Category: department of war
How the military is computing the killing chain
In 2025, the nomenclature caught up with the reality. For decades, the United States had operated under the fiction of a Department of Defense, a name that suggested protection, reaction, and a reluctance to engage. When Secretary Pete Hegseth signed the memoranda that would redefine the American military for the algorithmic age, the letterhead had changed. It was the Department of War again.
The revival of the old title was not merely cosmetic. It was an unapologetic signal, a shift from a defensive posture to a mission-focused one. Then between late 2025 and early 2026, Hegseth released a flurry of new memos announcing that the United States intended to become an “AI-first” war-fighting force. The language was clipped, urgent, and devoid of the hand-wringing that usually accompanies the introduction of new lethal means. The department now treats AI not as a support tool but as a core element of warfare, intelligence, and organizational power.
There is a simulation engine that alludes without irony to Orson Scott Card’s novel about child soldiers fighting insectoid aliens.
Reading through these documents, one is struck by the anxiety of the “algorithm gap,” which echoes the “missile gap” of the Cold War, with the stakes shifted from megatonnage to processing speed. The prevailing sentiment is that falling behind an adversary’s AI capabilities would be as catastrophic as falling behind in nuclear weapons. The Department of War does not intend to be a laggard. “Speed and adaptation win,” one memo states.
To achieve this speed, the Department has declared war on its own bureaucracy. The memos speak of a “wartime approach” to innovation, dismantling the risk-averse culture that has defined Pentagon procurement for half a century. The endless committees and boards have been dissolved, replaced with a “CTO Action Group” empowered to make quick calls. The ethos is that of Silicon Valley, grafting Mark Zuckerberg’s call to “move fast and break things” onto an institution whose business is to break things in a more literal sense.
The specific initiatives, what the Department calls “Pace-Setting Projects,” read like the chapter titles of a science-fiction novel. There is “Swarm Forge,” a project designed to pair elite war-fighters with technologists to experiment with drone swarms. There is “Ender’s Foundry,” a simulation engine meant to war-game against AI adversaries, a name that alludes without irony to Orson Scott Card’s novel about child soldiers fighting insectoid aliens. There is “Open Arsenal,” which promises to turn intelligence into weapons in hours rather than years.
Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images
What is being built here is “civil-military fusion,” a concept the Chinese have long championed and which the United States is now adopting with a convert’s zeal. The Department is actively courting the private sector, mentioning commercial AI models such as Google’s Gemini and xAI’s Grok. It is bringing in tech executives to run the show, with a new chief technology officer empowered to clear bureaucratic blockers.
The transformation is not limited to the battlefield but permeates the “enterprise,” a sterile word for the three million personnel who make up the Department’s nervous system. The vision is total: Under a program called GenAI.mil, every analyst, logistician, and staff officer will be issued a secure AI assistant to draft reports and code software. The goal is to embed AI systems across war-fighting, intelligence, and support functions until the distinction between soldier and data processor dissolves. The focus is on “decision superiority,” out-thinking the opponent at every turn.
The drive for decision superiority leads to a profound shift in the role of human judgment. The memos describe “Agent Network,” a project to develop AI agents for battle management “from campaign planning to kill chain execution.” They speak of “interpretable results,” a concession to the idea that humans should know why the machine decided to fire. The momentum is toward “human on the loop,” in which a human may abort an attack, rather than “human in the loop,” in which the human must initiate it. We are entering an era of “hyper-war,” in which AI systems could escalate a conflict in seconds, before a human commander can pour a cup of coffee.
The Department is betting that American ingenuity, harnessed in code, will secure the future, that it can maintain “America’s global AI dominance” through force of will and capital. The memos outline a future in which algorithms join soldiers on the battlefield, data platforms become as crucial as tanks, and decisions are increasingly informed by machines. It is a grand experiment in efficiency. We have decided that if warfare is now a battle of algorithms, we intend to algorithmically outgun the world. The name on the building has changed to reflect the reality: We are no longer defending. We are computing the kill.
War Department Breaks Down Just How Much Money Biden Admin Telework Policy Wasted
‘Showing up is half the battle’
‘Never Relent’: Trump Admin Strikes ISIS Targets In Syria
‘Never Relent’: Trump Admin Strikes ISIS Targets In Syria
‘Reckless and seditious’: Hegseth issues brutal demotion of Democrat senator over ‘illegal orders’ video
The Department of War is ramping up its efforts to punish Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over his involvement in what President Donald Trump and his administration have described as a “seditious” video.
At Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s direction, the department is set to cut Kelly’s military retirement pay for an alleged “pattern of reckless misconduct,” namely the video of Democrat lawmakers calling for servicemen to disobey “illegal orders” from the president. The DOW also issued a letter of censure to Kelly, which “outlines the totality of Captain (for now) Kelly’s reckless misconduct.”
‘Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability.’
“Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline,” Hegseth said in a post on X. “As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice.”
“And the Department of War — and the American people — expect justice.”
RELATED: ‘Ridiculous charade’: Bill O’Reilly torches Democrat senator over ‘seditious’ political stunt
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Hegseth justified the response by arguing that Kelly’s prominence as a senator does not give him special privileges, citing specific articles Kelly may have violated.
“Captain Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action,” Hegseth said. “These actions are based on Captain Kelly’s public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders.”
“This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay.”
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Kelly fired back at Hegseth, calling him unqualified and accusing him of targeting lawmakers for simply opposing the administration.
“Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution – including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out,” Kelly said in a post on X. “I never expected that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would attack me for doing exactly that.”
“Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way,” Kelly added. “It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Here’s What Trump Means By Calling For ‘Peace Through Strength’
Peace through strength, defined by ‘hard-nosed realism’ over the ‘utopian idealism’ of a bygone era, is poised to yield both a popular and durable American defense policy.
Schumer and Hegseth’s Second Drug Boat Strike
Well, isn’t this interesting? The Democrats’ Senate Leader, New York’s Chuck Schumer, is giving grief to Secretary of War Pete…
Hegseth: ‘The War Department Will Not Be Distracted By Regime Change’
Hegseth outlined four top objectives for the National Defense Strategy, saying the ‘so-called bipartisan consensus…is really just a euphemism for disastrous foreign policy.’
Hegseth War Crimes Charge By Dems: What About Obama?
Talk about the law of unintended consequences. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is being targeted as follows by Democrats. Here’s…
Turns out that Hegseth’s ‘kill them all’ line was another media invention
Under his authority as commander in chief, the president can blow up pretty much anybody on Earth whom he deems a national security threat. He does not need permission from Congress, the media, or a panel of self-appointed commentators. The missile strikes on drug-running vessels operated by a designated terrorist group are lawful, routine, and predictable. What made the episode explosive was that it enraged exactly the faction that always reacts this way: the political left.
Impeachment is the only real consequence available to the administration’s critics, and after two failed efforts, that prospect does not keep President Trump awake at night. Republican control of the House makes even a symbolic attempt unlikely.
It is time to put a moratorium on the online laws-of-armed-conflict ‘experts’ who materialize whenever a strike hits a target they sympathize with.
So the disloyal opposition defaults to its remaining weapon: information warfare. Media outlets, activist networks, and hostile bureaucrats have been carpet-bombing the information space with false claims designed to sow dissension among the ranks and mislead the public.
The country needs a president who can act decisively in defense of national security, without media gatekeepers, rogue judges, or partisan lawmakers running armchair military campaigns from the sidelines. The “Seditious Six” tried to undermine the president’s authority and cast doubt on lawful orders. The Washington Post attempted to turn that fiction into fact by quoting anonymous sources with unverifiable claims.
The central allegation is that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody” on the vessel. The Post framed it this way: “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. ‘The order was to kill everybody.’”
The headline amplified the accusation: “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all.”
A “spoken directive” means no record. The quote is a paraphrase. Nothing indicates that the source actually heard the Hegseth say those words. This is an anonymous, secondhand characterization of an alleged statement — precisely the sort of raw material the Post loves to inflate into scandal.
Even if the words had been spoken, the context would determine legality. If a commander asks, “How big a bomb do we drop on the enemy location?” and the answer is, “Use one big enough to kill everybody,” that exchange would not be criminal. It is a description of the force required to neutralize a hostile asset.
If these anonymous sources truly believed the secretary issued an illegal order, they were obligated to report it through the chain of command. Their silence speaks louder than any paraphrase. The most plausible explanation is that someone misunderstood — or deliberately distorted — an aggressive statement by Hegseth and nothing more.
The United States targets terrorists. The implication behind the Post’s story is that survivors remained after the first strike and that either the secretary or JSOC ordered a second engagement to kill them. No evidence supports that claim. No one outside the direct participants knows what the surveillance picture showed or what tactical conditions existed immediately after the first blast.
RELATED: White House names names in new ‘media bias tracker’ in wake of ‘seditious’ Democrat video
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump stated publicly that Hegseth told him no order was given to kill survivors. The fact that U.S. forces recovered two survivors from the submersible drug vessel undercuts the Post’s narrative even more. Pete Hegseth is far more credible than Alex Horton and the newsroom that elevated this rumor.
It is time to put a moratorium on the online laws-of-armed-conflict “experts” who materialize whenever a strike hits a target they sympathize with. They insist that the presence of wounded combatants instantly transforms a hostile platform into a protected site and that destroying the vessel itself becomes a war crime. Even the New York Times — no friend of the administration — punctured that claim:
According to five U.S. officials … Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile failed to accomplish all of those things … and his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.
The mobs demanding Hegseth’s scalp will be disappointed. The voters who supported this administration expected firm action against terrorist cartels and open-ocean drug networks. Another hostile vessel was reduced to an oil slick, and most Americans see that as a success.
