The Dictatorship
After US foreign aid cuts, private donors gave more than $125M to keep programs going
NEW YORK (AP) — When the Trump administration froze foreign assistance overnight, urgent efforts began to figure out how to continue critical aid programs that could be funded by private donors.
Multiple groups launched fundraisers in February and eventually, these emergency funds mobilized more than $125 million within eight months, a sum that while not nearly enough, was more than the organizers had ever imagined possible.
In those early days, even with needs piling upwealthy donors and private foundations grappled with how to respond. Of the thousands of programs the U.S. funded abroad, which ones could be saved and which would have the biggest impact if they continued?
“We were fortunate enough to be in connection with and communication with some very strategic donors who understood quickly that the right answer for them was actually an answer for the field,” said Sasha Gallant, who led a team at the U.S. Agency for International Development that specialized in identifying programs that were both cost effective and impactful.
Working outside of business hours or after they’d been fired, members of Gallant’s team and employees of USAID’s chief economist’s office pulled together a list that eventually included 80 programs they recommended to private donors. In September, Project Resource Optimization, as their effort came to be called, announced all of the programs had been funded, with more than $110 million mobilized in charitable grants. Other emergency funds raised at least an additional $15 million.
Those funds are just the most visible that private donors mobilized in response to the unprecedented withdrawal of U.S. foreign aidwhich totaled $64 billion in 2023, the last year with comprehensive figures available. It’s possible private foundations and individual donors gave much more, but those gifts won’t be reported for many months.
For the Trump administration, the closure of USAID was a cause for celebration. In July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the agency had little to show for itself since the end of the Cold War.
“Development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown,” Rubio said in a statement.
Going forward, Rubio said the State Department will focus on providing trade and investment, not aid, and will negotiate agreements directly with countries, minimizing the involvement of nonprofits and contractors.
Some new donors were motivated by the emergency
Some private donations came from foundations, who decided to grant out more this year than they had planned and were willing to do so because they trusted PRO’s analysis, Gallant said. For example, the grantmaker GiveWell said it gave out $34 million to directly respond to the aid cuts, including $1.9 million to a program recommended by PRO.
Annie, right, and her husband Jacob Ma-Weaver are photographed in San Francisco, Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
Annie, right, and her husband Jacob Ma-Weaver are photographed in San Francisco, Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
Others were new donors, like Jacob and Annie Ma-Weaver, a San Francisco-based couple in their late-thirties who, through their work at a hedge fund and a major tech company respectively, had earned enough that they planned to eventually give away significant sums. Jacob Ma-Weaver said the U.S. aid cuts caused needless deaths and were shocking, but he also saw in the moment a chance to make a big difference.
“It was an opportunity for us and one that I think motivated us to accelerate our lifetime giving plans, which were very vague and amorphous, into something tangible that we could do right now,” he said.
The Ma-Weavers gave more than $1 million to projects selected by PRO and decided to speak publicly about their giving to encourage others to join them.
“It’s actually very uncomfortable in our society —maybe it shouldn’t be — to tell the world that you’re giving away money,” Jacob Ma-Weaver said. “There’s almost this embarrassment of riches about it, quite literally.”
Private donors could not support whole USAID programs
The funds that PRO mobilized did not backfill USAID’s grants dollar for dollar. Instead, PRO’s team worked with the implementing organizations to pare down their budgets to only the most essential parts of the most impactful projects.
For example, Helen Keller Intl ran multiple USAID-funded programs providing nutrition and treatment for neglected tropical diseases. All of those programs were eventually terminated, taking away almost a third of Helen Keller’s overall revenue.
Shawn Baker, an executive vice president at Helen Keller, said as soon as it became clear that the U.S. funding was not coming back, they started to triage their programming. When PRO contacted them, he said they were able to provide a much smaller budget for private funders. Instead of the $7 million annual budget for a nutrition program in Nigeria, they proposed $1.5 million to keep it running.
Another nonprofit, Village Enterprise, received $1.3 million through PRO to continue an antipoverty program in Rwanda that helps people start small businesses. But they were also able to raise $2 million from their own donors through a special fundraising appeal and drew on an unrestricted $7 million gift from billionaire and author MacKenzie Scott that they’d received in 2023. The flexible funding allowed them to sustain their most essential programming during what CEO Dianne Calvi called seven months of uncertainty.
That many organizations managed to hold on and keep programs running, even after significant funding cuts, was a surprise to the researchers at PRO. Since February, the small staff supporting PRO have extended their commitment to the project one month at a time, expecting that either donations would dry up or projects would no longer be viable.
“That time that we were able to buy has been absolutely invaluable in our ability to reach more people who are interested in stepping in,” said Rob Rosenbaum, the team lead at PRO and a former USAID employee. He said they have taken a lot of pride in mobilizing donors who have not previously given to these causes.
“To be able to convince somebody who might otherwise not spend this money at all or sit on it to move it into this field right now, that is the most important dollar that we can move,” he said.
Other donors may wait to see what is next
Dean Karlan, former USAID chief economist, poses at his home, Friday, Sept. 19, 2025, in Evanston, Ill. (AP Photo/Matt Marton)
Dean Karlan, former USAID chief economist, poses at his home, Friday, Sept. 19, 2025, in Evanston, Ill. (AP Photo/Matt Marton)
Not all private donors were eager to jump into the chasm created by the U.S. foreign aid cuts, which happened without any “rhyme or reason,” said Dean Karlan, the chief economist at USAID when the Trump administration took over in January.
Despite the extraordinary mobilization of resources by some private funders, Karlan said, “You have to realize there’s also a fair amount of reluctance, rightly so, to clean up a mess that creates a moral hazard problem.”
The uncertainty about what the U.S. will fund going forward is likely to continue for some time. The emergency funds offered a short term response from interested private funders, many of whom are now trying to support the development of whatever comes next.
For Karlan, who is now a professor of economics at Northwestern University, it is painful to see the consequences of the aid cuts on recipient populations. He also resents the attacks on the motivations of aid workers in general.
Nonetheless, he said many in the field want to see the administration rebuild a system that is efficient and targeted. But Karlan said, he hasn’t yet seen any steps, “that give us a glimpse of how serious they’re going to be in terms of actually spending money effectively.”
Smaller donors also responded
Other emergency funds used a different approach than Project Resource Optimization to respond to frozen foreign assistance.
The group, Unlock Aid, which advocated for major reforms to the U.S. Agency for International Development before the cuts, l aunched their Foreign Aid Bridge Fund in mid-February and closed it at the end of April after raising $2 million from 400 donors and foundations. Their fund accepted applications while prioritizing frontline groups that had diverse revenue sources. They closed the fund after donations slowed and it became clear that the U.S. funding freeze would become a funding cut.
Two other groups, Founders Pledge and The Life You Can Save, launched a joint Rapid Response Fund that raised $13 million. Their fund did not accept applications but worked closely with PRO to fund some of the programs they had identified. PRO also directed smaller donors to give through the Rapid Response Fund, which had the infrastructure to take both small and large gifts. In all, 1,300 individuals gave to the Rapid Response Fund, the groups said.
Katrina Sill, the global health and development lead at Founders Pledge, said most of the 13 grants the fund made went to programs that benefit children.
“This is a time to not forget [that] a very small amount of money can make an enormous impact,” she said.
____
Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.
The Dictatorship
Suburbanites embrace anti-Trump resistance: ‘This is our fight’…
MONTCLAIR, N.J. (AP) — A few years ago, Allison Posner was barely involved in politics.
Now the 42-year-old mother of two from Maplewood, New Jersey, hands out food and diapers to immigrant families outside a nearby detention facility. She waves signs on a highway overpass between school pickups and orthodontist appointments. And this weekend, she’ll lead a No Kings protest march across this affluent town alongside her husband, her children and thousands of others who are convinced President Donald Trump represents a direct threat to American democracy.
“The people in the suburbs are definitely radicalizing,” said Posner, a freelance actor.
A growing faction of concerned citizens living in suburban communities across the United States — places once known for political moderation or even conservatism — are increasingly positioned on the front lines of the anti-Trump resistance. More than a year into the Republican president’s second term, the soccer moms are becoming bona fide activists taking to their well-manicured streets to fight Trump and his allies.
The leftward lurch could cost Republicans control of Congress for the president’s final two years in office. It could also reshape the Democratic Party by elevating a fresh crop of fiery progressive candidates emboldened to push back against the Trump administration more aggressively than the establishment may prefer.
Indivisible, the activist organization spearheading the third round of No Kings protests this weekend, said roughly two-thirds of more than 3,000 planned demonstrations will be held outside urban areas. Overall, more than 9 million people are expected to turn out nationwide for what leaders predict will be the largest day of protesting in U.S. history.
“We’re going to be everywhere,” Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin said.
Organizers said sign-ups have been especially enthusiastic in suburban areas with high-profile congressional races like Scottsdale, Arizona; Langhorne, Pennsylvania; East Cobb, Georgia; and here in northern New Jersey’s 11th District, which holds a special election April 16.
Democratic voters last month chose Analilia Mejia, a former political director for Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, as their candidate to replace Mikie Sherrill, the more moderate Democrat who was recently elected as New Jersey’s governor.
Posner said she’s excited to have a fighter represent her district, someone who can channel the outrage she sees every day.
“I’m seeing people from the PTA or the neighborhood who would have never joined a protest in the past, who are now asking how they can get involved,” Posner said. “This is not some other people’s fight. This is our fight.”
‘Our hair is on fire’
For decades, affluent suburbs like those in northern New Jersey helped elect Republicans who fit the districts they represented: business-oriented, culturally moderate and disinterested in ideological fights.
That began to change in the Trump era.
Across the country, college-educated suburban voters recoiled from Trump’s brand of politics. They shifted sharply toward Democrats in the 2018 midterms and in the presidential elections that followed. Districts like New Jersey’s 11th, once a Republican stronghold, have since become part of a new liberal coalition rooted in places that were, until very recently, politically competitive.
Even in Summit, New Jersey, one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs, Jeff Naiman feels as if he’s living in an “authoritarian nightmare” of Trump’s making.
“It’s like our hair is on fire,” says Naiman, a 59-year-old radiologist who leads his local chapter of Indivisible. “Our country’s being torn apart.”
He’s supporting Mejia, and he has no doubt she’ll win next month’s special election — and again in November’s general election.
“In this environment,” Naiman said, “I think the chances of her losing the general election are basically zero.”
Mejia, an outspoken progressive activist endorsed by Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., emerged from the crowded Democratic primary last month, beating more moderate candidates like former congressman Tom Malinowski.
She’s critical of Israel’s war in Gazacalls for the abolition of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and backs Medicare for All. She’s also eager to raise concerns about what she describes as Trump’s dictatorial tendencies and will be one of the featured speakers at a No Kings protest this weekend.
“A ZIP code does not protect anyone from rising violent authoritarianism,” she said in an interview.
Mejia still describes herself as a soccer mom, even as her Republican critics accuse her of trying to soften her activist image ahead of Election Day.
“My youngest plays baseball and soccer, my oldest lacrosse and basketball,” she said. “And when I take my children to activities, to games, and I speak to other parents, I know that we’re all experiencing this economy and this political moment very similarly.”
Mejia defended herself against accusations of antisemitism for her position on Israel, which she accused of committing genocide in the war in Gaza, a topic that emerged as a key issue in the race.
“When I say Palestinians have rights, like Jewish people and Israelis have rights, that is not antisemitism, that is humanism,” she said while acknowledging there is antisemitism within the Republican and Democratic parties. “I am an Afro Latina raising two Black sons in America. I know othering kills. I know how dangerous it is when we dehumanize communities.”
A Republican balancing act
New Jersey’s 11th District was represented by a Republican until Sherrill was elected during the 2018 midterm elections that served as a harsh verdict at the halfway mark of Trump’s first term.
Joe Hathaway, the Republican nominee in next month’s special election and a town councilman from Randolph Township, hopes to convince voters that Mejia is too radical for them. Republican strategists in Washington, too, believe a surge of far-left Democratic candidates nationwide like Mejia in otherwise moderate districts might help their party maintain its razor-thin House majority this fall.
Yet suburban Republicans are facing serious political headwinds from the leader of their own party in the White House. Hathaway, for example, initially declined to say whether he voted for Trump.
“I don’t think it’s important,” he said in an interview, before acknowledging that he cast his ballot for the president three times. “This job is representing the district. NJ-11 comes first, before a president, before your party.”
Hathaway backs the president’s war in Iran and many of the economic policies in Trump’s big tax and spending cuts bill. But he was also quick to highlight areas of disagreement.
The Republican said he supports most of the Democrats’ demands in the Department of Homeland Security shutdown fightincluding proposals to require federal immigration agents to wear body cameras, clearly identify themselves, take off face masks and receive better training.
He also wants Republicans who lead Congress to stand up to Trump, whose use of executive authority Hathaway said is “pressure testing” the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.
“Congress needs to reassert that it is the first branch of government and take more of a leadership role than it’s been doing,” he said.
Inside the suburban shift
Suburban Americans have been slowly moving away from the Republicans over the past 15 years, according to Gallup polling that tracks party affiliation over time.
Trump was unable to stop the shift despite warnings that Democrats would “destroy” the suburbs with low-income housing.
In 2020, Democrat Joe Biden won 54% of voters who said they lived in the suburbs while Trump won only 44%, according to AP VoteCast. That was a substantial improvement on Democrat Hillary Clinton’s performance in a smaller survey of validated 2016 voters conducted by the Pew Research Center, which found that Clinton and Trump split the group about evenly.
The suburbs have also grown more diverse and educated over the past few decades, demographic shifts that may make Democrats more confident. In both of the past two presidential elections, AP VoteCast found that college-educated and non-white suburban voters were much likelier to support the Democratic candidate.
Naiman, the Summit radiologist, said he’s witnessed a transformation in his town, which was represented by Republicans at the state and federal level for decades until Trump took over.
“I don’t think that Summit is going to be swinging towards Republicans anytime soon — at least not as long as Trumpism is around,” he said.
___
This story has been corrected to show the special election in New Jersey’s 11th District is on April 16, not April 7.
___
Associated Press polling editor Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed.
The Dictatorship
Prolonged war in Iran could test Republicans’ loyalty to Trump: poll
It’s costing more and more to gas up the hot rods that Donnie Beson has spent a lifetime tinkering with. He’s not questioning his support for President Donald Trump, but he feels as though the war in Iran has distracted the Republican president from the issues that got him elected.
“Come on, Trump. Worry about us,” said Beson, 68, of Woodland Park, Colorado. “We’re in a billion-dollar-a-day war. It’s like, ‘Man, you forgot about the other stuff, and you got to take care of that first.’”
Trump still has deep support among Republicans, but a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that the president risks frustrating his voters during a midterm election year if the United States gets involved in the kind of prolonged war in the Middle East that he promised to avoid.
Although 63% of Republicans back airstrikes against Iranian military targets, the survey found, only 20% back deploying American ground troops.
Rising gas prices could also pose a problem for Trump. The cost of oil and gas has soared since the Iran war began nearly four weeks ago, adding more financial pressure when many Americans are already worried about affording essentials. About 6 in 10 Republicans say they’re at least “somewhat” concerned about being able to afford gas in the next few months, according to the poll, though they’re less worried than the rest of the country.
Trust in Trump remains high among Republicans
About three-quarters of Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of the presidencyand a similar 70% approve of how he’s handling Iran.
Those ratings are in line with Republicans’ support for Trump’s foreign policy generally and his approach to Cuba, where he’s recently ratcheted up pressure to change the island’s leadership.
Many Republicans continue to have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of trust in the president to make the right decisions on foreign issues. About half place a high level of trust in him when it comes to the use of military force outside the U.S. Roughly the same percentage of Republicans have a high level of trust on his dealings with adversaries and allies.
This partially redacted image from video provided by U.S. Central Command shows a military aircraft in Iran shortly before it was struck by a missile fired by U.S. forces on Sunday, March 1, 2026. (U.S. Central Command via AP)
This partially redacted image from video provided by U.S. Central Command shows a military aircraft in Iran shortly before it was struck by a missile fired by U.S. forces on Sunday, March 1, 2026. (U.S. Central Command via AP)
Sharon Fuller, 68, is a firm backer of the president and approves of his handling of the job, as well as the war in Iran.
A retired hospital analyst from Ocklawaha, Florida, Fuller expressed some reservations about the war but called Trump a “huge patriot” and said she’s been impressed with how the stock market has done since he became president again.
“I don’t really agree with the war, but on the other hand, I think it’s a necessity at this point,” she said.
Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.
Republicans stand out from Americans overall in their support for the war. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that about 8 in 10 registered voters who are Republicans think the war with Iran will make the world “safer,” compared with about one-third of voters overall.
Further entanglement in Iran could frustrate Trump’s supporters
The vast majority of Republicans in the AP-NORC poll, 81%, say it’s “extremely” or “very” important for the U.S. to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, lending support to one of the goals that Trump has articulated since the war began. But only about half of Republicans see replacing Iran’s government with leaders who are more friendly to the U.S. as a high priority.
Stephen Hauss, 40, is a state Agriculture Department employee in Camden, Delaware, where he manages environmental programs. Hauss described his political views as libertarian-leaning, and he voted for Trump in 2024. But the start of the Iran war has changed his views about the president.
“Before the war I was just kind of like, ‘OK, like, I voted for him. I got to give him, like, some benefit of the doubt,’” he said.
Now, Hauss said he can’t support the U.S. trying to change the leadership of another country. He added, “I don’t think I am on board with this anymore.”
President Donald Trump speaks at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s (NRCC) annual fundraising dinner, Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at Union Station in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump speaks at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s (NRCC) annual fundraising dinner, Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at Union Station in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Other efforts to get the U.S. more involved in Iran could complicate matters further for Trump. Only about 2 in 10 Republicans favor deploying U.S. ground troops to fight Iran, while about one-third don’t have an opinion and about half are opposed.
Thomas Sweeney, 76, is a retired chemical engineer from Frisco, Texas, who voted for Trump three times. An Army officer veteran, Sweeney said he can’t get behind the war, which has brought down his overall view of the president.
“I’m not happy. I am frustrated,” he said. “Soldiers are very, very precious. You just don’t go in there and waste lives.”
Gas prices causing unease among some in GOP
The rising cost of oil and gas is another vulnerability for Trump, even within his own party. About three-quarters of Republicans say it’s “extremely” or “very” important for U.S. foreign policy to keep gas prices down, which could increasingly be at odds with their support for the war.
About 3 in 10 Republican registered voters in the Quinnipiac University poll say the price of gasoline has been a “very” or “somewhat” serious problem for their family lately.
If high gas prices linger, they could create even more frustration for Trump supporters who hoped the president would bring down the cost of everyday goods.
Fuller, the Florida Republican, said there’s no chance she’d vote for Democrats, but she had a message for Trump.
“I’d like him to see what he can do to get prices down for, quote, the working people and myself now living on a fixed income,” she said.
___
The AP-NORC poll of 1,150 adults was conducted March 19-23 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points and for Republicans is plus or minus 6.7 percentage points.
The Dictatorship
Hegseth’s revised Pentagon press policy offers a sham nod at transparency
The latest media directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is a bad-faith brush-off masquerading as transparency.
The Defense Department’s new press access policy — revised this week after a federal judge struck down the one Hegseth implemented last fall — retains the original’s prohibition on journalists asking questions of officials who aren’t authorized to talk to the press.
You know a government agency’s media policy is a sham when it tells journalists to just file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The Pentagon introduced that and a range of other restrictions in October, saying the changes were an effort toward “preventing leaks that damage operational security and national security.” Nearly every major U.S. news outlet, including Fox News, refused to sign on to the policy. The New York Times suedand a federal judge ruled this month that the restrictive procedures violated the First Amendment.
The newly revised policy attempts to justify the original unconstitutional overstep by pointing to all the “legitimate” means that journalists have at their disposal to obtain news about the department. They “remain free to gather information through legitimate means, such as Freedom of Information Act requests, official briefings, questions posed to authorized Department spokespersons and officials, or unsolicited tips, and to publish as they deem newsworthy,” it says.

Pro tip: You know a government agency’s media policy is a sham when it tells journalists to just file a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request.
To be clear, Hegseth’s media briefings are a joke. Hegseth”https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/11/hegseth-press-briefings-photos-iran/”>banned media photographers from Pentagon press conferences this month over unflattering photos — a less than professional response to a bad hair day. Under his media team, “the war has become something of a black box,” a source told BLN, with Pentagon spokespeople giving fewer and less candid briefings than in past administrations.

As for unsolicited tips, that’s not how journalism works. News doesn’t just fall into journalists’ laps — except perhaps when Hegseth puts it in a Signal group chat. Journalists report to find information, including by talking to government employees willing to blow the whistle on incompetent leaders and other concerns. Media outlets are entitled to publish information from government officials, even information given by mistake or in violation of government rules, because journalists don’t work for the government. In a 1975 rulingthe Supreme Court explained that a contrary rule “would invite timidity and self-censorship and very likely lead to the suppression of many items that … should be made available to the public.”
The Pentagon’s suggestion to file FOIA requests as a substitute for other means of gathering news is particularly ridiculous. That’s because the FOIA process, which is broken across the federal government, is especially bad at the Pentagon, particularly under Hegseth’s leadership.
If the Pentagon redacts that much information on a topic the public is already aware of, why should any reporter believe Hegseth’s claim that FOIA is a viable substitute for actual press access?
According to data from fiscal 2025the oldest pending FOIA request at the Pentagon is nearly 4,400 days old. In other words, Hegseth is effectively telling journalists if they file a request today, the Pentagon might get back to them in 12 years.
Setting aside the insult, that’s just not viable in national security reporting, especially at a time when the military is waging two likely illegal military operationswith no end in sight.
Even if the Pentagon eventually responds to a journalist who filed a FOIA request today about the Iran war, for example, the people responsible for waging the war could be long gone from government. And that’s assuming the department responds at all.
At Freedom of the Press Foundationwe’ve seen this stonewalling firsthand. We’ve filed for records we know exist and are essential to public accountability.
We’ve asked, for example, for discussions concerning the legal rationale behind the lethal targeting of alleged drug boats. We’ve requested the memorandum of understanding regarding Qatar’s reported “unconditional donation” of a Boeing jet to the Defense Department. We’ve sought the memos forcing employees to sign nondisclosure agreements that gag them from sharing anything without official authorization.
The response to these requests? Silence.
On the rare occasions the Defense Department “releases” something, the response often makes a mockery of the transparency law.
For instance, Freedom of the Press Foundation asked in September for legislative proposals concerning the Trump administration’s rebrand of the Department of Defense to the “Department of War.” This was a straightforward request about a topic the Pentagon has been incredibly vocal about. In response, this week we received 45 pages of redactions so extensive the pages were simply solid grey boxes from top to bottom.
If the Pentagon redacts that much information on a topic the public is already aware of, why should any reporter believe Hegseth’s claim that FOIA is a viable substitute for actual press access?
FOIA is a vital tool. Too often it’s the only tool to force disclosure of secrets the government wants to keep. But it is typically a slow, litigious and exhausting process. Even when FOIA requests work as intended, this process was never meant to be the only or primary way for the news media to interact with the military. The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to offer a bare-minimum level of transparency to the press and the public — not to put a ceiling on journalists’ access to the government.
By pushing journalists out of the Pentagon and toward a potentially yearslong waiting game, the Hegseth doctrine is clear: The Pentagon doesn’t honor the public’s right to know; it serves Hegseth’s desire to hide.
Lauren Harper holds the Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy at Freedom of the Press Foundation.
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’








