Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

Elon Musk may be gone from the Trump administration — and his friendship status with President Donald Trump may be at best uncertain — but his whirlwind stint in government certainly left its imprint. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his pet government-slashing project, remains entrenched in Washington. During his 130-day tenure, Musk led DOGE in eliminating about 260,000 federal employee jobs and gutting agencies supporting scientific research and humanitarian aid. But to date, DOGE claims to have saved the government $180 billion — well short of its ambitious (and frankly never realistic) target of cutting at least $2 trillion from the federal budget. And with Musk’s departure still fresh, there are reports that the federal government is trying to rehire federal workers who quit or were let go. For Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, DOGE’s tactics will likely end up being disastrous in the long run. “DOGE came in with these huge cuts, which were not attached to a plan,” she told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. Kamarck knows all about making government more efficient. In the 1990s, she ran the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government program. “I was Elon Musk,” she told Today, Explained. With the benefit of that experience, she assesses Musk’s record at DOGE, and what, if anything, the billionaire’s loud efforts at cutting government spending added up to. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. What do you think Elon Musk’s legacy is? Well, he will not have totally, radically reshaped the federal government. Absolutely not. In fact, there’s a high probability that on January 20, 2029, when the next president takes over, the federal government is about the same size as it is now, and is probably doing the same stuff that it’s doing now. What he did manage to do was insert chaos, fear, and loathing into the federal workforce. There was reporting in the Washington Post late last week that these cuts were so ineffective that the White House is actually reaching out to various federal employees who were laid off and asking them to come back, from the FDA to the IRS to even USAID. Which cuts are sticking at this point and which ones aren’t?First of all, in a lot of cases, people went to court and the courts have reversed those earlier decisions. So the first thing that happened is, courts said, “No, no, no, you can’t do it this way. You have to bring them back.” The second thing that happened is that Cabinet officers started to get confirmed by the Senate. And remember that a lot of the most spectacular DOGE stuff was happening in February. In February, these Cabinet secretaries were preparing for their Senate hearings. They weren’t on the job. Now that their Cabinet secretary’s home, what’s happening is they’re looking at these cuts and they’re saying, “No, no, no! We can’t live with these cuts because we have a mission to do.”As the government tries to hire back the people they fired, they’re going to have a tough time, and they’re going to have a tough time for two reasons. First of all, they treated them like dirt, and they’ve said a lot of insulting things. Second, most of the people who work for the federal government are highly skilled. They’re not paper pushers. We have computers to push our paper, right? They’re scientists. They’re engineers. They’re people with high skills, and guess what? They can get jobs outside the government. So there’s going to be real lasting damage to the government from the way they did this. And it’s analogous to the lasting damage that they’re causing at universities, where we now have top scientists who used to invent great cures for cancer and things like that, deciding to go find jobs in Europe because this culture has gotten so bad.What happens to this agency now? Who’s in charge of it?Well, what they’ve done is DOGE employees have been embedded in each of the organizations in the government, okay? And they basically — and the president himself has said this — they basically report to the Cabinet secretaries. So if you are in the Transportation Department, you have to make sure that Sean Duffy, who’s the secretary of transportation, agrees with you on what you want to do. And Sean Duffy has already had a fight during a Cabinet meeting with Elon Musk. You know that he has not been thrilled with the advice he’s gotten from DOGE. So from now on, DOGE is going to have to work hand in hand with Donald Trump’s appointed leaders.And just to bring this around to what we’re here talking about now, they’re in this huge fight over wasteful spending with the so-called big, beautiful bill. Does this just look like the government as usual, ultimately?It’s actually worse than normal. Because the deficit impacts are bigger than normal. It’s adding more to the deficit than previous bills have done. And the second reason it’s worse than normal is that everybody is still living in a fantasy world. And the fantasy world says that somehow we can deal with our deficits by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is pure nonsense. Let me say it: pure nonsense.Where does most of the government money go? Does it go to some bureaucrats sitting on Pennsylvania Avenue? It goes to us. It goes to your grandmother and her Social Security and her Medicare. It goes to veterans in veterans benefits. It goes to Americans. That’s why it’s so hard to cut it. It’s so hard to cut it because it’s us. And people are living on it. Now, there’s a whole other topic that nobody talks about, and it’s called entitlement reform, right? Could we reform Social Security? Could we make the retirement age go from 67 to 68? That would save a lot of money. Could we change the cost of living? Nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about that. And that’s because we are in this crazy, polarized environment where we can no longer have serious conversations about serious issues. See More:

June 13, 20255 min readFive Climate Issues to Watch When Trump Goes to CanadaPresident Trump will attend the G7 summit on Sunday in a nation he threatened to annex. He will also be an outlier on climate issuesBy Sara Schonhardt & E&E News Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | The world’s richest nations are gathering Sunday in the Canadian Rockies for a summit that could reveal whether President Donald Trump's policies are shaking global climate efforts.The Group of Seven meeting comes at a challenging time for international climate policy. Trump’s tariff seesaw has cast a shade over the global economy, and his domestic policies have threatened billions of dollars in funding for clean energy programs. Those pressures are colliding with record-breaking temperatures worldwide and explosive demand for energy, driven by power-hungry data centers linked to artificial intelligence technologies.On top of that, Trump has threatened to annex the host of the meeting — Canada — and members of his Cabinet have taken swipes at Europe’s use of renewable energy. Rather than being aligned with much of the world's assertion that fossil fuels should be tempered, Trump embraces the opposite position — drill for more oil and gas and keep burning coal, while repealing environmental regulations on the biggest sources of U.S. carbon pollution.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Those moves illustrate his rejection of climate science and underscore his outlying positions on global warming in the G7.Here are five things to know about the summit.Who will be there?The group comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States — plus the European Union. Together they account for more than 40 percent of gross domestic product globally and around a quarter of all energy-related carbon dioxide pollution, according to the International Energy Agency. The U.S. is the only one among them that is not trying to hit a carbon reduction goal.Some emerging economies have also been invited, including Mexico, India, South Africa and Brazil, the host of this year’s COP30 climate talks in November.Ahead of the meeting, the office of Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, said he and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva agreed to strengthen cooperation on energy security and critical minerals. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would be having "quite a few" bilateral meetings but that his schedule was in flux.The G7 first came together 50 years ago following the Arab oil embargo. Since then, its seven members have all joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The U.S. is the only nation in the group that has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, which counts almost every country in the world as a signatory.What’s on the table?Among Canada’s top priorities as host are strengthening energy security and fortifying critical mineral supply chains. Carney would also like to see some agreement on joint wildfire action.Expanding supply chains for critical minerals — and competing more aggressively with China over those resources — could be areas of common ground among the leaders. Climate change is expected to remain divisive. Looming over the discussions will be tariffs — which Trump has applied across the board — because they will have an impact on the clean energy transition.“I think probably the majority of the conversation will be less about climate per se, or certainly not using climate action as the frame, but more about energy transition and infrastructure as a way of kind of bridging the known gaps between most of the G7 and where the United States is right now,” said Dan Baer, director of the Europe program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.What are the possible outcomes?The leaders could issue a communique at the end of their meeting, but those statements are based on consensus, something that would be difficult to reach without other G7 countries capitulating to Trump. Bloomberg reported Wednesday that nations won’t try to reach a joint agreement, in part because bridging gaps on climate change could be too hard.Instead, Carney could issue a chair’s summary or joint statements based on certain issues.The question is how far Canada will go to accommodate the U.S., which could try to roll back past statements on advancing clean energy, said Andrew Light, former assistant secretary of Energy for international affairs, who led ministerial-level negotiations for the G7.“They might say, rather than watering everything down that we accomplished in the last four years, we just do a chair's statement, which summarizes the debate,” Light said. “That will show you that you didn't get consensus, but you also didn't get capitulation.”What to watch forIf there is a communique, Light says he’ll be looking for whether there is tougher language on China and any signal of support for science and the Paris Agreement. During his first term, Trump refused to support the Paris accord in the G7 and G20 declarations.The statement could avoid climate and energy issues entirely. But if it backtracks on those issues, that could be a sign that countries made a deal by trading climate-related language for something else, Light said.Baer of Carnegie said a statement framed around energy security and infrastructure could be seen as a “pragmatic adaptation” to the U.S. administration, rather than an indication that other leaders aren’t concerned about climate change.Climate activists have lower expectations.“Realistically, we can expect very little, if any, mention of climate change,” said Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada.“The message we should be expecting from those leaders is that climate action remains a priority for the rest of the G7 … whether it's on the transition away from fossil fuels and supporting developing countries through climate finance,” she said. “Especially now that the U.S. is stepping back, we need countries, including Canada, to be stepping up.”Best- and worst-case scenariosThe challenge for Carney will be preventing any further rupture with Trump, analysts said.In 2018, Trump made a hasty exit from the G7 summit, also in Canada that year, due largely to trade disagreements. He retracted his support for the joint statement.“The best, [most] realistic case outcome is that things don't get worse,” said Baer.The worst-case scenario? Some kind of “highly personalized spat” that could add to the sense of disorder, he added.“I think the G7 on the one hand has the potential to be more important than ever, as fewer and fewer platforms for international cooperation seem to be able to take action,” Baer said. “So it's both very important and also I don't have super-high expectations.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Greg Touhill, director of the Software Engineering’s Institute’s (SEI’s) Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) division is an atypical technology leader. For one thing, he’s been in tech and other leadership positions that span the US Air Force, the US government, the private sector and now SEI’s CERT. More importantly, he’s been a major force in the cybersecurity realm, making the world a safer place and even saving lives. Touhill earned a bachelor’s degree from the Pennsylvania State University, a master’s degree from the University of Southern California, a master’s degree from the Air War College, was a senior executive fellow at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government and completed executive education studies at the University of North Carolina. “I was a student intern at Carnegie Mellon, but I was going to college at Penn State and studying chemical engineering. As an Air Force ROTC scholarship recipient, I knew I was going to become an Air Force officer but soon realized that I didn’t necessarily want to be a chemical engineer in the Air Force,” says Touhill. “Because I passed all the mathematics, physics, and engineering courses, I ended up becoming a communications, electronics, and computer systems officer in the Air Force. I spent 30 years, one month and three days on active duty in the United States Air Force, eventually retiring as a brigadier general and having done many different types of jobs that were available to me within and even beyond my career field.” Related:Specifically, he was an operational commander at the squadron, group, and wing levels. For example, as a colonel, Touhill served as director of command, control, communications and computers (C4) for the United States Central Command Forces, then he was appointed chief information officer and director, communications and information at Air Mobility Command. Later, he served as commander, 81st Training Wing at Kessler Air Force Base where he was promoted to brigadier general and commanded over 12,500 personnel. After that, he served as the senior defense officer and US defense attaché at the US Embassy in Kuwait, before concluding his military career as the chief information officer and director, C4 systems at the US Transportation Command, one of 10 US combatant commands, where he and his team were awarded the NSA Rowlett Award for the best cybersecurity program in the government. While in the Air Force, Touhill received numerous awards and decorations including the Bronze Star medal and the Air Force Science and Engineering Award. He is the only three-time recipient of the USAF C4 Professionalism Award. Related:Greg Touhill“I got to serve at major combatant commands, work with coalition partners from many different countries and represented the US as part of a diplomatic mission to Kuwait for two years as the senior defense official at a time when America was withdrawing forces out of Iraq. I also led the negotiation of a new bilateral defense agreement with the Kuwaitis,” says Touhill. “Then I was recruited to continue my service and was asked to serve as the deputy assistant secretary of cybersecurity and communications at the Department of Homeland Security, where I ran the operations of what is now known as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. I was there at a pivotal moment because we were building up the capacity of that organization and setting the stage for it to become its own agency.” While at DHS, there were many noteworthy breaches including the infamous US Office of People Management (OPM) breach. Those events led to Obama’s visit to the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center.  “I got to brief the president on the state of cybersecurity, what we had seen with the OPM breach and some other deficiencies,” says Touhill. “I was on the federal CIO council as the cybersecurity advisor to that since I’d been a federal CIO before and I got to conclude my federal career by being the first United States government chief information security officer. From there, I pivoted to industry, but I also got to return to Carnegie Mellon as a faculty member at Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz College, where I've been teaching since January 2017.” Related:Touhill has been involved in three startups, two of which were successfully acquired. He also served on three Fortune 100 advisory boards and on the Information Systems Audit and Control Association board, eventually becoming its chair for a term during the seven years he served there. Touhill just celebrated his fourth year at CERT, which he considers the pinnacle of the cybersecurity profession and everything he’s done to date. “Over my career I've led teams that have done major software builds in the national security space. I've also been the guy who's pulled cables and set up routers, hubs and switches, and I've been a system administrator. I've done everything that I could do from the keyboard up all the way up to the White House,” says Touhill. “For 40 years, the Software Engineering Institute has been leading the world in secure by design, cybersecurity, software engineering, artificial intelligence and engineering, pioneering best practices, and figuring out how to make the world a safer more secure and trustworthy place. I’ve had a hand in the making of today’s modern military and government information technology environment, beginning as a 22-year-old lieutenant, and hope to inspire the next generation to do even better.” What ‘Success’ Means Many people would be satisfied with their careers as a brigadier general, a tech leader, the White House’s first anything, or working at CERT, let alone running it. Touhill has spent his entire career making the world a safer place, so it’s not surprising that he considers his greatest achievement saving lives. “In the Middle East and Iraq, convoys were being attacked with improvised explosive devices. There were also ‘direct fire’ attacks where people are firing weapons at you and indirect fire attacks where you could be in the line of fire,” says Touhill. “The convoys were using SINCGARS line-of-site walkie-talkies for communications that are most effective when the ground is flat, and Iraq is not flat. As a result, our troops were at risk of not having reliable communications while under attack. As my team brainstormed options to remedy the situation, one of my guys found some technology, about the size of an iPhone, that could covert a radio signal, which is basically a waveform, into a digital pulse I could put on a dedicated network to support the convoy missions.” For $11 million, Touhill and his team quickly architected, tested, and fielded the Radio over IP network (aka “Ripper Net”) that had a 99% reliability rate anywhere in Iraq. Better still, convoys could communicate over the network using any radios. That solution saved a minimum of six lives. In one case, the hospital doctor said if the patient had arrived five minutes later, he would have died. Sage Advice Anyone who has ever spent time in the military or in a military family knows that soldiers are very well disciplined, or they wash out. Other traits include being physically fit, mentally fit, and achieving balance in life, though that’s difficult to achieve in combat. Still, it’s a necessity. “I served three and a half years down range in combat operations. My experience taught me you could be doing 20-hour days for a year or two on end. If you haven’t built a good foundation of being disciplined and fit, it impacts your ability to maintain presence in times of stress, and CISOs work in stressful situations,” says Touhill. “Staying fit also fortifies you for the long haul, so you don’t get burned out as fast.” Another necessary skill is the ability to work well with others.  “Cybersecurity is an interdisciplinary practice. One of the great joys I have as CERT director is the wide range of experts in many different fields that include software engineers, computer engineers, computer scientists, data scientists, mathematicians and physicists,” says Touhill. “I have folks who have business degrees and others who have philosophy degrees. It's really a rich community of interests all coming together towards that common goal of making the world a safer, more secure and more trusted place in the cyber domain. We’re are kind of like the cyber neighborhood watch for the whole world.” He also says that money isn’t everything, having taken a pay cut to go from being an Air Force brigadier general to the deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security . “You’ll always do well if you pick the job that matters most. That’s what I did, and I’ve been rewarded every step,” says Touhill.  The biggest challenge he sees is the complexity of cyber systems and software, which can have second, third, and fourth order effects.  “Complexity raises the cost of the attack surface, increases the attack surface, raises the number of vulnerabilities and exploits human weaknesses,” says Touhill. “The No. 1 thing we need to be paying attention to is privacy when it comes to AI because AI can unearth and discover knowledge from data we already have. While it gives us greater insights at greater velocities, we need to be careful that we take precautions to better protect our privacy, civil rights and civil liberties.” 

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk had a very public spat this week. Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images 2025-06-07T19:13:48Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? President Donald Trump says he has no desire to repair his relationship with Elon Musk. He also said Musk would face "serious consequences" if he funds Democrats. Meanwhile, Musk deleted some of his most incendiary X posts on Saturday. It seems Elon Musk won't be President Donald Trump's "first buddy" again anytime soon.Trump told NBC News on Saturday that he has no plans to repair his relationship with Musk after it imploded this week. When asked if their relationship is done, Trump said, simply, "I would assume so, yeah."Trump said he doesn't intend to speak with Musk and said the tech billionaire was "disrespectful to the office of the President.""I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the President," Trump said.The epic and very public fallout began after Musk criticized Trump's tax bill, which the president calls his "One Big Beautiful Bill."During Thursday's dramatic exchange, which took place mostly on the social media networks each billionaire owns, Trump threatened to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies. Musk shot back that Trump was in the so-called "Epstein files" in a now-deleted post.In the NBC interview on Saturday, Trump warned Musk against funding Democratic candidates running against GOP members voting in favor of the bill, saying there will be "serious consequences.""If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that," Trump said. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that."Last month, Musk said he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns in the future. He spent hundreds of millions in support of Trump in 2024."If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it," Musk said at the Qatar Economic Forum last month. "I do not currently see a reason."Trump's remarks on Saturday came after Musk deleted some X posts from his account. He deleted the post referencing the Epstein files and a video he re-posted that appeared to show Trump partying with Epstein in the 1990s. Musk also deleted an X post in which he called a Trump comment an "obvious lie" and another post saying SpaceX would decommission its Dragon spacecraft "immediately."White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Business Insider that passing the tax bill is the president's priority."President Trump and the entire Administration will continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government on behalf of taxpayers, and the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission," Leavitt said in a statement.Representatives for Musk did not respond to a request for comment from BI.The repercussions from Musk and Trump's dispute were swift, affecting the price of Tesla stock and Dogecoin. A senior White House official told BI that Trump is now considering selling his Tesla.On Saturday, Vice President JD Vance said it was a "huge mistake" for Musk to "go after the president" during the newest episode of "This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von.""I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying," Vance said. "I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man, I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — that's Elon — to be at this war with the world's most powerful man."During the interview, Vance said he thinks everything will be fine between the pair if Musk "chills out a little bit.""Hopefully Elon figures it out and comes back into the fold," Vance said, adding that Trump had been a "little frustrated" with Musk's recent criticisms."But I think he's been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk, and I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine," Vance said.Musk responded to Vance's comment on X on Saturday, writing, simply, "Cool." Recommended video

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy JrTasos Katopodis/Getty One of the top vaccine experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, resigned on 4 June – a week after Robert F Kennedy Jr announced that covid-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for most children and pregnancies. The announcement set off several days of confusion around who will have access to covid-19 vaccines in the US going forward. In practice, there hasn’t been a drastic change to access, though there will probably be new obstacles for parents hoping to vaccinate their children. Still, Kennedy’s announcement signals a troubling circumvention of public health norms. “My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,” said Panagiotakopoulos in an email to colleagues obtained by Reuters. Panagiotakopoulos supported the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has advised the CDC on vaccine recommendations since 1964. But last week, Kennedy – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – upended this decades-long precedent. “I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the covid vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant woman has been removed from the CDC recommended immunisation schedule,” he said in a video posted to the social media platform X on 27 May. Despite his directive, the CDC has, so far, only made minor changes to its guidance on covid-19 vaccines. Instead of recommending them for children outright, it now recommends vaccination “based on shared clinical decision-making”. In other words, parents should talk with a doctor before deciding. It isn’t clear how this will affect access to these vaccines in every scenario, but it could make it more difficult for children to get a shot at pharmacies. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter The CDC’s guidance on vaccination in pregnancy is also ambiguous. While its website still recommends a covid-19 shot during pregnancy, a note at the top says, “this page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule.” Kennedy’s announcement contradicts the stances of major public health organisations, too. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) have come out opposing it. “The CDC and HHS encourage individuals to talk with their healthcare provider about any personal medical decision,” an HHS spokesperson told New Scientist. “Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship.” However, Linda Eckert at the University of Washington in Seattle says the conflicting messages are confusing for people. “It opens up disinformation opportunities. It undermines confidence in vaccination in general,” she says. “I can’t imagine it won’t decrease immunisation rates overall.” Research has repeatedly shown covid-19 vaccination in adolescence and pregnancy is safe and effective. In fact, Martin Makary, the head of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), listed pregnancy as a risk factor for severe covid-19 a week before Kennedy’s announcement, further convoluting the government’s public health messaging. Kennedy’s announcement is in line with some other countries’ covid policies. For example, Australia and the UK don’t recommend covid-19 vaccines for children unless they are at risk of severe illness. They also don’t recommend covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy if someone is already vaccinated. Asma Khalil, a member of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says the UK’s decision was based on the reduced risk of the omicron variant, the cost-effectiveness of vaccination and high population immunity. However, these factors can vary across countries. The UK population also tends to have better access to healthcare than the US, says Eckert. “These decisions need to carefully consider the risks and benefits relative to the national population,” says Khalil. The HHS didn’t answer New Scientist’s questions about whether a similar analysis guided Kennedy’s decision-making. What is maybe most troubling, however, is the precedent Kennedy’s announcement sets. The ACIP – an independent group of public health experts – was expected to vote on proposed changes to covid-19 vaccine recommendations later this month. But Kennedy’s decision has bypassed this process. “This style of decision-making – by individuals versus going through experts who are carefully vetted for conflicts of interest, who carefully look at the data – this has never happened in our country,” says Eckert. “We’re in uncharted territory.” She worries the move could pave the way for Kennedy to chip away at other vaccine recommendations. “I know there are a lot of vaccines he has been actively against in his career,” she says. Kennedy has previously blamed vaccines for autism and falsely claimed that the polio vaccine caused more deaths than it averted. “What it speaks to is the fact that [Kennedy] does not see value in these vaccines and is going to do everything he can to try and devalue them in the minds of the public and make them harder to receive,” says Amesh Adalja at Johns Hopkins University. Topics:

When Russian troops invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Russia’s datacentre sector was one of the fastest-growing segments of the country’s IT industry, with annual growth rates in the region of 10-12%. However, with the conflict resulting in the imposition of Western sanctions against Russia and an outflow of US-based tech companies from the country, including Apple and Microsoft, optimism about the sector’s potential for further growth soon disappeared. In early March 2025, it was reported that Google had disconnected from traffic exchange points and datacentres in Russia, leading to concerns about how this could negatively affect the speed of access to some Google services for Russian users. Initially, there was hope that domestic technology and datacentre providers might be able to plug the gaps left by the exodus of the US tech giants, but it seems they could not keep up with the hosting demands of Russia’s increasingly digital economy. Oleg Kim, director of the hardware systems department at Russian IT company Axoft, says the departure of foreign cloud providers and equipment manufacturers has led to a serious shortage of compute capacity in Russia. This is because the situation resulted in a sharp, initial increase in demand for domestic datacentres, but Russian providers simply did not have time to expand their capacities on the required scale, continues Kim. According to the estimates of Key Point, one of Russia’s largest datacentre networks, meeting Russia’s demand for datacentres will require facilities with a total capacity of 30,000 racks to be built each year over the next five years. On top of this, it has also become more costly to build datacentres in Russia. Estimates suggest that prior to 2022, the cost of a datacentre rack totalled 100,000 rubles ($1,200), but now exceeds 150,000 rubles. And analysts at Forbes Russia expect these figures will continue to grow, due to rising logistics costs and the impact the war is having on the availability of skilled labour in the construction sector. The impact of these challenges is being keenly felt by users, with several of the country’s large banks experiencing serious problems when finding suitable locations for their datacentres. Sberbank is among the firms affected, with its chairperson, German Gref, speaking out previously about how the bank is in need of a datacentre with at least 200MW of capacity, but would ideally need 300-400MW to address its compute requirements. Stanislav Bliznyuk, chairperson of T-Bank, says trying to build even two 50MW datacentres to meet its needs is proving problematic. “Finding locations where such capacity and adequate tariffs are available is a difficult task,” he said. Read more about datacentre developments North Lincolnshire Council has received a planning permission application for another large-scale datacentre development, in support of its bid to become an AI Growth Zone A proposal to build one of the biggest datacentres in Europe has been submitted to Hertsmere Borough Council, and already has the support of the technology secretary and local councillors. The UK government has unveiled its 50-point AI action plan, which commits to building sovereign artificial intelligence capabilities and accelerating AI datacentre developments – but questions remain about the viability of the plans. Despite this, T-Bank is establishing its own network of data processing centres – the first of which should open in early 2027, he confirmed in November 2024. Kirill Solyev, head of the engineering infrastructure department of the Softline Group of Companies, who specialise in IT, says many large Russian companies are resorting to building their own datacentres – because compute capacity is in such short supply. The situation is, however, complicated by the lack of suitable locations for datacentres in the largest cities of Russia – Moscow and St Petersburg. “For example, to build a datacentre with a capacity of 60MW, finding a suitable site can take up to three years,” says Solyev. “In Moscow, according to preliminary estimates, there are about 50MW of free capacity left, which is equivalent to 2-4 large commercial datacentres. “The capacity deficit only in the southern part of the Moscow region is predicted at 564MW by 2030, and up to 3.15GW by 2042.” As a result, datacentre operators and investors are now looking for suitable locations outside of Moscow and St Petersburg, and seeking to co-locate new datacentres in close proximity to renewable energy sources. And this will be important as demand for datacentre capacity in Russia is expected to increase, as it is in most of the rest of the world, due to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and services. The energy-intensive nature of AI workloads will put further pressure on operators that are already struggling to meet the compute capacity demands of their customers. Speaking at the recent Ural Forum on cyber security in finance, Alexander Kraynov, director of AI technology development at Yandex, says solving the energy consumption issue of AI datacentres will not be easy. “The world is running out of electricity, including for AI, while the same situation is observed in Russia,” he said. “In order to ensure a stable energy supply of a newly built large datacentre, we will need up to one year.” According to a recent report of the Russian Vedomosti business paper, as of April 2024, Russian datacentres have used about 2.6GW, which is equivalent to about 1% of the installed capacity of the Unified Energy System of Russia. Accommodating AI workloads will also mean operators will need to purchase additional equipment, including expensive accelerators based on graphic processing units and higher-performing data storage systems. The implementation of these plans and the viability of these purchases is likely to be seriously complicated by the current sanctions regime against Russia. That said, Russia’s prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, claims this part of the datacentre supply equation is being partially solved by an uptick in the domestic production of datacentre kit. According to the Mishustin, more than half of the server equipment and industrial storage and information processing systems needed for datacentres are already being produced in Russia – and these figures will continue to grow. The government also plans to provide additional financial support to the industry, as – to date – building datacentres in Russia has been prevented by relatively long payback periods, of up to 10 years in some cases, of such projects. One of the possible support measures on offer could include the subsidisation of at least part of the interest rates on loans to datacentre developers and operators. At the same time, though, the government’s actions in other areas have made it harder for operators to build new facilities. For example, in March 2025, the Russian government significantly tightened the existing norms for the establishment of new datacentres in the form of new rules for the design of data processing centres, which came into force after the approval by the Russian Ministry of Construction. According to Nikita Tsaplin, CEO of Russian hosting provider RUVDS, the rules led to additional bureaucracy in the sector (due to the positioning of datacentres as typical construction objects). And, according to his predictions, that situation can extend the construction cycle of a datacentre from around five years to seven years. The government’s intervention here was to prevent the installation of servers in residential areas, such as garages, but it looks set to complicate an already complex situation – prompting questions about whether Russia’s datacentre market will ever reach its full potential.

June 5, 20254 min readThe Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space ProgramsA vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programsBy Lee Billings edited by Dean VisserElon Musk (left) and President Donald Trump (right) seemed to be on good terms during a press briefing in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, but the event proved to be the calm before a social media storm. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFor several hours yesterday, an explosively escalating social media confrontation between arguably the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and the world’s most powerful, President Donald Trump, shook U.S. spaceflight to its core.The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk’s fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump’s nomination of Musk’s close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as “a disgusting abomination.”Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump—without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president’s threat, SpaceX “will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: “Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”)Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It’s the main way NASA’s astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing’s glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency’s plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency’s Artemis III mission.Trump’s and Musk’s retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX’s constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile-defense plan.Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump’s influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an “illegal alien” who “should be deported from the country immediately.”NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency’s press secretary Bethany Stevens: “NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space,” Stevens wrote. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.”The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk’s electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5’s trading day: Tesla’s share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value.Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla’s stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won’t be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being.Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation’s deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.

Congress loves SLS Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science Gateway is back, baby. Eric Berger – Jun 5, 2025 7:55 pm | 77 Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Negotiations over the US federal budget for fiscal year 2026 are in the beginning stages, but when it comes to space, the fault lines are already solidifying in the Senate. The Trump White House released its budget request last Friday, and this included detailed information about its plans for NASA. On Thursday, just days later, the US Senate shot back with its own budget priorities for the space agency. The US budget process is complicated and somewhat broken in recent years, as Congress has failed to pass a budget on time. So, we are probably at least several months away from seeing a final fiscal year 2026 budget from Congress. But we got our first glimpse of the Senate's thinking when the chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released his "legislative directives" for NASA on Thursday These specific directives concern "reconciliation" for the current budget year, which are supplemental appropriations for NASA and other federal agencies under the purview of Cruz's committee. And this committee does not actually write the budget; that's left to appropriations committees in the House and Senate. Senate space priorities However, Cruz is one of the most important voices in the US Senate on space policy, and the directives released Thursday indicate where he intends to line up on NASA during the upcoming budget fights. Here is how his budget ideas align with the White House priorities in three key areas: Science: The Trump White House budget sought to significantly cut the space agency's science budget, from $7.33 billion to $3.91 billion, including the cancellation of some major missions. Cruz makes no comment on most of the science budget, but in calling for a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, he is signaling support for a Mars Sample Return Mission. Lunar Gateway: The Trump administration called for the cancellation of a small space station to be built in an elongated lunar orbit. There is very uneven support for this in the space community, but it is being led at Johnson Space Center, in Cruz's home state. Cruz says Congress should "fully fund" the Gateway as "critical" infrastructure. Space Launch System and Orion: The Trump administration sought to cancel the large expensive rocket and spacecraft after Artemis III, the first lunar landing. Cruz calls for additional funding for at least Artemis IV and Artemis V. This legislation, the committee said in a messaging document, "Dedicates almost $10 billion to win the new space race with China and ensure America dominates space. Makes targeted, critical investments in Mars-forward technology, Artemis Missions and Moon to Mars program, and the International Space Station." The reality is that it signals that Republicans in the US Senate are not particularly interested in sending humans to Mars, probably are OK with the majority of cuts to science programs at NASA, and want to keep the status quo on Artemis, including the Space Launch System rocket. Where things go from here It is difficult to forecast where US space policy will go from here. The very public breakup between President Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday significantly complicates the equation. At one point, Trump and Musk were both championing sending humans to Mars, but Musk is gone from the administration, and Trump may abandon that idea due to their rift. For what it's worth, a political appointee in NASA Communications said on Thursday that the president's vision for space—Trump spoke of landing humans on Mars frequently during his campaign speeches—will continue to be implemented. "NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space," NASA's press secretary, Bethany Stevens, said on X. "We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met." Congress, it seems, may be heading in a different direction. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 77 Comments