this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
46 points (97.9% liked)

politics

25300 readers
2751 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
 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s unusually large personal security requirements are straining the Army agency tasked with protecting him as it pulls agents from criminal investigations to safeguard family residences in Minnesota, Tennessee and D.C., according to numerous officials familiar with the operation.

The sprawling, multimillion-dollar initiative has forced the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, or CID, the agency that fields security for top Defense Department officials, to staff weeks-long assignments in each location and at times monitor residences belonging to the Hegseths’ former spouses, the officials said.

One CID official, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity citing a fear of reprisal, characterized Hegseth’s personal protective arrangement as unlike any other in the agency’s recent history.

“I’ve never seen this many security teams for one guy,” the official said. “Nobody has.”

This account is based on more than a dozen interviews — including with CID staff, current and former defense officials, and others familiar with Hegseth’s activities — and a review of documents revealing the Trump administration’s apparent unwillingness to meet the Army’s request for additional funding and personnel for the mission. The Washington Post withheld several sensitive details gathered in the course of reporting this article, including the size of Hegseth’s protective details and the precise locations where they are assigned.

Army CID has faced significant staffing and budgetary shortfalls for years, but new demands since Hegseth’s arrival in January have put added pressure on the agency, officials said.

“We have complete inability to achieve our most basic missions,” one person said.

The Pentagon declined to address several questions submitted by The Post. A spokesman, Sean Parnell, said in a statement that “any action pertaining to the security of Secretary Hegseth and his family has been in response to the threat environment and at the full recommendation of the Army Criminal Investigation Division.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Dude is a hyper-conservative small government dipshit, yet he heavily relies on taxpayer-funded personal security.

He could easily afford to pay for his own private security, given that he's a millionaire, but uses socialized systems instead, and denies social welfare programs.

Fucking MAGA hypocrites. Kill them all