Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

armed forces

Military may be ground zero for the war on woke

Published

8 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

“We’ve seen under the last three and a half years of the Biden-Harris administration, it’s been hard to recruit and keep good service members, in part because of the bad woke policies, the loss of focus by this administration on what the mission is”

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense, though not yet confirmed, has pledged to root out “woke” ideology in the military.

Other Republicans have lamented the same issue for years but done little about it, but if Peter Hegseth can be confirmed, the U.S. military may become ground zero in the Right’s war on woke.

Military veteran and Fox News Host Hegseth has repeatedly attacked the military leadership’s embrace of “woke” culture, which usually refers to the ideology around transgenderism, gender pronouns, and racial identity politics.

Despite allegations and attempts to end his bid, Hegseth has stood firm, though his fate in the Senate is unclear. A public statement from Trump last week put to rest any thoughts that Trump was considering withdrawing the pick.

“Pete is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that!!!” Trump said in a statement.

The American Accountability Foundation released a list of 20 officers who Hegseth should fire. Notably, during his viral interview with Joe Rogan, Trump told a story about how military leaders in Washington, D.C. told Trump that destroying ISIS quickly wasn’t possible, but when Trump visited the military leaders on the ground, he heard a different story. Those commanders, Trump said, told him it was doable but Washington, D.C. had tied their hands.

“The woke takeover of the military is a major threat to our national security,” AAF President Thomas Jones wrote in a letter to Hegseth earlier this week.

“As global tensions rise, with Iran on the march, Russia at war, and China in the midst of a massive military buildup, we cannot afford to have a military distracted and demoralized by leftist ideology,” he added in the letter, first obtained by The New York Post. “Those who were responsible for these policies being instituted in the first place must be dismissed.”

That anecdote highlights growing sentiment on the Right that the effectiveness and mission of the military has been hijacked by a handful of leaders in the Pentagon.

Lawmakers have raised that concern for years, pointing to a slew of recent federal spending backing controversial Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies.

Last year, Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. State Department, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told The Center Square that woke policies were “hollowing out” our military.

A Department of Defense comptroller report from the same year included $86.5 million for “dedicated diversity and inclusion activities” as well as language showing the importance of DEI to the military.

Syrian children are back in schools, in sign of some normalcy

“The Department will lead with our values – building diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything we do,” the report said.

The actual figure spent on backing the same kind of policies is likely much larger and impossible to know, as the language and ideology has permeated much of the employee training, H.R. policies, and more.

Other anecdotes highlight the prevalence of the newfound way of thinking for Armed Forces. For instance, as The Center Square previously reported, official training materials for West Point cadets included warnings about white privilege.

Rubio released a report detailing these same issues, which includes another example where a slide presentation for the Air Force Academy was titled, “Diversity & Inclusion: What it is, why we care, & what we can do.”

This same taxpayer-funded training warns cadets to avoid saying words like “mom” and “dad” because the language is gendered.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., spoke about the NDAA and blamed woke policies for the armed forces’ difficulties meeting recruiting goals. Even after lowering recruitment targets, the U.S. military has fallen short of its recruitment goals in recent years.

“We’ve seen under the last three and a half years of the Biden-Harris administration, it’s been hard to recruit and keep good service members, in part because of the bad woke policies, the loss of focus by this administration on what the mission is,” Scalise said at a news conference Tuesday.

With Trump and Hegseth in the executive branch and leadership like Scalise behind it, cleaning house of the Pentagon might be possible, albeit difficult.

“We start addressing that by routing out more of the woke policies over at the DOD,” Scalise continued. “Of course, that ultimately is going to get fixed when President Trump takes office next month. He talked about those things during the campaign, what he would do to restrengthen and reinvigorate our military.”

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Hegseth would lead the largest and most complex federal agency with an annual budget of $840 billion and 3.4 million military and civilian employees.

Hegseth, 44, was an infantry officer in the Army National Guard from 2002 to 2021. He graduated from Princeton University in 2003. He was later commissioned as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard. He served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. He left with the rank of major, according to the Army National Guard. Hegseth earned two Bronze Stars, two Army Commendation Medals and the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, among others.

But Hegseth faces scrutiny over a 2017 sexual encounter in which a woman told police the former Fox News anchor blocked the door of a hotel room in California and sexually assaulted her. Hegseth has denied the allegation and said that the encounter was consensual. The woman reported the allegations to local police. Hegseth was never charged with a crime. He reached an undisclosed settlement with the woman in 2023.

armed forces

Canada’s Military Can’t Be Fixed With Cash Alone

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Michel Maisonneuve

Canada’s military is broken, and unless Ottawa backs its spending with real reform, we’re just playing politics with national security

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s surprise pledge to meet NATO’s defence spending target is long overdue, but without real reform, leadership and a shift away from bureaucracy and social experimentation, it risks falling short of what the moment demands.

Canada committed in 2014 to spend two per cent of its gross national product on defence—a NATO target meant to ensure collective security and more equitable burden-sharing. We never made it past 1.37 per cent, drawing criticism from allies and, in my view, breaching our obligation. Now, the prime minister says we’ll hit the target by the end of fiscal year 2025-26. That’s welcome news, but it comes with serious challenges.

Reaching the two per cent was always possible. It just required political courage. The announced $9 billion in new defence spending shows intent, and Carney’s remarks about protecting Canadians are encouraging. But the reality is our military readiness is at a breaking point. With global instability rising—including conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East—Canada’s ability to defend its territory or contribute meaningfully to NATO is under scrutiny. Less than half of our army vehicles, ships and aircraft are currently operational.

I’m told the Treasury Board has already approved the new funds, making this more than just political spin. Much of the money appears to be going where it’s most needed: personnel. Pay and benefit increases for serving members should help with retention, and bonuses for re-enlistment are reportedly being considered. Recruiting and civilian staffing will also get a boost, though I question adding more to an already bloated public service. Reserves and cadet programs weren’t mentioned but they also need attention.

Equipment upgrades are just as urgent. A new procurement agency is planned, overseen by a secretary of state—hopefully with members in uniform involved. In the meantime, accelerating existing projects is a good way to ensure the money flows quickly. Restocking ammunition is a priority. Buying Canadian and diversifying suppliers makes sense. The Business Council of Canada has signalled its support for a national defence industrial strategy. That’s encouraging, but none of it will matter without follow-through.

Infrastructure is also in dire shape. Bases, housing, training facilities and armouries are in disrepair. Rebuilding these will not only help operations but also improve recruitment and retention. So will improved training, including more sea days, flying hours and field operations.

All of this looks promising on paper, but if the Department of National Defence can’t spend funds effectively, it won’t matter. Around $1 billion a year typically lapses due to missing project staff and excessive bureaucracy. As one colleague warned, “implementation [of the program] … must occur as a whole-of-government activity, with trust-based partnerships across industry and academe, or else it will fail.”

The defence budget also remains discretionary. Unlike health transfers or old age security, which are legally entrenched, defence funding can be cut at will. That creates instability for military suppliers and risks turning long-term procurement into a political football. The new funds must be protected from short-term fiscal pressure and partisan meddling.

One more concern: culture. If Canada is serious about rebuilding its military, we must move past performative diversity policies and return to a warrior ethos. That means recruiting the best men and women based on merit, instilling discipline and honour, and giving them the tools to fight and, if necessary, make the ultimate sacrifice. The military must reflect Canadian values, but it is not a place for social experimentation or reduced standards.

Finally, the announcement came without a federal budget or fiscal roadmap. Canada’s deficits continue to grow. Taxpayers deserve transparency. What trade-offs will be required to fund this? If this plan is just a last-minute attempt to appease U.S. President Donald Trump ahead of the G7 or our NATO allies at next month’s summit, it won’t stand the test of time.

Canada has the resources, talent and standing to be a serious middle power. But only action—not announcements—will prove whether we truly intend to be one.

The NATO summit is over, and Canada was barely at the table. With global threats rising, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Michel Maisonneuve joins David Leis to ask: How do we rebuild our national defence—and why does it matter to every Canadian? Because this isn’t just about security. It’s about our economy, our identity, and whether Canada remains sovereign—or becomes the 51st state.

Michel Maisonneuve is a retired lieutenant-general who served 45 years in uniform. He is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of In Defence of Canada: Reflections of a Patriot (2024).

Continue Reading

armed forces

Mark Carney Thinks He’s Cinderella At The Ball

Published on

And we all pay when the dancing ends

How to explain Mark Carney’s obsession with Europe and his lack of attention to Canada’s economy and an actual budget?

Carney’s pirouette through NATO meetings, always in his custom-tailored navy blue power suits, carries the desperate whiff of an insecure, small-town outsider who has made it big but will always yearn for old-money credibility. Canada is too young a country, too dynamic and at times a bit too vulgar to claim equal status with Europe’s formerly magnificent and ancient cultures — now failed under the yoke of globalism.

Hysterical foreign policy, unchecked immigration, burgeoning censorship and massive income disparity have conquered much of the continent that many of us used to admire and were even somewhat intimidated by. But we’ve moved on. And yet Carney seems stuck, seeking approval and direction from modern Europe — a place where, for most countries, the glory days are long gone.

Carney’s irresponsible financial commitment to NATO is a reckless and unnecessary expenditure, given that many Canadians are hurting. But it allowed Carney to pick up another photo of himself glad-handing global elites to whom he just sold out his struggling citizens.

From the Globe and Mail

“Prime Minister Mark Carney has committed Canada to the biggest increase in military spending since the Second World War, part of a NATO pledge designed to address the threat of Russian expansionism and to keep Donald Trump from quitting the Western alliance.

Mr. Carney and the leaders of the 31 other member countries issued a joint statement Wednesday at The Hague saying they would raise defence-related spending to the equivalent of 5 per cent of their gross domestic product by 2035.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said the commitment means “European allies and Canada will do more of the heavy lifting” and take “greater responsibility for our shared security.”

For Canada, this will require spending an additional $50-billion to $90-billion a year – more than doubling the existing defence budget to between $110-billion and $150-billion by 2035, depending on how much the economy grows. This year Ottawa’s defence-related spending is due to top $62-billion.”

You’ll note that spending money we don’t have in order to keep President Trump happy is hardly an elbows up moment, especially given that the pledge followed Carney’s embarrassing interactions with Trump at the G7. I’m all for diplomacy but sick to my teeth of Carney’s two-faced approach to everything. There is no objective truth to anything our prime minister touches. Watch the first few minutes of the video below.

Part of the NATO top-up we can’t afford is more billions for Ukraine which is pretty much considered a lost cause. NATO must keep that conflict going in order to justify its existence and we will all pay dearly for it.

The portents are bad. This from the Globe:

We are poorer than we think. Canadians running their retirement numbers are shining light in the dark corners of household finances in this country. The sums leave many “anxious, fearful and sad about their finances,” according to a Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan survey recently reported in these pages.

Fifty-two per cent of us worry a lot about our personal finances. Fifty per cent feel frustrated, 47 per cent feel emotionally drained and 43 per cent feel depressed. There is not one survey indicator to suggest Canadians have made financial progress in 2025 compared with 2024.

The video below is a basic “F”- you to Canadians from a Prime Minister who smirks and roles his eyes when questioned about his inept money management.

He did spill the beans to CNN with this unsettling revelation about the staggering numbers we are talking about:

Signing on to NATO’s new defence spending target could cost the federal treasury up to $150 billion a year, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday in advance of the Western military alliance’s annual summit.

The prime minister made the comments in an interview with CNN International.

“It is a lot of money,” Carney said.

This guy was a banker?

We are witnessing the political equivalent of a vain woman who blows her entire paycheque to look good for an aspirational event even though she can’t afford food or rent. Yes, she sparkled for a moment, but in reality her domaine is crumbling. All she has left are the photographs of her glittery night. Our Prime Minister is collecting his own album of power-proximity photos he can use to wallpaper over his failures as our economy collapses.

The glass slipper doesn’t fit.

Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Trish Wood is Critical, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X