this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
283 points (99.3% liked)

politics

29266 readers
2248 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The defense secretary’s efforts to block or delay promotions to general or admiral for some officers has raised concerns that he may be targeting them because of race, gender or affiliation with the Biden administration, sources say.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has taken steps to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers across all four branches of the military, some of whom are seen as having been targeted because of their race, gender or perceived affiliation with Biden administration policies or officials, according to nine U.S. officials familiar with the process.

The process within the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines is structured to ensure the most qualified officers get promoted.

Hegseth’s decision to intervene in the process has raised concerns among some officials within those military branches and the White House, the nine U.S. officials familiar with the situation said.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

To be clear. this is fascism leveling up. This will lead to an escalation of war crimes and an escalation of state sponsored terrorism against civilians in the United States

[–] KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

A) they won't obey illegal orders. B) if he gives them raises he won't be able to afford his next month's 10 million dollar lobster and prime rib lunches. C) he's a fucking asshat with no business holding a rifle much less sending Americans to their deaths.

[–] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 69 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

“Raised concerns.”

Just report it for what it is instead of feigning concern, you compromised friggin’ journalists.

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 26 points 17 hours ago

It's the most infuriating thing. Cowardice in the name of "neutrality". Spoon raises concerns it may be a spoon.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago

Yup, makes them just as complicit as this asshat interfering.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Once again showing that the armchair experts on social media know literally nothing about the law.

Reporting it definitively as racism would leave the news source open for an extremely easy-to-lose case of libel in the middle of an extremely litigious administration surrounded by extremely right-wing judges.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Reporting it definitively as racism would leave the news source open for an extremely easy-to-lose case of libel

Nope.

First of all, the overly timid journalist mentions several probable reasons other than racism, some of which are MUCH easier to prove definitively than racism.

Second, it's not libel unless it's both untrue and intended to injure.

Third, the burden of proof would be on a prosecution likely appointed by the current administration and thus utterly incompetent.

Seems like YOU'RE the confidently wrong armchair expert here.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Don’t they like meritocracy?

Edit: oh wait, I spelt that wrong. It should have been “hypocrisy”.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

The word you’re looking for is idiocracy

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 25 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

The thing here is that Hegseth has no qualifications for the job he has.

PEDOnald supporters still be going on about "meritocracy", LOL.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Not so fun fact about Hegseth, he never washes his hands because he thinks it makes you weak. The man walks around with shit covered hands everywhere he goes.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

Oh, that is just nasty.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago

What do you mean, he has no qualifications? Haven't you seen those bad-ass Nationalist Christian tattoos?

He is a bona-fide, 100% qualified NatC....

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

Undoubtedly he is purging resistance to fascist ideology.

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago

Petey doesn’t want senior officers that are brown or women.

Petey needs to go to jail after he’s fired, this Iran clusterfuck is on him.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Well because he’s a meddling racist alcoholic douchebag.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I'm so excited to see in sitting in prison in about 4 years

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Hanging at the hauge would be better