and you’re getting attacked by Iranian drones and rockets on a daily basis, you’re in a war zone.” – Michael DiMino

“to finagle a wording… to make a point we’re not engaged in all these conflicts — which we are” – Michael DiMino

“Those quibbling qualifiers ignore the fact American men and women in uniform are getting shot at on daily basis, and many just in the last eight months have died or been injured.” – Michael DiMino

Despite these glaring facts, a Harris campaign spokeswoman and a Defense Department official reiterated the administration’s stance, further fueling the narrative disconnect.

“taking risks for our country that should be honored no matter where they serve.” – Harris campaign spokeswoman

“An aspect of military service includes serving in locations where hostile actions may occur… Those locations are designated by executive order and/or the Secretary of Defense. However, it’s important to note that just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war.” – Defense Department official

The emotional toll on families is palpable. Holly Davis, whose husband is currently deployed in Syria, shared her distress over the vice president’s claims, which starkly contrast with her daily reality.

“It’s very hurtful that someone who is currently our vice president is making these claims when my husband is literally sacrificing his life every day over in the Middle East.” – Holly Davis

“I had to sit in those literal two minutes of hearing that, wondering if he was going to come back on the phone… It’s very real. Very war zone.” – Holly Davis

The Harris-Biden administration’s portrayal of a peaceful, conflict-free global stage under their leadership does not hold up against the testimonies of those directly impacted by the realities of war. This discrepancy begs the question: What is the true cost of these politically motivated assertions, and who really pays the price? Moreover, can anyone believe anything that Kamala Harris says?

As reported Saturday by Timour Azhari and Ahmed Rasheed at Reuters, multiple sources have confirmed the reaching of an agreement between the US and Iraq governments for the withdrawal of US and “coalition” military forces from Iraq by the end of 2026. This withdrawal has been long demanded by the Iraq government. Azhari and Rasheed, though, added this caveat: “The U.S. and Iraq are also seeking to establish a new advisory relationship that could see some U.S. troops remain in Iraq after the drawdown.”

Iraq has been on the receiving end of US military subjugation efforts, aided by “coalition” governments, for decades. In 1991, the US military invaded Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. Though US military ground forces then withdrew from the country, US sanctions and bombings of the country brought continued death and destruction for about twelve years. Come 2003, The US military invaded Iraq again, this time overthrowing the national government and establishing an ongoing military presence that has varied in its size and the extent of its actions over the ensuing years.

Though there was much alarming talk from US government officials and people in media, at no time in this over thirty years of US military action against and occupation of Iraq did the Iraq government or the people of Iraq pose a threat to America and Americans. The US military actions against Iraq were about conquest and domination, not defense.

Hopefully, the US troops will vacate their military installations and leave Iraq. And, hopefully, we will hear soon about the same course being followed in other countries as well.

On the cultural side, DEI — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — has taken center stage as an important secondary issue with Democrats and Republicans squarely opposed. The fight to pull Independents and moderates to one side or the other has been ongoing for years and nobody has fought harder than Libs of TikTok to expose the leftist lunacy.

From men in women’s sports to discriminatory hiring practices to the insane promotion of “gender affirming care” in public schools, Libs of TikTok has continuously addressed the most visible issues. But one aspect of DEI has not received nearly enough attention from conservative media even as it continues to escalate.

On a recent 𝕏 post, she noted that “DEI and gender ideology are destroying our military.”

Kathleen H. Hicks, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, wants to make the military more "diverse and inclusive" so that Gen Z feels comfortable serving.

Kathleen expanded "access to care" for service members who identify as transgender.

Yesterday, Trump promised to end taxpayer… pic.twitter.com/unoEmvD57p

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 22, 2024

This cannot be understated. With the high potential for military conflict with at least four enemies on five distinct fronts, our nation has not been this threatened militarily since the Cold War. Moreover, not since the fall of the Soviet Union have our enemies’ military been so comparable to ours.

Instead of strengthening our military might, the leaders in DC are intentionally trying to destroy it. I discussed this on yesterday’s episode of The JD Rucker Show.

In June, the Army issued two new directives regarding the handling and reporting of “protest, extremist and criminal gang activities” by soldiers. Army directive 2024-07 on handling extremist activity, as well as the service’s directive 2024-08 on reporting extremist activity, can both be found on the website of the Army Inspector General.

WorldNetDaily interviewed Dr. Charles “Chase” Spears, recently retired after a 20-year Army public affairs career specializing in ethical military communication strategy.

“Since day one of his tenure as secretary of Defense,” Spears told WND, “Lloyd Austin claimed that there is a major issue with [Christian] extremism in the military.” Spears added, “This is the same military that made [Austin] a four-star general.”

But the Army’s new rules beg the question: “Why now, when multiple reports have debunked Austin’s claim?” Even if, Spears said, the Army’s directives were implemented with the intention of clarifying what amounts to “extremism,” a word he says is “open to wide interpretation in the current political climate,” the new policy “makes it appear that if you disagree with [the views of Austin and the Biden administration], then you’re an extremist.”

Attorney R. Davis Younts agrees with Dr. Spears, telling WND that he likewise fears the ambiguity in the Army’s new rules. According to the retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate general (JAG) officer, the directives encompass an “extremely broad range of activities.”

Both Spears and Younts are concerned about how the new directives will be interpreted. For example, considering the 0recent Army portrayal of pro-life organizations as terrorist organizations, Younts said his concern has been heightened. “If a service member offers money or resources or volunteers to support a group that advocates against abortion, could he be viewed as supporting extremists?” Younts questioned. “What about supporting a group that advocates for … the existence of only two genders?”

Taking it one step further, Younts asked, “If I were still in the Air Force and tithed to my church, which goes out to pray in protest against a transgender story hour, would my church fit the Army’s definition of an extremist group?”

To that end, Spears pointed out that Army directive 2024-07 states extremist activity includes “advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation.” He warned that “because they feel they need to please their political superiors, some military commanders will infer that because you disagree with women competing in men’s sports, you are now engaging in an act of extremism.”

In fact, Spears added, the Army’s new reporting requirements “essentially force commanders to prove the innocence of soldiers accused of extremism, rather than guilt.”

“These are now things every single Christian military member that is doctrinally aligned with traditional biblical views of life, marriage and gender must consider,” Younts told WND. For this reason, he recommends “these service members should be raising the issue to their congressmen, and apply for a religious accommodation to be exempted from the policy.”

“We have to get [military] leaders to clarify what they are saying in the new directives,” Younts argues. “I don’t think it’s irrational to believe that some of today’s senior leadership would view the church or another 501(c) nonprofit organization as an extremist for disavowing abortion, same-sex marriage and a host of other sins running rampant in society.”

For Spears, one of his biggest concerns is the fact that the directives apply not only to active-duty Army personnel, but also to inactivated members of the Reserve and National Guard. “When reservists and guardsmen are activated, they fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice – but when not activated, they fall under civil law, like all other civilians,” he explained. “The Army’s new rules on so-called ‘extremism’ further erode the line between civilian and military life.”

“This is a terrifying development that extends the Defense Department’s intrusive reach into the personal lives of non-activated Reservists and National Guardsmen,” Spears argued. And this, he concluded, “sends a chilling message across the force that must be overturned by the courts.”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

The latest odd and confusing tale comes from a resurfaced speech he delivered on September 11, 2021; a PDF is available on the Minnesota government website. It was the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An interesting segment of his speech stood out for two reasons. Here is the portion in question [emphasis added]:

In the years after that classroom, I had the privilege of serving in this state’s national guard. I stood one night in the dark of night on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base in Iraq and watched a military ramp ceremony–a soldier’s body being loaded onto a plane to be returned home. And if you’ve seen it, you don’t leave the same. It makes you wonder, what are we doing? What are we trying to get to? And then watching as all of you have been, the confusing last few weeks with the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

There are two problems with his statement. By saying that he had the privilege of serving in the National Guard and then telling the story of watching a military ramp ceremony implies that the two are related. That was his intention, otherwise he would have noted his time in Congress during which he attended a military ramp ceremony as a member of a delegation. Instead, he wanted listeners to believe he was with the National Guard while in the Middle East watching the ceremony.

Here’s the video of Walz giving the speech itself. He doesn’t just mention being in the National Guard before telling of the military ramp ceremony. He took it a step further by talking of the “guilt” he felt in being able to come home knowing so many others didn’t, insinuating that he had “come home” from deployment in the Middle East, which never actually happened.

After referencing his time in the National Guard, Tim Walz said felt "guilt" of being able to come home from Afghanistan when so many others did not.

He was in Congress when he went to Afghanistan. pic.twitter.com/rSDHm13uRf

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) August 12, 2024

The second error in his speech, which was written but not spoken, was saying the air base is in Iraq. Bagram Air Base is in Afghanistan. Details matter, especially when speaking from a position of authority on a matter.

As 𝕏 user @amuse noted:

Shore News Network noted:

After many examples of Walz claiming either directly or indirectly that he is a war veteran who saw combat, the Democrat party and the mainstream media continue covering for him.

However, the incident underscores the delicate nature of discussing military service, especially in the context of solemn remembrances like those for 9/11.

While the controversy may fade, it highlights the intense scrutiny faced by public figures, especially when it comes to their service records. For Walz, a simple slip of the tongue or a minor factual error turned into a significant political issue​.

Don’t believe it? Download the full pdf here.

If this was an isolated incident, we could give him the benefit of the doubt that he simply failed to transition between mentioning being in the military and telling the story about Bagram. But Walz has demonstrated multiple times that he intentionally keeps his service record hazy at best, distorted at worst. He has implied seeing combat, which he never did. He has claimed to be retired with a rank that he lost. He pretends he didn’t know about deploying to Iraq before retirement despite many of those around him at the time debunking him.

Tim Walz is a liar and a bad one at that. We should appreciate his willingness to serve his country. But if he cannot properly communicate what his service record really is, how can he be trusted to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

As a result, insect-containing foods have reached U.S. consumers, even though one of the few existing U.S. laws that address insects in the food supply refers to them as “filth” and a form of “adulteration.”

Crickets and grasshoppers reach U.S. consumers in a variety of forms, from protein bars to protein shakes. They’re also found on restaurant menus and are promoted as pet food and animal feed ingredients.

With few U.S. regulatory barriers to contend with, investors like Bill Gates and Big Food giants such as Tyson Foods have also begun investing in “alternative protein” startups — despite mainstream media “fact-checks” claiming Gates doesn’t support the consumption of insects.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender lax U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations — under which many insect-containing foods can be classified as “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS) — “means they don’t require testing” and enable the FDA to “look the other way.”

“How long will it take before we learn whether these foods are safe? It could take generations,” Nass said.

Gates, U.S. military among backers of ‘alternative protein’ startups

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges Explorations program in 2012 funded All Things Bugs, a project to “develop a novel food product made from insects to treat malnutrition in children from famine stricken areas of the world,” according to Eurasia Review.

All Things Bugs has since expanded into the development of genetically modified insects. With funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), “we are using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and other methodologies to develop base technologies for creating insects as a new bioresource,” the company states.

DARPA is a research and development agency that operates under the U.S. Department of Defense.

All Things Bugs said that while insects are “a very sustainable source of protein,” it “is innovating to make them a feasible commodity for the food industry.”

Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, told The Defender, “With all GMOs [genetically modified organisms], including insects, it’s vital that they are subjected to a pre-marketing risk assessment for health and the environment.”

Robinson said, “This includes testing them for the presence of pathogens, possible allergens and substances that may be toxic to humans. Then they must be clearly labeled for the consumer.”

Gates’ investments in insect-based foods appear to be part of a broader strategy to invest in alternatives to animal-based foods for consumers.

In a February blog post, Gates said he invested in Savor, a startup producing butter made from air (carbon dioxide) and water (hydrogen). And in 2022, the Gates Foundation awarded a $4.76 million grant to Nature’s Fynd, a startup producing foods containing fungi-based protein. In 2020, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, founded by Gates, invested in Nature’s Fynd.

The U.S. government’s National Science Foundation (NSF) also is involved in the insects-as-food space, through its funding of the Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect Farming (CEIF). Established in 2021, CEIF seeks “to develop novel methods for using insects as feed for livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.”

Institutions participating in CEIF include Texas A&M University, Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis and Mississippi State University — along with Tyson Foods, Protix and Innovafeed, backed by food processing giant ADM, formerly the Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.

Insect protein start-ups raised ‘over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020’

The production of insects for human food is expanding in the U.S. and globally, with support from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a seminal report, “Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security,” which promotes the environmental and nutritional benefits of insect consumption.”

A 2022 WEF paper, “5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change,” suggests people are “conditioned to think of animals and plants as our primary sources of proteins … but there’s an unsung category of sustainable and nutritious protein that has yet to widely catch on: insects.”

According to a November 2023 Washington Post report, “Insect start-ups have raised over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020.”

A 2021 report by Netherlands-based Rabobank claimed the demand for insect protein, “mainly as an animal feed and pet food ingredient, could reach half a million metric tons by 2030, up from today’s market of approximately 10,000 metric tons.”

A report by Grand View Research forecasted the global insect protein market will expand by an annual compound growth rate of 16.9% by 2030, while European projections estimate “the number of Europeans consuming insect-based food will [reach] a total of 390 million by 2030,” according to EuroNews.

Ynsect, for instance, has built factories in France and the Netherlands, and is erecting factories in the U.S. and Mexico, according to Feed Navigator. The company claims its insect-producing farms are “climate positive,” “benefit biodiversity” and are aligned with the Paris Agreement and the European Union’s “Fit for 55” goal.

In March 2022, Ynsect acquired Nebraska-based Jord Producers — a mealworm farm. And in December 2022, Ynsect signed an agreement with U.S. flour milling company Ardent Mills to build a factory in the Midwestern U.S. Ardent Mills is a joint venture between ConAgra Foods, Cargill and CHS, a global agribusiness cooperative.

Investors in Ynsect include actor Robert Downey Jr.’s FootPrint Coalition and France’s Crédit Agricole bank — along with support from the FAO and the European Commission. The company has raised over $600 million.

Celebrity chefs also are embracing insect food. In November 2023, the Financial Times featured Joseph Yoon, founder of Brooklyn Bugs, whose “goal is to popularise edible insects and build up this food source to help support global food security.”

Your dog can eat insects, too

In addition to a lack of FDA regulations governing the use of insects in foods for humans, the FDA also does not regulate the use of insects for pet food ingredients.

According to Animal Frontiers, “pet food is under the nongovernment Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)” in the U.S. In January, French firm Ynsect became the first company to receive AAFCO authorization for commercial production of mealworm protein for dog food in the U.S.

In October 2023, Big Food giant Tyson Foods announced the acquisition of an ownership stake in the Dutch insect ingredient producer Protix. Tyson said the new joint venture would construct “the first at-scale facility of its kind to upcycle food manufacturing byproducts into high-quality insect proteins and lipids which will primarily be used in the pet food, aquaculture, and livestock industries.”

Although the announcement did not definitively exclude the production of insect-containing foods for humans, a Reuters “fact check” published in May stated, “Tyson Foods does not put insects into products for human consumption.”

Tyson has invested in Upside Foods, which in June 2023 won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to produce lab-grown chicken. Upside garnered more than $600 million in research and development investments, including from Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk and Cargill.

Vanguard and BlackRock, the world’s two largest institutional investment firms, are also the two top institutional holders of Tyson Foods shares. BlackRock, and its CEO, Larry Fink, have promoted “sustainable” corporate practices.

The U.S. military is no longer “prepared” to fight in a major war, according to a new study conducted by a congressional panel.

Though the threats the U.S. is facing are “the most serious and most challenging” it has seen in almost a century, the U.S. defense base is not equipped to meet the moment, according to a report from the Commission on the National Defense Strategy published on Monday. Among the biggest problems outlined in the report are a troubled Pentagon and a failure by the federal government to properly address threats emanating from adversaries like China and Russia.

“The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today,” the commission’s report reads.

How is this possible? We spent 820 billion dollars on national defense during the most recent fiscal year. Where is all of that money going?

Two of the areas that the study really focused on were our “recruiting failures” and our “grossly inadequate” industrial base…

The commission recommended in a 132-page report released Monday that the U.S. overhaul its national defense strategy and $900 billion defense budget to address recruiting failures, a “grossly inadequate” industrial base, and underfunded cyber and space domains. The commission was tasked by Congress with analyzing the 2022 defense strategy, which was written prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the evolution of the strategic partnership between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

“There is potential for near-term war and a potential that we might lose such a conflict,” Eric Edelman, vice chairman of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, told senators.

In the days following 9/11, our military was swamped with more eager recruits than they could possibly handle.

But now it has become very difficult to convince young people to join our “woke” military.  In particular, male enlistment is way, way down…

The issue is convincing men to put on the uniform.

A decade of declining recruitment numbers for the Army is almost entirely attributable to a significant drop in male recruiting as female enlistments have remained relatively flat, internal service data reviewed by Military.com shows.

Since 2013, male enlistments have dropped 35%, going from 58,000 men enlisting in 2013 to 37,700 in 2023, according to the service data. Meanwhile, female recruitment has hovered around 10,000 recruits each year.

This is a topic that I have been hammering on for a long time.  In fact, in my most recent book I have an entire chapter entitled “Chaos In The Military”.  Sadly, most Americans have absolutely no idea how much our national defense has been compromised.

As long as we don’t have to fight any major wars, our failures can be hidden to a certain extent.

Unfortunately, three major wars are rapidly approaching.

The Middle East is on the verge of erupting in flames, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says that the U.S. would intervene militarily if all-out war breaks out…

The United States would help Israel defend itself should a full-scale war break out with Lebanon, the country’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told reporters in the Philippines as Lebanon braced for an IDF counterstrike.

“We remain concerned about the potential of this escalating into a full fight. And I don’t believe that a fight is inevitable,” Austin said.

I still think that we have a couple of months before things in the region go totally haywire.

Hopefully I am not wrong about that.

Alarmingly, the State Department has just issued a warning instructing U.S. citizens not to travel to Lebanon right now…

The United States on Wednesday urged its citizens to not travel to Lebanon, citing rising tensions between Israel and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah group.

The U.S. State Department raised its travel advisory to Lebanon to level four, which says “Do Not Travel.” The State Department advised Americans in Lebanon to depart if possible.

Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine just continues to escalate and the Russians are steadily gaining ground.

One of the big reasons for this is that the Russians are simply outproducing us.

According to CNN, the Russians are producing almost three times more artillery munitions than the United States and Europe combined…

Russia appears on track to produce nearly three times more artillery munitions than the US and Europe, a key advantage ahead of what is expected to be another Russian offensive in Ukraine later this year.

Russia is producing about 250,000 artillery munitions per month, or about 3 million a year, according to NATO intelligence estimates of Russian defense production shared with CNN, as well as sources familiar with Western efforts to arm Ukraine. Collectively, the US and Europe have the capacity to generate only about 1.2 million munitions annually to send to Kyiv, a senior European intelligence official told CNN.

This is a failure of epic proportions.

How did this happen?

It appears to be just a matter of time before we come into direct conflict with the Russians, and we are definitely not prepared for that.

Of course we could soon find ourselves fighting a major war with China too. The moment that China invades Taiwan, we will be at war with the Chinese.

Sadly, we are not equipped to fight a war with China on the other side of the Pacific.

At this point, China actually has a larger navy than we do…

China now possesses the world’s largest maritime fighting force, operating 234 warships to the U.S. Navy’s 219. This count of China’s fighting ships encompasses all of its known, active-duty manned, missile- or torpedo-armed ships or submarines displacing more than 1,000 metric tons, including the 22 missile-armed corvettes recently transferred to the China Coast Guard but not the approximately 80 missile-armed small patrol craft operated by the PLAN.

Of course not all of our military vessels are currently available.

In fact, there is one aircraft carrier that has been getting “overhauled” since 2021 and won’t be available for service again until 2026 at the earliest…

In 2021, USS John C. Stennis was sent to the shipyard for a routine Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) mission. It was supposed to take three years. Yet it will probably be delayed even past 2026.

As my colleague Harrison Kass assessed, “Since 2001, the U.S. Navy has conducted seven carrier overhauls. The shortest overhaul was USS Nimitz, at 1129 days. Four overhauls took between 1,338 and 1,506 days – USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Carl Vinson, USS Theodore Roosevelt, and USS Abraham Lincoln.”

The most recent carrier to get an RCOH overhaul, USS George Washington, took an astonishing 2,120 days.

It is pretty sad when you have a 4.5 billion dollar aircraft carrier that can’t even sail for five years.

But this is our military now.

We spend a ton of money on it, but we get very little in return.

So we better hope for peace, because if we have to depend on our “woke” military to fight multiple major wars simultaneously we are going to be in a world of hurt.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.