Welcome to Sterling Cooper, Inc.
  • CALL US: +1-866-285-6572
  • CALL US: +1-866-285-6572
LOGO
  • INCREASE YOUR REVENUES
    50%-100% - FREE EVALUATION
  • WEF 2025 GLOBAL
    RISKS REPORT
  • CAPITAL GAINS
    TAX DEFERRED
  • INCORPORATE
    NOW FOR $39
  • RESEARCH
    REPORTS
  • ENGULF &
    DEVOUR
  • Home
  • Services
    • Selling a Business
    • Buying a Business
    • Public Relation
    • Cooper consulting
    • Advertising
    • Publishing
    • Web and IT Services
    • Loans
  • Seller
  • buyer
  • Advertising
  • Publishing
  • M&A Due Diligence
  • Blog
  • Contact
LOGO

Category Archives: Government

NUTTY BUTTERS ANTI-AMERICAN CHINESE WOMAN-MEI VANG, (OF COURSE A DEMOCRAT) RUNNING FOR CONGRESS

Mai Vang

Neo-Marxist Mai Vang, Running for U.S. Congress, Rejects the Pledge of Allegiance and Turns Her Back on US Flag

As Memorial Day approaches and Americans prepare to honor the fallen who secured the blessings of liberty, one Democratic congressional candidate in California has chosen a different path: open defiance of the nation’s most basic symbols of unity.

Sacramento City Council member Mai Vang has repeatedly refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during public meetings and has been captured on video turning her back on the American flag. This is not a quiet personal conviction but a public statement from a woman seeking to represent the United States in Congress.

Vang’s actions stand in stark contrast to the district she hopes to serve. California’s newly redrawn 7th Congressional District includes more conservative areas that value tradition and national pride alongside traditional Democratic strongholds. Yet Vang, polling competitively against incumbent Rep. Doris Matsui, has made her protest a point of pride rather than a liability. In doing so, she exposes a troubling trend on the left: the elevation of grievance over gratitude and global activism over national loyalty.

As a recent NY Post editorial notes, she has no place in the United States Congress.

Her refusal isn’t occasional hesitation but deliberate theater. Videos from city council meetings in 2025 and 2026 show Vang consistently averting her gaze from the flag while others participate. She even boasted about the practice on social media, framing the moment of national unity as an opportunity to “center our communities” and reflect on alleged injustices committed “under this nation’s influence,” complete with hashtags supporting causes far removed from her constituents’ daily concerns.

This episode raises profound questions about what kind of leaders Americans want shaping their future. The Pledge of Allegiance, for all its simplicity, represents a covenant: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. To reject it so brazenly while pursuing elected office isn’t principled dissent; it is a declaration that the republic itself falls short of one’s ideological standards.

Vang’s approach mirrors a growing radicalism that views America not as a flawed but exceptional experiment in self-government, but as an inherently oppressive force requiring constant resistance.

Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio captured the disconnect sharply, noting that reciting the Pledge is “Patriotism 101.” Even those who disagree with aspects of policy or history can stand in recognition of the sacrifices that preserved the republic. Vang’s choice to turn away during ceremonies, including a Veterans Day event, disrespects not only the flag but the men and women who defended the freedoms that allowed her family to find refuge here.

The irony deepens when considering Vang’s background as the daughter of Hmong refugees who escaped persecution with American military support. Her family’s story embodies the promise of America as a beacon for the oppressed. Yet rather than embracing that inheritance, she weaponizes selective grievances.

Compare this to Rep. Matsui, whose own family endured Japanese American internment during World War II yet continued to serve the nation with distinction. Matsui may be a Democrat, but at least she doesn’t overtly hate America.

Beyond symbolism, Vang’s record reveals substantive priorities that align with her Pledge protests. She has opposed city budgets over police funding disputes and championed policies that prioritize ideology over public safety. She is vehemently anti-Israel and a vocal “Free Palestine” activist.

Critics like community organizer Amy Gardner describe her approach as “infuriating,” particularly in how it undermines law enforcement in neighborhoods that need it most. This pattern suggests her rejection of the flag is part of a larger worldview that sees American institutions themselves as the problem.

Republican leaders have taken note. California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin highlighted the broader implications: too much contempt for law enforcement and too little respect for country. San Joaquin Republican Party Chair David Cushman observed that Vang’s attempt to position herself as the AOC of the Central Valley misreads her district’s values. Republican challenger Zachariah Wooden put it plainly: such rhetoric rejects basic American principles.

In an era when congressional districts send representatives to Washington to defend the Constitution they swear to uphold, voters must consider whether candidates who cannot bring themselves to honor its most visible emblem deserve their trust. The Pledge is not a loyalty test for conformity but a reminder of shared commitment to something greater than factional grievances.

This entry was posted in Government on May 24, 2026 by sterlingcooper.

THE DUMBEST SCHOOL SYSTEM IN AMERICA IS THE COSTLIEST-NEW YORK CITY

When Will New York Taxpayers Finally Revolt Against the Failing NYC School System?

NYC Schools

New York City’s public schools represent one of the most glaring examples of government inefficiency in America today. While Mayor Zohran Mamdani pushes socialist spending priorities, the Department of Education devours more than a third of the city’s massive $126 billion budget—$43 billion annually for public schools alone.

Yet enrollment continues its steep decline, test scores stagnate, and families flee the system in search of better alternatives. This is not mere mismanagement; it is a tragedy funded by hardworking taxpayers who deserve far more accountability.

Jeff Bezos recently captured the absurdity with precision, comparing NYC schools to a dysfunctional Amazon operation where packages arrive late, overpriced, and incorrect. The comparison lands because it is painfully accurate.

A Citizens Budget Commission report lays bare the scale: New York spends a nation-leading $44,000 per pupil despite mediocre outcomes on standardized tests. Meanwhile, the system maintains excess capacity with hundreds of under-enrolled schools protected by “hold harmless” policies that prioritize bureaucracy over students.

This disconnect between lavish spending and dismal results should alarm every resident footing the bill. As enrollment drops by tens of thousands year after year, the bureaucracy expands rather than contracts. Such inverted incentives reveal a system captured by special interests rather than oriented toward genuine education.

Chancellor Kamar Samuels deserves credit for publicly criticizing the “hold harmless” policy and overly rigid class-size mandates. Some modest relief made it into the state budget under Governor Kathy Hochul, but these represent mere tweaks to a fundamentally broken machine. The real issue runs deeper: a monopolistic public education model insulated from competition and real consequences.

Parents recognize this reality. The sharp enrollment declines reflect not just demographic shifts but deliberate choices by families opting for charter schools, private options, or leaving the city entirely. Young families in particular cite school quality as a primary reason for departure. When government schools consume enormous resources yet fail to prepare children for productive lives, they accelerate urban decline rather than foster renewal.

The irony grows thicker under progressive leadership. Mamdani’s administration faces pressure to fund expansive social programs while the education budget crowds out fiscal flexibility. Taxpayers watch their hard-earned dollars fund administrative bloat, excess buildings, and ideological experiments instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic proficiency. This pattern repeats across blue cities, where public institutions serve employees and unions more effectively than the citizens they ostensibly serve.

Conservatives have long argued for parental empowerment through school choice, transparency in curricula, and basic accountability metrics. The NYC example validates those concerns. No private enterprise could survive such inefficiency. Only government monopolies, protected by law and political patronage, persist in delivering declining services at ever-rising costs.

History offers warnings about empires that neglected the formation of the next generation. When education systems prioritize self-preservation over student outcomes, societies weaken from within. America’s founders understood education’s vital role in maintaining a virtuous republic capable of self-government.

As the prophet Hosea declared, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6) In our age, the tragedy lies not in the absence of funding but in its reckless misallocation away from the knowledge children desperately need.

Taxpayers across New York should demand more than incremental reforms. The obscene mismatch between investment and results in NYC schools calls for structural change: broader school choice, elimination of wasteful mandates, and a return to educational fundamentals. Until citizens revolt at the ballot box and in public discourse, the tragedy will only deepen, burdening future generations with both ignorance and insurmountable debt.

This entry was posted in Government on May 23, 2026 by sterlingcooper.

WE HAVE WAY TOO MANY GENERALS-NO WONDER WE HAVE THE LARGEST MILITARY BUDGET IN THE WORLD-

List of active duty United States Army major generals

The list of active duty United States Army major generals comprises all officers currently serving in the rank of major general (O-8), the second-highest peacetime general officer grade in the Regular Army, who are assigned to commands, staff positions, or other duties within the United States Army as of November 2025.[1][2] Major generals, denoted by two silver stars, typically lead Army divisions of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers, serve as deputy commanding generals of corps or field armies, or hold principal staff roles at the Department of the Army or joint commands. The number of such officers is statutorily limited to a maximum of 90 in the Regular Army, excluding certain temporary assignments or positions designated for joint duty.[1] This list is maintained through official announcements and biographical updates issued by the U.S. Army’s General Officer Management Office (GOMO), which oversees the assignment, promotion, and retirement of general officers to ensure alignment with national defense priorities.[3] It excludes officers in the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, or those on the retired list, focusing solely on full-time active duty personnel whose roles contribute to operational readiness and strategic leadership across global theaters.[3]

Joint Assignments

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DoD) encompasses a range of high-level leadership positions that integrate military expertise from the U.S. Army into defense-wide functions, particularly in policy, intelligence, and acquisition. These roles, often within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) or combat support agencies, allow major generals to contribute to strategic decision-making, threat assessment, and interservice coordination outside traditional Army commands. Army major generals in these billets typically serve as deputies or directors, providing operational insights to civilian leadership and ensuring alignment with national security objectives.[4] A prominent example is in DoD intelligence, where Army major generals hold key positions within the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a combat support agency under the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. The DIA director role, responsible for delivering all-source intelligence to warfighters, policymakers, and support personnel, has occasionally been filled on an acting basis by Army officers at the major general level during transitions. Major General Constantin E. Nicolet, U.S. Army, assumed duties as Acting Director of the DIA on August 22, 2025, leading a global workforce of approximately 16,500 personnel focused on military intelligence production, analysis, and counterintelligence support to DoD operations.[4][5] Nicolet, with a date of rank to major general of July 31, 2024, previously served as director of intelligence (J-2) for U.S. Central Command, bringing expertise in regional threat analysis and joint intelligence operations to the role.[6] In acquisition and logistics, Army major generals contribute to DoD-wide efforts through organizations like the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (JIDO), now integrated under the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which addresses improvised threats such as IEDs and drones. These positions emphasize rapid technology development and field deployment to counter asymmetric risks, with responsibilities including coordination across DoD components and interagency partners. As of early 2025, transitions in these billets reflected broader DoD restructuring under Secretary Pete Hegseth, including a 20% reduction in four-star positions that indirectly impacted mid-level general officer assignments.[7][8]

Name Title Key Responsibilities Appointment Date
Constantin E. Nicolet Acting Director, Defense Intelligence Agency Oversees global intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination for DoD; advises Secretary of Defense on intelligence matters August 22, 2025

Such assignments highlight the Army‘s role in bolstering DoD’s strategic depth, with major generals often rotating into these positions following combatant command or Army staff experience to foster joint warfighting capabilities.[9]

Joint Staff and Combatant Commands

The Joint Staff, headquartered at the Pentagon, supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing military advice to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council, while facilitating cooperation among the services. Army major generals typically serve in deputy or vice director roles within key directorates such as J-3 (Operations), J-5 (Strategy, Plans, and Policy), and J-7 (Joint Force Development), ensuring the Army’s operational expertise informs joint planning, resource allocation, and capability development. These assignments are part of a deliberate rotation policy mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, which requires officers to complete joint duty tours—generally 24 to 36 months—to qualify for promotion to flag officer ranks and foster interservice collaboration.[10] In the unified combatant commands (COCOMs), Army major generals occupy operational and staff billets that integrate Army capabilities into joint and multinational operations, with approximately 2-3 such positions per geographic COCOM to balance service representation and mission requirements. These roles include chiefs of staff, deputy directors for operations, and directors of specific directorates, emphasizing tactical execution and service-specific support within the command’s area of responsibility. Recent 2024-2025 transfers highlight the emphasis on rotational experience, such as promotions and reassignments following retirements to maintain continuity in high-priority theaters like Europe and the Middle East.[11] Notable current assignments as of November 2025 include:

Name Billet Command Effective Date
Major General Richard A. Harrison Chief of Staff U.S. Central Command August 2025
Major General John L. Rafferty Jr. Chief of Staff U.S. European Command July 2025

These billets underscore the Army’s commitment to joint warfighting, with rotations designed to build senior leaders’ understanding of theater-level operations and allied partnerships. For instance, in U.S. Central Command, the chief of staff coordinates staff activities across the command’s 21-nation area of responsibility, focusing on counterterrorism and stability operations. Similarly, in U.S. European Command, the role supports deterrence against strategic adversaries through integrated planning with NATO allies.[12]

National Guard Bureau and Other Joint Roles

The National Guard Bureau (NGB) coordinates National Guard activities between the states, territories, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense, with the Army National Guard (ARNG) component focusing on readiness, training, and mobilization for federal missions. Major generals from the ARNG typically fill key deputy and special assistant roles within the NGB, often on full-time federal active duty while retaining state affiliations for dual-hatted responsibilities in both federal joint functions and state emergency responses. These positions emphasize integration of reserve component forces into joint operations, including homeland defense and support to combatant commands. In 2025, the NGB underwent several leadership transitions due to retirements and reassignments, contributing to temporary staffing gaps in senior roles. For instance, the retirement of Major General Gregory T. Day (Oregon National Guard) in June 2025 vacated his position as Special Assistant to the Combatant Commander, U.S. Northern Command/U.S. North American Aerospace Defense Command for National Guard Matters and Liaison to the Joint Staff, J-3, a role that facilitated ARNG coordination with joint operations for homeland security. Similarly, the ARNG Deputy Director position experienced a change when Major General Robert B. Davis (Rhode Island National Guard) departed in October 2025 for the Adjutant General of Colorado, leaving the role in transition as of November 2025; Davis had mobilized to the federal position in July 2025 after serving as National Guard Assistant to the Director of the ARNG Staff. These shifts highlight the dynamic nature of ARNG major general assignments, where officers often balance federal joint duties with state-level command, such as activations for disaster response or border security missions under Title 32 authority. Other joint roles for ARNG major generals include specialized liaisons and staff positions in inter-agency environments, such as those supporting the Department of Homeland Security for civil support operations. While specific 2025 assignments in areas like liaison to Joint Special Operations Command were not publicly detailed, ARNG major generals continue to fill hybrid roles that enhance reserve integration into special operations and homeland defense planning.

Name State Affiliation Position Mobilization/Assignment Date
Robert B. Davis Rhode Island Deputy Director, Army National Guard (prior to October 2025 reassignment) July 2025[13][14]
Jerry F. Prochaska Wyoming Special Assistant to the Chief, National Guard Bureau August 2025[15]
Joseph A. DiNonno Virginia Special Assistant to the Director, Army National Guard, for 18th Airborne Corps Matters August 2025

Department of the Army Headquarters

Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff

The Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff includes critical executive support roles filled by major generals, who provide specialized oversight in legal, religious, and administrative domains to the Army’s senior civilian and military leaders. These positions have evolved since the Army’s 2020 modernization initiatives, emphasizing enhanced personnel readiness, talent management, and integration of multi-domain operations into administrative functions, as part of broader efforts to adapt to great power competition.[16] A key billet is the Judge Advocate General (JAG), responsible for delivering legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff on matters including operational law, administrative actions, and international agreements, while managing the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps. As of November 2025, Major General Bobby L. Christine serves in this role, having assumed duties on July 1, 2025, following his prior assignment as commanding general of the U.S. Army Legal Services Agency; he was promoted to major general in 2024 prior to this appointment.[17][18] Recent occupants, such as Lieutenant General Stuart W. Risch in the preceding years, highlighted the JAG’s growing focus on cyber and space law amid Army modernization, with Acting Major General Robert A. Borcherding serving immediately prior to Christine.[19] Another essential position is the Chief of Chaplains, which advises Army leadership on religious programs, spiritual fitness, and ethical guidance to support soldier resilience and unit cohesion, particularly in high-stress operational environments. Chaplain (Major General) William J. Green Jr. has held this office since December 5, 2023, when he was promoted to major general and installed as the 26th Chief of Chaplains; his tenure has emphasized integrating chaplain support into personnel management strategies post-2020 reforms.[16][20] Prior examples include Chaplain (Major General) Thomas L. Solhjem, who served from 2019 to 2023 and advanced religious accommodation policies during the Army‘s talent management overhaul.[21] In legislative affairs, major generals contribute through deputy roles supporting the Chief of Legislative Liaison, coordinating Army interactions with Congress on budgeting, policy, and oversight; for instance, 2025 appointees have focused on advocating for modernization funding in personnel and readiness programs, though the primary chief remains a brigadier general.[22] These roles collectively ensure seamless executive support, with broader Army Staff functions providing functional expertise in areas like G-1 personnel operations.[20]

Army Staff Elements

The Army Staff Elements encompass the specialized directorates under the Deputy Chiefs of Staff (DCS) at Department of the Army Headquarters, where major generals serve in key leadership roles such as directors and assistant deputies, supporting policy development, force management, and operational planning across the U.S. Army. These positions typically number 1-2 major general slots per element, with recent rotations often drawing from combatant commands to bring field experience to headquarters functions. As of November 2025, these officers contribute to implementing the Army‘s 2030 strategy, emphasizing modernization in areas like cyber operations and sustainment, amid structural changes such as the planned disestablishment of the DCS G-9 in January 2026, with its responsibilities redistributing to G-1 and G-4.[23] Major generals in these elements oversee core duties including force development, strategic operations, logistics readiness, and resource allocation to ensure the Army’s readiness for multi-domain operations. For instance, in the DCS G-3/5/7 (Operations, Plans, and Training), officers manage training programs and operational planning that align with joint force requirements. Similarly, in G-4 (Logistics), they focus on sustainment and mobilization to support global deployments, while G-8 (Programs) leaders drive force structure decisions tied to budgetary and technological priorities.

Position Name Assignment Date Core Duties
Director of Strategic Operations, DCS G-3/5/7 Major General Jake S. Kwon August 2023 Oversees strategic operations planning, force integration, and synchronization of Army capabilities with joint partners to enhance operational readiness and multi-domain warfighting.[24]
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 (Logistics and Mobilization) Major General John M. Dreska November 2024 Advises on logistics policy, mobilization readiness, and sustainment strategies, including integration of cyber and supply chain resilience for Army 2030 objectives.[25]
Director of Force Development, DCS G-8 Major General Thomas O’Connor July 2024 Leads force structure analysis, capability development, and resource prioritization to modernize Army units, incorporating updates to cyber and sustainment directorates.[26]

These roles exemplify the Army Staff’s focus on translating strategic guidance into actionable programs, with recent updates emphasizing cyber defense enhancements under G-6 oversight and sustainment reforms absorbing former G-9 functions.[23]

Major Army Organizations

Army Commands

The U.S. Army Commands (ACOMs) are major organizations responsible for generating and sustaining ready forces, developing doctrine and capabilities, and managing materiel readiness across the Army. As of 2025, the primary ACOMs include the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), and the newly established U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command (T2COM), which absorbed the functions of the former U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC).[27] These commands play critical roles in advancing multi-domain operations (MDO), integrating emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and hypersonics into Army doctrine, and preparing forces for large-scale combat operations.[28] A significant development in 2024-2025 was the expansion of futures-oriented capabilities within what became T2COM, driven by the Army Transformation Initiative to accelerate tech integration and doctrinal evolution amid great power competition.[29] This merger, activated on November 14, 2025, following TRADOC’s inactivation on September 26, 2025, consolidated training, doctrine development, and modernization efforts under a single four-star command led by General David M. Hodne, enabling streamlined billets for major generals focused on MDO experimentation and capability prototyping.[30] The restructuring affected major general assignments by creating new deputy and staff roles emphasizing joint all-domain command and control (JADC2) systems and next-generation training simulations, with several promotions in late 2024 and early 2025 filling these positions to support rapid prototyping of multi-domain task forces. Recent assignments include roles in futures and concepts directorates, where promoted officers lead cross-functional teams prototyping integrated air-ground operations.[31][32] This expansion has increased major general billets by approximately 10% in capability development areas, reflecting the command’s priority on tech-driven transformation.[33] In FORSCOM, headquartered at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, major generals oversee force generation and readiness for conventional and contingency operations. This billet highlights the command’s role in scaling forces for theater-level maneuvers.[34] AMC, based at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, focuses on logistics and sustainment capabilities, with major generals leading subordinate commands essential to MDO sustainment chains. Additionally, Major General Lori L. Robinson commands the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), a key AMC subordinate, overseeing missile defense and aviation modernization critical to multi-domain fires integration since her assumption of command on July 10, 2024.[35]

Army Service Component Commands

The Army Service Component Commands (ASCCs) represent the U.S. Army’s operational arms within the geographic unified combatant commands, responsible for force provision, sustainment, and synchronization of Army contributions to joint and multinational missions across theaters. Major generals in these commands hold pivotal billets, including deputy commanding generals, chiefs of staff, and commanders of sustainment or task force elements, which facilitate the Army’s integration into broader joint force structures. These roles are essential for executing theater-specific strategies, such as bolstering deterrence in contested regions and adapting to 2025 force posture adjustments that emphasize agile, distributed operations amid global tensions.[36][37] ASCCs typically allocate 2-4 major general positions per theater, varying by operational demands; for instance, U.S. European Command maintains around three such billets to support forward presence and rapid response capabilities. Recent rotations reflect priorities like enhanced multi-domain integration in the Indo-Pacific and selective adjustments in Europe, including a minor troop reduction in Romania without diminishing overall readiness.[38][39] These leaders often have extensive deployment histories in their theaters, bringing expertise in joint exercises, partner capacity building, and logistics under austere conditions.

ASCC Position Incumbent Key Details and Citation
U.S. Army Europe and Africa (USAREUR-AF) Deputy Commanding General Maj. Gen. Christopher R. Norrie Assumed role October 3, 2025; oversees strategic operations and NATO integration.[40]
U.S. Army Europe and Africa (USAREUR-AF) Commanding General, 21st Theater Sustainment Command Maj. Gen. Michael B. Lalor Assumed command July 30, 2025; manages theater logistics for EUCOM and AFRICOM.[41]
U.S. Army Europe and Africa (USAREUR-AF) / SETAF-AF Commanding General, Southern European Task Force, Africa Maj. Gen. Andrew C. Gainey Leads Africa security cooperation; active in 2025 engagements like African Land Forces Summit.[42][43]
U.S. Army Central (ARCENT)
U.S. Army North (ARNORTH) Deputy Commanding General for Operations Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell Manages NORTHCOM operational planning, including continuity of operations.[44]
U.S. Army South (USARSOUTH) Commanding General Maj. Gen. Philip J. Ryan Leads SOUTHCOM engagements; promoted August 2024, active in 2025 partner exercises.[45][46]

These assignments highlight the Army’s emphasis on experienced leaders with theater-specific deployment histories, such as multiple tours in joint environments, to address unique challenges like hybrid threats in Europe-Africa and great-power competition in the Indo-Pacific.[47][43]

Direct Reporting Units

Direct Reporting Units (DRUs) of the United States Army are specialized organizations that provide institutional and operational support across a wide range of functions, reporting directly to the Chief of Staff of the Army rather than through intermediate commands. These units focus on critical enablers such as engineering, intelligence, personnel management, testing, and education, ensuring the Army‘s readiness and sustainment without direct involvement in combat operations. Established to streamline support functions, DRUs evolved significantly following the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which was largely implemented by 2010-2011, leading to consolidations like the relocation of human resources operations to Fort Knox and enhanced integration with Army Commands for efficiency.[48][49] Major generals in DRUs oversee specialized missions, including engineering projects vital to national infrastructure, intelligence synchronization for global operations, and strategic leader development. For instance, in engineering, major generals direct civil works and emergency response efforts that support disaster recovery and energy infrastructure. In intelligence, they manage all-source analysis and counterintelligence to protect Army assets worldwide. These roles emphasize oversight of policy implementation, resource allocation, and interagency coordination, with leadership updates in 2025 reflecting the Army‘s focus on modernization and resilience.[50][51] Key DRUs led by major generals include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (established 1802), where Maj. Gen. Jason E. Kelly serves as Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, overseeing engineering missions such as flood control, environmental restoration, and infrastructure development that bolster national security.[50] The U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC, established 1999), commanded by Maj. Gen. Patrick L. Gaydon since July 2024, conducts independent testing of weapons systems and acquisition programs to ensure operational effectiveness, including evaluations of next-generation technologies like hypersonic systems.[52] The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC, established 2006), led by Maj. Gen. Hope C. Rampy since July 2024, manages personnel readiness for over 1.3 million soldiers, handling assignments, promotions, and retirement services to maintain force strength amid post-2010 BRAC realignments that centralized operations.[53] In the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM, established 1977), Maj. Gen. Timothy D. Brown, as Commanding General, directs intelligence operations and security countermeasures, including cyber threat mitigation and support to combatant commands, with 2025 updates emphasizing integration with joint intelligence efforts.[51] The U.S. Army War College (USAWC, established 1901), under Commandant Maj. Gen. Trevor J. Bredenkamp since August 1, 2025, educates senior leaders on national security strategy, conducting research on landpower doctrine and fostering strategic thinking for future Army leaders. These major generals exemplify oversight roles by aligning DRU activities with Army priorities, such as the 2025 emphasis on multi-domain operations and talent management, while briefly referencing integration with Army Commands for shared sustainment functions.[54][55]

DRU Major General Position Establishment Date Key Mission Focus
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jason E. Kelly Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations 1802 Engineering support for infrastructure and disaster response[50]
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command Patrick L. Gaydon Commanding General 1999 System testing and acquisition validation[52]
U.S. Army Human Resources Command Hope C. Rampy Commanding General 2006 Personnel lifecycle management[53]
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command Timothy D. Brown Commanding General 1977 Intelligence and security operations[51]
U.S. Army War College Trevor J. Bredenkamp Commandant 1901 Strategic education and research[54]

Field Operating Commands

Army-Level Commands

Army-level commands encompass major operational organizations within the U.S. Army that provide critical sustainment, logistics, and personnel support to enable global force projection and readiness. These commands, often led by major generals, focus on synchronizing resources, managing supply chains, and ensuring personnel lifecycle support across theaters, distinct from tactical corps operations that emphasize direct battlefield maneuver. In 2025, these entities have adapted to heightened demands from multi-domain operations, incorporating advanced technologies for contested logistics environments.[56] The U.S. Army Sustainment Command (ASC), headquartered at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, oversees the integration of Army logistics, including materiel management, distribution, and maintenance, to support worldwide deployments. Major General Eric P. Shirley assumed command on July 10, 2025, bringing expertise from prior roles in theater sustainment to enhance supply chain resilience amid global tensions.[57] ASC’s operations in 2025 emphasized rapid deployment capabilities, aligning with Army-wide efforts to counter peer adversaries through prepositioned stocks and joint logistics partnerships.[58] Theater sustainment commands form the backbone of operational logistics, delivering fuel, ammunition, and transportation to forward forces in specific regions. The 1st Theater Sustainment Command (1st TSC), based at Fort Knox, Kentucky, supports U.S. Central Command operations in the Middle East, focusing on host-nation collaborations for sustained presence. Major General John B. Hinson took command on June 26, 2025, following his promotion to major general earlier that month to fill a vacancy from the previous commander’s reassignment.[59] Similarly, the 8th Theater Sustainment Command (8th TSC), under U.S. Army Pacific at Fort Shafter, Hawaii, provides logistics for Indo-Pacific contingencies, including multinational exercises like Khaan Quest 2025 to bolster regional alliances. Major General Gavin J. Gardner has commanded since July 3, 2024, overseeing expansions in prepositioned equipment to support distributed operations across vast maritime domains.[60][61] The 21st Theater Sustainment Command (21st TSC), located in Sembach, Germany, sustains U.S. Army Europe and Africa missions, managing port operations and medical logistics for NATO commitments. Major General Michael B. Lalor assumed command on July 30, 2025, succeeding Major General Ronald R. Ragin amid retirements that prompted targeted promotions to maintain continuity in European sustainment.[41] Lalor’s leadership has prioritized integration with allied forces, expanding data-driven sustainment for hybrid threats.[62] In personnel management, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), at Fort Knox, Kentucky, handles soldier assignments, promotions, and transitions, ensuring manpower availability for operational needs. Major General Hope C. Rampy, commanding since July 10, 2024, has driven 2025 initiatives to streamline talent management, including digital tools for global personnel tracking to address recruitment and retention challenges. HRC’s role supports broader Army expansions, filling billets vacated by retirements through accelerated major general promotions.[63]

Command Commanding General Assumption Date Key Focus
U.S. Army Sustainment Command Maj. Gen. Eric P. Shirley July 10, 2025 Materiel synchronization for global readiness[57]
1st Theater Sustainment Command Maj. Gen. John B. Hinson June 26, 2025 Middle East logistics partnerships[59]
8th Theater Sustainment Command Maj. Gen. Gavin J. Gardner July 3, 2024 Indo-Pacific prepositioning[60]
21st Theater Sustainment Command Maj. Gen. Michael B. Lalor July 30, 2025 European NATO sustainment[41]
U.S. Army Human Resources Command Maj. Gen. Hope C. Rampy July 10, 2024 Talent management and assignments

Corps and Field Armies

Corps and field armies serve as the U.S. Army’s primary operational headquarters for conducting multi-domain operations at the theater level, commanding divisions and enabling rapid deployment for large-scale combat. Major generals in these formations typically hold key positions such as deputy commanding generals for maneuver or support, or chiefs of staff, focusing on operational planning, sustainment, and integration with joint and coalition forces. These roles are essential for maintaining readiness, with corps participating in exercises like Yudh Abhyas 25 to enhance interoperability with allies.[64] I Corps, headquartered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, and activated on December 6, 1917, leads U.S. Army Pacific efforts, including rotational deployments to Japan and Korea for Indo-Pacific deterrence. In 2025, I Corps updated its rotation schedules to support large-scale combat training, with the deputy commanding general overseeing joint exercises such as the annual Stryker Leader Summit in Seoul. The position emphasizes maneuver and operations, often involving allied exchange officers, but U.S. major generals contribute to strategic readiness.[65][66] III Corps, based at Fort Cavazos, Texas, and activated on August 21, 1918, functions as the Army’s premier contingency corps for global response, prioritizing multi-domain readiness for peer competition. The chief of staff role coordinates staff functions and exercise participation, including joint operations that test large-scale combat capabilities. As of 2025, III Corps integrated enhanced Pacific rotation elements into its training, with the deputy commanding general for support managing logistics for deployments. Typically, corps like III Corps allocate 2-3 major general billets for these leadership functions, though exchange programs fill some with allied officers such as U.K. Maj. Gen. Andy Cox in the support role since April 2025.[67][68] V Corps, forward-headquartered at Camp Kościuszko, Poland, and activated on July 31, 1918 (reactivated in 2020), supports U.S. European Command through rotational forces and deterrence missions. Major generals in deputy roles facilitate joint exercises and NATO interoperability, with 2025 updates focusing on Arctic and European rotations for large-scale combat. The deputy commanding general for maneuver, often an exchange position (e.g., British Army Maj. Gen. Charles Grist as of August 2025), coordinates these efforts.[69][70] XVIII Airborne Corps, located at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, and activated on January 14, 1942, specializes in airborne and rapid global deployment, serving as the nation’s contingency corps. The deputy commanding general and chief of staff positions drive readiness for airborne operations and joint task force headquarters, including 2025 enhancements to Pacific and global rotations. As of November 2025, the deputy commanding general role is held by Brig. Gen. John P. Cogbill. Corps leadership participated in the 2025 Military Police Symposium to refine multi-domain tactics.[71][72] Eighth Army, a field army headquartered in Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, and activated on August 5, 1944, provides command and control for U.S. Forces Korea. Major generals in deputy roles support combined operations with Republic of Korea forces, with 2025 updates emphasizing sustainment for large-scale combat under Combined Forces Command. The deputy commanding general for operations oversees joint exercises like Freedom Shield. As of November 2025, deputy roles are held by brigadier generals such as Brig. Gen. Sean Crockett (operations) and Brig. Gen. William F. Wilkerson (sustainment).[73][74][75]

Corps/Field Army Role Current/Representative Holder (as of November 2025) Location Activation Date
I Corps Deputy Commanding General Brig. Gen. Bernard J. Harrington (U.S.; promoted from 2024 assignment; no U.S. MG) Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA December 6, 1917
III Corps Deputy Commanding General – Maneuver Brig. Gen. Geoff R. Van Epps (U.S.; historical U.S. MG: Thomas M. Feltey, 2023-2024) Fort Cavazos, TX August 21, 1918
III Corps Deputy Commanding General – Support U.K. Maj. Gen. Andy Cox (exchange since April 2025; no U.S. MG) Fort Cavazos, TX August 21, 1918
V Corps Deputy Commanding General – Maneuver British Army Maj. Gen. Charles Grist (exchange since August 2025; no U.S. MG) Fort Knox, KY / Camp Kościuszko, Poland July 31, 1918
XVIII Airborne Corps Deputy Commanding General Brig. Gen. John P. Cogbill (U.S.; no U.S. MG) Fort Liberty, NC January 14, 1942
Eighth Army Deputy Commanding General – Operations Brig. Gen. Sean Crockett (U.S.; no U.S. MG) Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea August 5, 1944

Division alignments under these corps, such as the 1st Cavalry Division under III Corps, are covered in the Regular Army Divisions section.

Division and Equivalent Commands

Regular Army Divisions

The Regular Army divisions form the core of the United States Army’s active component combat forces, comprising ten permanent divisions structured for multi-domain operations across various terrains and mission sets. These divisions are configured as armored, airborne, air assault, infantry, or Stryker-equipped units, enabling rapid deployment and sustained combat capabilities in support of national defense objectives. As of November 2025, commanding generals of these divisions are major generals, selected through a rigorous promotion process that typically involves prior service as brigade commanders and staff roles at higher echelons, followed by Senate confirmation. Recent handovers in 2025, such as those in the 1st Armored Division and 3rd Infantry Division, reflect ongoing leadership transitions amid Army modernization efforts under the 2024 Force Structure Transformation Initiative, which emphasizes enhanced mobility and lethality without altering division numbers.[76] Division missions vary by type: armored divisions like the 1st Armored Division focus on heavy maneuver warfare with Abrams tanks and Bradley vehicles for high-intensity conflicts; airborne divisions such as the 82nd Airborne Division specialize in forcible entry operations via parachute assault for crisis response; the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) excels in vertical envelopment using helicopters for expeditionary operations; Stryker-equipped elements in divisions like the 2nd Infantry Division provide wheeled mobility for rapid reinforcement in theater, such as the Indo-Pacific; and light infantry divisions like the 10th Mountain Division prioritize mountain and cold-weather warfare. Recent restructurings include the integration of multi-domain task forces within several divisions to incorporate cyber and space capabilities, as piloted in the 1st Cavalry Division during 2025 exercises. These divisions fall under corps oversight, such as III Corps for most CONUS-based units, ensuring alignment with joint force requirements.[77][78][76] The following table lists the current commanding generals (all major generals) of active Regular Army divisions as of November 2025, including bases and command timelines based on recent change-of-command ceremonies. Deputy commanding generals who hold the rank of major general are noted where applicable; most deputies are brigadier generals.

Division Type/Mission Focus Base Commanding General Command Timeline Deputy Commanding General (MG, if applicable) Source
1st Armored Division Armored (heavy maneuver) Fort Bliss, TX Maj. Gen. Curtis D. Taylor Assumed command August 2024; ongoing through 2025 Maj. Gen. Jared D. Bordwell (Support) [79] [77]
1st Cavalry Division Armored Cavalry (mechanized/air assault hybrid) Fort Cavazos, TX Maj. Gen. Thomas M. Feltey Assumed command September 2024; ongoing through 2025 None (deputies are BGs) [80] [81]
1st Infantry Division Infantry (multi-domain) Fort Riley, KS Maj. Gen. Monté L. Rone Assumed command June 2024; ongoing through 2025 None (deputies are BGs) [82] [83]
2nd Infantry Division Stryker/Infantry (theater sustainment, Korea-focused) Camp Humphreys, South Korea Maj. Gen. Charles T. Lombardo Assumed command June 2024; ongoing through 2025 None (deputies are BGs) [84] [85]
3rd Infantry Division Infantry (mechanized/light) Fort Stewart, GA Maj. Gen. John W. Lubas Assumed command July 25, 2025 (handover from Maj. Gen. Christopher R. Norrie) None (deputies are BGs) [86] [87]
4th Infantry Division Infantry (mountain/mechanized) Fort Carson, CO Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Ellis Assumed command June 18, 2025 (handover from Maj. Gen. David Doyle) None (deputies are BGs) [88] [89]
10th Mountain Division Light Infantry (mountain/cold weather) Fort Drum, NY Maj. Gen. Scott M. Naumann Assumed command March 2024; ongoing through 2025 None (deputies are BGs) [90] [78]
25th Infantry Division Light Infantry (Pacific/jungle) Schofield Barracks, HI Maj. Gen. James B. Bartholomees III Assumed command July 28, 2025 (handover from Maj. Gen. Marcus S. Evans) None (deputies are BGs) [91] [92]
82nd Airborne Division Airborne (forcible entry/global response) Fort Liberty, NC Maj. Gen. Brandon Tegtmeier Assumed command August 28, 2025 (handover from Maj. Gen. J. Patrick Work) None (deputies are BGs) [93] [94]
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) Air Assault (vertical maneuver) Fort Campbell, KY Maj. Gen. David W. Gardner Assumed command May 30, 2025 (handover from Maj. Gen. Brett Sylvia) None (deputies are BGs) [95] [96]

Division-Sized Task Forces and Units

Division-sized task forces and units in the U.S. Army are flexible, mission-specific formations designed to address dynamic operational requirements, often rotational in nature to support theater commanders without relying on permanent standing divisions. These entities, typically led by major generals, enable rapid deployment, security cooperation, and deterrence in regions like Europe and Africa, contrasting with the fixed structures of regular Army divisions by emphasizing adaptability to emerging threats such as those arising from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.[97][86] A prominent example is Task Force Marne, the current rotational division-equivalent headquarters under Operation Atlantic Resolve in Poland and the Baltic states, assumed on October 29, 2025, from Task Force Iron. Commanded by Maj. Gen. John W. Lubas of the 3rd Infantry Division, its mission focuses on multinational training, deterrence against Russian aggression, and integration with NATO allies through exercises like Defender-Europe 25, involving over 40,000 troops across the region. This task force’s temporary deployment structure allows for nine-month rotations of brigade combat teams from U.S. bases, enhancing forward presence without long-term basing commitments.[98][86][99] In Africa, the U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Africa (SETAF-AF), serves as a division-equivalent operational headquarters under U.S. Army Europe and Africa, led by Maj. Gen. Andrew C. Gainey. Headquartered in Vicenza, Italy, SETAF-AF executes security cooperation, crisis response, and partner capacity-building across 54 African nations, including leading the annual African Lion exercise in 2025, which involved over 10,000 participants from 50 nations in Tunisia, Ghana, Senegal, and Morocco to improve interoperability and regional stability. While maintaining a core permanent staff, it incorporates rotational elements from Army National Guard and Reserve units for missions like Justified Accord in East Africa, addressing counterterrorism and humanitarian needs.[100][101][102] Post-2022 Ukraine response, the Army established additional ad hoc task forces, such as enhanced rotational deployments to Europe, directly impacting major general assignments by prioritizing experienced leaders for hybrid warfare scenarios. For instance, the creation of Security Assistance Group-Ukraine in 2022, now supporting NATO’s Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine, has drawn on major generals to coordinate training for over 100,000 Ukrainian forces since inception. These formations underscore the Army’s shift toward expeditionary, partner-focused operations in contested environments.[103]

Task Force/Unit Commanding Major General Mission Scope Key 2025 Activity
Task Force Marne (Europe Rotational) John W. Lubas Deterrence and NATO integration in Eastern Europe Assumed command October 29; supports Defender-Europe 25 with 40,000+ troops[98]
SETAF-AF (Africa Focus) Andrew C. Gainey Security cooperation and crisis response across Africa Led African Lion 25, training 10,000+ personnel in four nations[100]

Army National Guard Divisions

The Army National Guard (ARNG) divisions form a critical component of the U.S. Army’s reserve forces, consisting of eight modular infantry divisions headquartered across multiple states and capable of mobilizing up to 15,000 soldiers each for federal or state missions. These major generals, who command ARNG divisions, hold federally recognized ranks and serve in billets that emphasize readiness for rapid deployment, with headquarters typically located at state National Guard facilities such as Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, for the 28th Infantry Division. Unlike commanders of active duty divisions, ARNG major generals operate under a dual-hatted authority structure: they report to their state’s adjutant general for state active duty (SAD) and Title 32 missions, such as disaster response, while transitioning to Title 10 federal command when mobilized for overseas operations, enabling seamless integration into the Total Army force. ARNG divisions routinely mobilize for domestic emergencies, including flood control, wildfire suppression, and hurricane recovery, as well as combat and stability operations abroad, with recent examples including support for Hurricane Helene recovery efforts involving over 6,300 guardsmen from multiple states in 2024 and ongoing storm response activations in 2025. This dual-role capability distinguishes ARNG units, allowing major generals to lead part-time soldiers in high-intensity training exercises like Warfighter while maintaining state-level responsiveness. Recent promotions from brigadier general to major general have filled these billets, reflecting the Army’s emphasis on experienced ARNG leaders; for instance, Brig. Gen. Martin M. Clay was promoted in August 2025 prior to assuming command of the 35th Infantry Division.[104][105] The following table lists the current major generals commanding ARNG divisions as of November 2025, including their primary state affiliation and assignment details:

Division State(s) Commanding General Headquarters Assignment Date Citation
28th Infantry Division Pennsylvania Maj. Gen. Michael E. Wegscheider Fort Indiantown Gap, PA March 2024 [106] [107]
29th Infantry Division Maryland, Virginia, DC Maj. Gen. Christopher J. Samulski Fort Belvoir, VA August 2025 [108] [109]
34th Infantry Division Minnesota Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Sharkey Arden Hills, MN July 2025 [110] [111]
35th Infantry Division Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Maj. Gen. Martin M. Clay, Jr. Fort Leavenworth, KS September 2025 [112] [113]
36th Infantry Division Texas Maj. Gen. John B. Bowlin Austin, TX Prior to 2025 (ongoing) [114] [115]
38th Infantry Division Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio Maj. Gen. Joseph Gardner Indianapolis, IN September 2025 [116] [117]
40th Infantry Division California Maj. Gen. William J. Prendergast IV Los Alamitos, CA November 2024 (ongoing) [118] [119]
42nd Infantry Division New York Maj. Gen. Jack A. James Troy, NY November 2024 (ongoing) [120] [121]

These commanders oversee training for certifications like the Army’s Evaluation Program, ensuring division readiness for joint operations under the National Guard Bureau.

YET THEY HAVE NOT FIGURED  TO NOT USE $4 MILLION each cost PATRIOT MISSELES  TO SHOOT DOWN $20,000 drones!!!.

 

References

  1. 10 U.S. Code § 525 – Distribution of commissioned officers on active …
  2. Defense Primer: Military Officers – Congress.gov
  3. [PDF] Military Officers – Defense
This entry was posted in Government on May 20, 2026 by sterlingcooper.

AMAZING TRANSFORMATION IN SWEDEN!!TO CAPITALIST SYSTEM!!!

The World’s Most Surprising Capitalist Makeover Is Under Way in Sweden

The shake-up of cradle-to-grave care is lowering government spending, spurring innovation and stirring fears about those left behind

Sweden—This paragon of collectivism is pivoting toward rugged individualism.

For decades, Sweden was shorthand for the brand of high-tax, high-spend government that managed people’s lives from cradle to grave through state-run hospitals, schools and care homes.

No longer. With little fanfare, this Nordic country of 11 million has embraced capitalism.

Today, nearly half of primary healthcare clinics are privately owned, many by private-equity firms. One in three public high schools is privately run, up from 20% in 2011. School operators are listed on the stock exchange.

Sweden’s experience has lessons—good and bad—for other rich countries, including the U.S., where New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is looking to emulate parts of the state-centric model such as universal child care and city-run stores.

The capitalist makeover has allowed Sweden to do what few industrialized countries have managed in recent years: shrink the size of the state. That has enabled the government to sharply lower taxes and, economists say, sparked a surge in entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Its total public social spending bill—which includes healthcare, education and all welfare payments—has fallen to 24% of gross domestic product, similar to the U.S. and well below the over 30% for nations like France and Italy.

Public social spending as a proportion of GDP, 2022 or most recent year
France
31.6%
Italy
30.1%
Austria
29.4%
Finland
29.0%
Belgium
29.0%
Spain
28.1%
Germany
26.7%
Denmark
26.2%
Japan†
24.9%
Canada†
24.9%
Portugal
24.6%
Greece
24.1%
Sweden
23.7%
Slovenia
22.8%
U.S.*
22.7%
Poland
22.7%
U.K.*
22.1%
Czech Republic
22.0%
Luxembourg
21.9%
New Zealand*
20.8%
Iceland
20.8%
Norway
20.7%
Australia‡
20.5%
Data for *2021 †2020 ‡2019
Source: OECD

Sweden’s economy is expected to grow by around 2% a year through 2030, roughly the same pace as the U.S. and double the growth rates of France and Germany, according to an April forecast by the International Monetary Fund.

“Sweden is a real land of opportunity,” said Elisabeth Svantesson, the country’s finance minister. “I want people and capital to stay here and grow.”

While many European countries are raising taxes, Svantesson has cut them three years in a row. Sweden’s top income-tax rate has fallen close to 50% from nearly 90% in the 1980s.

Considering the overall tax burden, “it’s more attractive here…than the U.S.,” said Conni Jonsson, the billionaire founder of EQT, a Stockholm-based private-equity firm.

Critics say the paring back has gone too far. Inequality is soaring in this traditionally egalitarian country. Gang violence has surged in dozens of immigrant-heavy suburbs, creating areas where local criminal networks challenge state authority and hinder policing. A public debate is raging over for-profit schools, which critics say make money by skimping on playgrounds, libraries and staff.

“The American perspective of Sweden is so far off from reality,” said Andreas Cervenka, a Swedish author who recently returned home after living in California. “We are going from a society which is like, ‘One for all, all for one,’ to ‘Everybody is on their own.’”

Spurring entrepreneurs

Sweden didn’t always have a big public sector. The country climbed from being one of the poorest to the third-richest country in Europe over 100 years through 1970 without high levels of taxation.

But starting in the 1960s, the center-left Social Democratic Party—which dominated the country’s postwar politics—sharply raised taxes and spending, ultimately taking government spending as high as 70% of GDP by the 1990s.

The changes triggered a long period of weak growth, stagnant after-tax incomes and ballooning budget deficits and debt that culminated in a banking crisis in the early ’90s.

Under pressure from investors, the government instituted sweeping economic reforms over the next two decades. They included cuts to unemployment benefits and housing subsidies and the privatization of public services, as well as tax cuts and a reform of the pension system to make it more affordable. Strict limits were imposed on government debt. (Sweden’s debt to GDP is a meager 36%, compared with 129% for the U.S.) In the mid-2000s, the government eliminated wealth and inheritance taxes.

The result: Wealthy entrepreneurs who had fled Sweden’s high taxes have been returning, said Jacob Wallenberg, a member of the Swedish industrial dynasty that owns big stakes in Ericsson, Saab and other large companies.

When Wallenberg was growing up in the 1960s and ’70s, Swedes weren’t very wealthy, he said. The country, he noted, famously only had one Rolls-Royce car.

Today, international polling suggests Swedes are far more open to wealth than the French, Germans, Spanish or Italians, and more positive about the market economy than any European country except Poland. Sweden’s Rolls-Royce count is now over 800, and when the automaker decided to open its first showroom in Scandinavia in 2016, it chose Stockholm.

As the state retreated, the private sector expanded. A study published in April by the Stockholm School of Economics found that after Sweden removed inheritance and gift taxes in 2005, private firms with potential family successors grew faster, invested more and paid higher corporate taxes than firms without natural heirs.

Businesses championed new technologies in a bout of risk-taking with few equivalents in a region dominated by older industries and ambivalent about tech.

Niklas Zennström, the billionaire founder of internet-telecommunications pioneer Skype, said the privatizations helped fuel innovation in sectors like telecoms, which have underpinned the country’s tech boom. Zennström himself started his career building fiber-optic networks for a private telecom operator in the 1990s.

“Sweden was very early with mobile phones, with a high penetration of 3G and competition in mobile networks,” Zennström said. “There was a sense of entrepreneurship.”

The country saw more than 500 initial public offerings over the 10 years through 2024, more than Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain combined, according to a landmark 2024 report on Europe’s economy by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi. It has now moved ahead of the U.S. in the number of billionaires per capita, thanks to a thriving tech startup scene and videogame industry that has produced hits like Minecraft and Candy Crush.

‘More for less’

At St. Göran’s hospital in downtown Stockholm, radiologist Karin Dembrower huddled over a computer screen, pointing to tiny light spots indicating cancer on a black-and-white image.

“We cannot see with our eyes that there is something going on here but somehow the AI is seeing” it, she said.

This entry was posted in Government on May 12, 2026 by sterlingcooper.

RUSSIA SEIZING USA COMPANIES’ ASSETS

Russia Seizes Control of US-Linked Aluminum Giant

Russia Aluminum

While Moscow extends diplomatic overtures toward Washington in hopes of normalizing relations and advancing Ukraine peace talks, the Kremlin continues to nationalize valuable foreign assets on its soil. The latest high-profile case involves CANPACK, a major aluminum beverage can manufacturer with deep Pennsylvania ties, whose entire Russian business has been stripped away by presidential decree. This development exposes the sharp contradiction at the heart of current U.S.-Russia dynamics: talk of renewed economic partnership on one hand, aggressive property redistribution on the other.

CANPACK’s Russian operations, built over nearly three decades and commanding an estimated 35 to 40 percent of the domestic aluminum can market, were placed under state “external administration” through a decree signed by Vladimir Putin on December 31, 2025. Company CEO Peter Giorgi described the reality bluntly: after state administrators arrived in mid-January, the owners lost all control. “I’m only a nominal shareholder,” Giorgi told Fox News Digital. “I lose all control of the company.” The business, valued at roughly $700 million, now answers to Kremlin-appointed managers through a shell entity called Stalelement.

This is no isolated incident. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, authorities have increasingly invoked a 2023 legal framework to assume temporary control over foreign-owned assets. Similar actions have targeted subsidiaries of Danish insulation maker Rockwool, French food giant Danone, and brewer Carlsberg. Experts estimate dozens of companies have faced such measures. The pattern reflects a broader Kremlin strategy of bringing profitable or strategically important enterprises under tighter state influence, often justified as protecting “national interests” amid Western sanctions and corporate exits.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a December 31, 2025 decree placing CANPACK’s Russian operations—valued at roughly $700 million—under state “external administration,” transferring 100% control to Kremlin-appointed managers.
  • CANPACK, owned by a Pennsylvania-based holding company, lost all operational authority in mid-January 2026; senior executives including the general manager and CFO were removed.
  • The takeover follows a pattern of asset seizures targeting Western firms that remained in Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including subsidiaries of Rockwool, Danone, and Carlsberg.
  • Despite the move, Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev has been meeting with Trump administration officials to discuss Ukraine peace negotiations and future economic cooperation.
  • Analysts note American-linked companies have sometimes faced lighter treatment than European ones, as Moscow seeks to preserve possibilities for improved U.S. relations.
  • CANPACK operated in Russia for nearly 30 years and held 35-40% of the country’s aluminum beverage can market before the seizure.
  • The company reported pressure on remaining executives and significant financial transfers to pro-Kremlin causes, including support linked to the war effort.

Yet even as these seizures multiply, Russian officials signal interest in rebuilding bridges with the United States. Putin’s special envoy for foreign investment, Kirill Dmitriev, has traveled to Washington for discussions with members of President Donald Trump’s administration on potential Ukraine peace terms and longer-term economic cooperation. The timing raises pointed questions. How does one reconcile the nationalization of a major U.S.-linked manufacturer with overtures for renewed partnership? The mixed signals suggest Moscow seeks selective engagement—preserving leverage through asset control while testing Washington’s appetite for de-escalation.

Observers note that American-linked firms have sometimes received comparatively cautious treatment compared to their European counterparts. Alexander Kolyandr of the Center for European Policy Analysis observed that “American companies fared much better than the European ones,” attributing the difference to Russia’s desire to keep future U.S. ties viable. Still, the CANPACK case demonstrates that even U.S.-connected businesses remain vulnerable when they remain in Russia long after many peers departed. Giorgi explained that the company weighed leaving but struggled to unwind decades of investment or find a fair buyer, choosing instead to “stay the course” in hopes conditions would stabilize.

Under external administration, CANPACK’s Russian executives have reportedly faced pressure to approve financial decisions, with threats of dismissal for noncompliance. The company has had no direct access to or communication with its former operations. Russian business outlet Vedomosti reported that the division donated approximately 500 million rubles to a pro-Kremlin fund supporting the war in Ukraine. Company sources indicated roughly $18 million may have flowed to state-linked causes, with another $6 million directed toward a Russian Orthodox church—figures the firm has not independently verified but which underscore how quickly financial flows can shift once control is lost.

The episode carries clear lessons for Western investors and policymakers. Remaining in a hostile jurisdiction carries escalating risks, particularly when geopolitical tensions persist. Property rights that appear secure under normal commerce can evaporate through decree when governments prioritize state control. For American companies and their shareholders, the CANPACK seizure illustrates the limits of hoping for stability in an environment where rule of law bends to political necessity.

From a broader strategic standpoint, the contrast between asset seizures and diplomatic outreach highlights the transactional nature of Kremlin policy. Russia appears eager to ease sanctions pressure and reopen economic channels with the United States, yet unwilling to relinquish tools of coercion at home. This duality tests the wisdom of any renewed engagement. History warns that partnerships built on selective property respect and uneven reciprocity rarely deliver lasting mutual benefit.

As the Trump administration navigates these overtures, the CANPACK matter serves as a sobering case study. American interests demand clear-eyed realism. Economic cooperation cannot flourish where private enterprise faces arbitrary seizure, nor can genuine peace negotiations proceed without addressing the pattern of aggression that prompted Western sanctions in the first place. Families and businesses watching from afar deserve policies that protect rather than expose hard-earned assets to foreign predation.

The seizure of CANPACK’s Russian holdings stands as more than a corporate footnote. It reveals the enduring tension between Moscow’s ambitions for renewed Western engagement and its domestic practices of centralized control. Until Russia demonstrates consistent respect for property rights and international norms, any talk of partnership must be met with caution. In the meantime, Western firms would do well to learn from this episode: presence in uncertain markets requires more than hope—it demands rigorous risk assessment and contingency planning.

Ultimately, the path forward for U.S.-Russia relations hinges on deeds, not declarations. Nationalization of foreign assets while courting American goodwill sends a contradictory message that prudent leadership cannot ignore. The American people, long weary of entanglements that favor adversaries, expect policies rooted in strength, reciprocity, and the defense of legitimate economic interests.

This entry was posted in Government on April 12, 2026 by sterlingcooper.

FRAUD, FRAUD AND CONTINUED MASSIVE FRAUD IN OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES

Fake People and Phony SSNs Had 100% Success in Getting Obamacare Subsidy, Fraud Investigation Finds

—A scathing new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified rampant fraud and systemic failures in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace just as Congress is battling over the future of Obamacare’s enhanced premium subsidies.

The report, released Wednesday, revealed that fictitious identities, invalid Social Security numbers, and even deceased individuals were easily approved for taxpayer-funded subsidies. Every single application investigators submitted using fabricated or invalid Social Security numbers in 2024 was approved for coverage.

“Republicans have sounded the alarm on the flawed structural integrity of Obamacare and how Democrats’ failed policies to temporarily prop up the program have exacerbated fraud, hurt patients, increased the burden on American taxpayers,” Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and one of the members who requested the GAO investigation, said in a statement.

“The concerning findings from GAO’s report further confirm that Republican efforts to strengthen, secure, and sustain our federal health programs are critical and necessary to ensure access to quality health care at prices Americans can afford,” Guthrie added.

The month-long government shutdown that ended just before Thanksgiving stemmed largely from Democrats’ refusal to budge on the expiring Obamacare premium subsidies, which they passed without a single Republican vote in 2021 and set to expire at the end of 2025.

Those subsidies were originally limited to households earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. However, Democrats removed the upper-income cap and increased the subsidy amounts, and in some cases reduced premiums to zero.

Fraud is especially widespread among enrollees reporting incomes between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level, who qualify for zero-premium plans. Critics say zero-premium plans create opportunities for bad actors to sign up unsuspecting victims without their knowledge.

In nine states, the number of sign-ups at that income level exceeded the number of eligible residents, according to a joint report from the Foundation for Government Accountability and the Paragon Health Institute.

GAO’s undercover investigation found that 100% of the fictitious applications it submitted were approved in late 2024, and 18 out of 20 fake applicants were still receiving subsidized coverage for 2025. ACA marketplaces approved coverage even when no documents were requested, or fake documents were submitted, including those related to the applicants’ citizenship status.

The government watchdog also uncovered 66,000 Social Security numbers with more than a year’s worth of subsidized coverage in 2024, including one number used for the equivalent of 71 years of coverage — in a single plan year.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which manages the ACA marketplace, does not block new applications using the same Social Security number, according to the report.

Additionally, 58,000 SSNs receiving benefits in 2023 matched Social Security death data, resulting in $94 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies being sent to health insurers on behalf of deceased individuals.

“For years, we were told we could keep our plan, keep our doctor, and premiums would go down. None of it happened,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said in a statement. “This new report confirms what we already knew: under Obamacare, hardworking Americans saw their premiums skyrocket and their healthcare choices shrink, all while fraud benefited insurance companies.”

Democrats, meanwhile, warn that without extending the expanded subsidies, millions of Americans will face steep premium hikes and loss of coverage.

ACA premiums are projected to rise by 20% on average in 2026, but Paragon’s earlier analysis found that the expiring subsidy would account for just 3.3% of those premiums. The group also found that Obamacare plan premiums have grown nearly twice as fast as employer-sponsored plans since the ACA took effect.

This entry was posted in FRAUDS, Government on December 4, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

REGULATIONS CAUSING NEW HOME BUILDING TO BE SO EXPENSIVE!

Reasons Home Buying Has Become So Expensive

Home Ownership

America’s housing market is in deep trouble, with prices soaring beyond the reach of everyday families chasing the dream of homeownership. This isn’t just a market glitch—it’s a man-made mess rooted in decades of poor decisions that have strangled supply and inflated costs. Market experts lay out three core culprits behind this affordability nightmare, and fixing them could restore opportunity for millions.

First off, zoning rules across the country act like iron gates, blocking new homes from being built where they’re needed most. Communities cling to outdated restrictions that favor the status quo over growth, leaving potential buyers out in the cold.

“There are just many, many ways to halt and stop development,” said Joseph Gyourko, professor of real estate and finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. “And we’ve gotten very, very good at it in the United States.”

Then come the land-use hurdles, a tangled web of regulations that pile on expenses and drag out timelines for builders. From local mandates forcing developers to foot the bill for infrastructure like roads and utilities, to outright efforts to slow down progress, these barriers turn affordable projects into luxury-priced realities.

Jim Tobin, president and CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, put it plainly: “Regulatory burdens really do add up on the unaffordability index. We estimate that 24% of the cost of a single-family home is embedded in regulations at all three levels of local, state and federal government. That comes out to roughly $94,000 in regulatory costs.” He added, “Sometimes there are communities that just regulate because they want to impede growth, they don’t want more homes built.” And on the delays: “Time is money in real estate. You own the land, you’re paying taxes and, while you wait for local approvals, costs keep rising. Then many communities require developers to install sewer, water, roads and electrical infrastructure and all of that gets folded into the final price of the home.”

Financial policies round out the trio, keeping interest rates elevated and regulations tight, which chokes off new construction. Cutting back on wasteful government spending could ease borrowing costs and clear the path for more homes, revitalizing the market that underpins American wealth-building.

E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, explained: “The best way to thaw this frozen housing market is to reduce government spending to relieve pressure on interest rates and roll back burdensome regulations. [He added that such steps] would in turn increase production of new homes.”

This crisis hits hard at the heart of what makes America strong—families building equity through their homes, passing on stability to the next generation. As Tobin warned, “The more we delay ownership, the later we delay wealth creation in this country. And that’s the challenge ahead of everybody right now.”

Without bold action to boost supply, we risk a generation locked out of the prosperity that homeownership brings, weakening the economic foundation we’ve fought to build.

This entry was posted in Government on November 12, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

NANCY PELOSI, THE GREEDY DEMOCRATIC OPPORTUNIST FINALLY LEAVING WASHINGTON!

How Nancy Pelosi Betrayed the People She Pretended to Protect
Pelosi leaves behind a party addicted to performance and a nation more cynical than ever.
by John Mac Ghlionn
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will retire from Congress this year (Fox News/Youtube)

Nancy Pelosi’s farewell was less a retirement than an encore — one final pirouette in the long, exhausting pageant of American power. For nearly forty years, she ruled Washington like a monarch in pearls and Prada. A mistress of manipulation whose smile stretched wider than the chasm between her sermons and her sins. When Barack Obama gushed that she was “one of the best speakers the House has ever had,” he wasn’t lying. Pelosi could speak. She could sermonize, sanctify, and spin with unmatched flair. What she never managed was to see beyond herself.

Pelosi will be remembered as a pioneer…. What she truly built was a dynasty of deceit, a system where influence erases consequence.

Her gift was never governance; it was performance in its purest form. Pelosi turned morality into marketing, and the House into her own Broadway stage. The taxpayer was merely her patron. When she wasn’t preaching unity, she was kneeling in a Kente cloth beside Chuck Schumer, a tableau so contrived it made Hollywood blush. The moment was hailed as courage by the credulous and as comedy by everyone else. Yet it defined her perfectly: the politics of pose over purpose, where conviction is cosmetic and every crisis demands a wardrobe change.

Behind the podium, she preached compassion; behind closed doors, she perfected profit. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, traded stocks with timing so immaculate it bordered on clairvoyance. From Tesla to tech IPOs, the Pelosi portfolio outperformed the market like divine revelation. Any other citizen might have faced indictment; Pelosi faced applause. “We’re a free-market economy,” she quipped once, flashing that lacquered smile. Indeed — and few have freeloaded on freedom with such finesse.

In Washington, she ruled not by charm but by fear, flattery, and an inexhaustible supply of donor cash. Committee seats became favors; loyalty, currency. To her admirers, she was Saint Nancy, defender of democracy. To her detractors, Machiavelli in Manolo heels. Both descriptions fit. She was relentless, calculating, and convinced that virtue, like diamonds, mattered only when it caught the light.

Under her watch, the Democratic Party traded its working-class conscience for an identity crisis. The language of labor was replaced by the lexicon of grievance; solidarity gave way to sanctimony. She made politics about feelings, not fairness — optics, not outcomes. The party of Roosevelt became the party of hashtags, curated for social media rather than sustained by substance.

Pelosi learned early that outrage paid better than compromise. Every cultural wound became a weapon — every tragedy, a means to tighten her grip. When George Floyd’s death convulsed the nation, she moved quickly, not toward compassion but control. She spoke of justice while supporting policies that gutted police forces and left the poorest neighborhoods to fend for themselves. Businesses burned, families fled, and those meant to be helped were hurt most. Yet the fury persisted, because it served its purpose. Pelosi understood what few dared admit: outrage could be organized, monetized, and endlessly recycled. The country didn’t need healing — not when division had become the Democrats’ most dependable currency.

Her true genius, though, was survival. Scandal never stuck, but it should have. When she was caught sneaking into a shuttered San Francisco salon at the height of California’s COVID lockdowns, maskless and defiant, it wasn’t just vanity on display. In truth, it was hierarchy. Ordinary citizens were fined for walking their dogs without a face covering, but the Speaker of the House could stroll in for a blowout. And when caught, she didn’t apologize — she blamed the owner for “setting her up,” as though she were the victim of a sting, not the author of hypocrisy. It was a perfect parable of Pelosi’s power: the rules were for the ruled. The scandal should have ended her career; instead, it reminded Washington who still ran the show. The city forgave her not because it believed her, but because she was one of them — a creature of privilege thriving in a town where shame is optional and memory is short.

Meanwhile, the country she claimed to serve crumbled under her watch. Her San Francisco mansion — marble, manicured, and guarded — stood as a monument to the very inequities she railed against. Beyond its gates lay the city she abandoned, a wasteland of fentanyl, filth, and fear. She preached equality while presiding over decay, promising dignity to the same people left to step over needles and corpses. The contrast might have been tragic if it weren’t deliberate — progress for her class, paralysis for everyone else.

To her supporters, Pelosi’s retirement marks the end of an era. To history, it should mark the end of an illusion. She was the architect of a new American decay — one built on branding, not belief; on image, not integrity. Under her stewardship, the Democrats became a hall of mirrors: billionaires, bureaucrats, and activists echoing each other’s delusions, feeding each other’s arrogance, and scorning the very people they swore to serve. She presided over the death of dialogue, turning debate into denunciation. Every disagreement became a moral crime, every opponent a heretic to be hunted rather than heard.

Pelosi will be remembered as a pioneer, the first woman to wield the Speaker’s gavel. But titles are cheap. What she truly built was a dynasty of deceit, a system where influence erases consequence.

The curtain falls, the crowd disperses, but the stage remains — still propped up by patrons, lacquered in lies. Pelosi leaves behind a party addicted to performance and a nation more cynical than ever. She exits not as a leader, but as proof that corruption, when accessorized correctly, can pass for class.

This entry was posted in Government on November 9, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ARE MOVING ONTO ARMY BASE HOUSING TO HAVE SECURITY AND AWAY FROM CRAZY LIBERAL PROTESTERS

Top Trump Officials Are Moving Onto Military Bases

Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, Kristi Noem, and others have taken over homes that until recently housed senior officers.
toy soldiers stationed in front of a house
Illustration by Akshita Chandra / The Atlantic
The former White House adviser Katie Miller—mother of three young children, and wife of the presidential right-hand man Stephen—walked out of her front door one Thursday morning last month and was confronted by a woman she did not know.
When she told this story on Fox News, she described the encounter as a protest that crossed a line. The stranger had told Miller: “I’m watching you,” she said. This was the day after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. It also wasn’t anything new.
For weeks before Kirk’s death, activists had been protesting the Millers’ presence in north Arlington, Virginia. Someone had put up wanted posters in their neighborhood with their home address, denouncing Stephen as a Nazi who had committed “crimes against humanity.” A group called Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity warned in an Instagram post: “Your efforts to dismantle our democracy and destroy our social safety net will not be tolerated here.”
The local protest became a backdrop to the Trump administration’s response to Kirk’s killing. When Miller, the architect of that response who is known for his inflammatory political rhetoric, announced a legal crackdown on liberal groups, he singled out the tactics that had victimized his family—what he called “organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting peoples’ addresses.”
Stephen Miller soon joined a growing list of senior Trump-administration political appointees—at least six by our count—living in Washington-area military housing, where they are shielded not just from potential violence but also from protest. It is an ominous marker of the nation’s polarization, to which the Trump administration has itself contributed, that some of those top public servants have felt a need to separate themselves from the public.
These civilian officials can now depend on the U.S. military to augment their personal security. But so many have made the move that they are now straining the availability of housing for the nation’s top uniformed officers.
Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, moved out of her D.C. apartment building and into the home designated for the Coast Guard commandant on Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, across the river from the capital, after the Daily Mail described where she lived. Both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth live on “Generals’ Row” at Fort McNair, an Army enclave along the Anacostia River, according to officials from the State and Defense Departments. (Rubio spent one recent evening assembling furniture that had been delivered to the house that day.)
Although most Cabinet-level officials live in private houses, there is precedent for senior national-security officials, including the defense secretary, to rent homes on bases for security or convenience. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, whose family is in Washington only part-time, now shares a home on Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, a picturesque site next to Arlington National Cemetery.
His roommate is another senior political appointee to the Army. (When Driscoll moved in, his washing machine wasn’t working, so for the first few weeks of his stay on base, he lugged his laundry over to the home of the Army chief of staff, General Randy George.)
Another senior White House official, whom The Atlantic is not naming because of security concerns related to a specific foreign threat, also vacated a private home for a military installation after Kirk’s murder. In that case, security officials urged the official to relocate to military housing, according to people briefed on the move, who like many others who spoke with us for this story were not authorized to do so publicly.
So many senior officials have requested housing that some are now encountering a familiar D.C. problem: inadequate supply. When Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s team inquired earlier in Donald Trump’s second term about her moving onto McNair, it didn’t work out for space reasons, a former official told us.
There are scattered examples from previous administrations of Cabinet members residing on bases. Both Robert Gates, defense secretary under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Jim Mattis, Trump’s first Pentagon chief, lived in Navy housing at the Potomac Hill annex, a secure compound near the State Department. Mike Pompeo, CIA director and secretary of state during Trump’s first term, lived at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.
The grand homes they occupied, some of which date back more than a century, offer officials an additional layer of security and ample space for official entertaining.
But there is no record of so many political appointees living on military installations. The shift adds to the blurring of traditional boundaries between the civilian and military worlds. Trump has made the military a far more visible element of domestic politics, deploying National Guard forces to Washington, Los Angeles, and other cities run by Democrats.
He has decreed that those cities should be used as “training grounds” in the battle against the “enemy within.”
Adria Lawrence, an associate professor of international studies and political science at John Hopkins University, told us that housing political advisers on bases sends a problematic message. “In a robust democracy, what you want is the military to be for the defense of the country as a whole and not just one party,” Lawrence told us.
But the threat assessment has also changed in recent years. Trump has survived two attempted assassinations; Iran has stepped up its efforts to kill federal officials; and political violence—such as the June shooting of two Democratic Minnesota lawmakers, the murder of Kirk in September, and the shooting at a Texas immigration facility two weeks later—is a real danger.
The result is straining the stock of homes typically allotted to senior uniformed officers on Washington-area bases. Some of those homes, designed for three- and four-star generals, lack sufficient bedrooms for families with young children. Many have lead-abatement issues and require significant repair.
The Army notified Congress in January that it planned to spend more than $137,000 on repairs and upgrades to Hegseth’s McNair home before he moved in. Both Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin, and Austin’s State Department counterpart, Antony Blinken, faced protesters at their northern-Virginia homes, which were not on bases. Gaza protesters who set up camp outside Blinken’s house, where he lived with his young children, spattered fake blood on cars as they passed by.
Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the University of Chicago, told us that the threat of political violence is real for figures in both major parties. He noted that Trump has revoked the security details for several of his critics and adversaries, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and John Bolton, the former national security adviser from Trump’s first term who has been the target of an Iranian assassination plot.
“The correct balance would be: Trump should stop canceling the security detail of former Biden officials,” said Pape, who is also the director of the university’s Chicago Project on Security and Threats. “The issue is both sides are under heightened threat; therefore the threat to both should be taken seriously.”
In most cases, the civilian officials pay “fair market” rent for their base home, a formula determined by the military. Hegseth, in keeping with a 2008 law that aimed to make Gates’s Navy-owned housing arrangement more affordable, pays a rent equivalent to a general’s housing allowance plus 5 percent (in this case, totaling $4,655.70 a month).
The moves, however, can also save the government money. In some cases, base living can reduce the cost of providing personal security to officials, one person familiar with the relocations told us, because protective teams do not need to rent a second location nearby as a staging area.
Base living—in the unofficial Trump Green Zone—has also become something of a double-edged status symbol among Trump officials. No one wants to deal with threats; both the Millers and the unnamed senior official were not looking to leave their homes.
But the secure housing does confer upon the recipient a certain sheen of importance that sets them apart from all of the other officials ferried about in armored black SUVs. Administration officials now find themselves vying for the largest houses, not unlike the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that has long played out among senior military officers.
The isolation of living on a military base, at least for civilians, has also created a deeper division between Trump’s advisers and the metropolitan area where they govern.
Trump-administration officials, who regularly mock the nation’s capital as a crime-ridden hellscape, now find themselves in a protected bubble, even farther removed from the city’s daily rhythms. And they are even less likely to encounter a diverse mix of voters—in their neighborhoods, on their playgrounds, in their favorite date-night haunts.
After the Kirk assassination, the Trump administration designated antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no centralized antifa organization, no organizational ties have been established to Kirk’s alleged killer, and the category of domestic terrorist organization has no meaning in federal law. The identities of the activists behind the harassment campaign that helped persuade the Millers to leave their home have not been publicly disclosed.
Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity—ANUFH, pronounced, they say, enough—has organized protests near the homes of Miller and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. Its website calls for “strategic, nonviolent action,” and its efforts appear to have stopped short of making any explicit threats of violence. (A representative of the group declined to comment, as did the Millers.)
But the protests were designed to make the Miller family take notice. Stephen Miller has been an architect of Trump’s deportation policy, invoking a centuries-old law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison and urging immigration-enforcement officers to aggressively find and arrest as many immigrants as possible.
He regularly derides Democrats with inflammatory language, calling judicial rulings against the administration a “legal insurrection” and calling the Democratic Party “a domestic extremist organization.”
“Will we let him live in our community in peace while he TERRORIZES children and families? Not a chance,” ANUFH captioned one Instagram post in July that shows a photograph of the Millers and their children.
(The Millers have both posted family photos online that show their children’s faces.) Weeks later, the group took credit for covering the sidewalk near the Miller home with chalk messages such as Miller is preying on families, although it said in a post that it had spoken with Stephen Miller’s security beforehand to make sure that the group wasn’t violating any laws.
Katie Miller responded with an Instagram post of her own, a video of the chalked words STEPHEN MILLER IS DESTROYING DEMOCRACY! being washed away with a hose. She argued in a subsequent appearance on Fox News that although the protesters may not be violent themselves, they were inciting the kind of violence that killed Kirk. “We will not back down. We will not cower in fear. We will double down. Always, For Charlie,” Katie Miller wrote, echoing her husband’s rhetoric.
“WE ARE PEACEFULLY RESISTING TYRANNY,” ANUFH responded in a post. “GUNS KILL PEOPLE. CHALK SCARES FASCISTS.”
Earlier this month, the Millers put their six-bedroom north Arlington home on the market for $3.75 million. The listing promised “a rare blend of seclusion, sophistication, and striking design.”

 

This entry was posted in Government on November 1, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

BLOATED GOVERNMENT WORKERS SET FOR MASS RESIGNATIONS…FINALLY!

SHUT IT DOWN! Mass Federal Resignations Coming This Week

More than 100,000 federal workers stand ready to submit their resignations this Tuesday if the government shutdown cannot be averted, setting a record for the single largest exodus from government service in American history. This wave comes as part of the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program, which has already prompted around 275,000 departures through various voluntary and mandatory measures. The move aims to trim excess from the federal bureaucracy, with the White House estimating annual savings of $28 billion once fully implemented.

At the heart of this program lies a strategy to reshape the workforce without immediate disruptions. Participants receive full pay and benefits for up to eight months while on administrative leave, a setup that has drawn scrutiny for its $14.8 billion price tag but is defended as a cost-neutral bridge to long-term efficiencies.

White House spokesperson explained the rationale plainly: “In fact, this is the largest and most effective workforce reduction plan in history and will save the government $28bn annually,” adding that there was “no additional cost to the government” since these salaries would have been paid anyway.

This approach reflects a push toward an at-will employment model, similar to private sector norms, where the Office of Personnel Management has long argued that outdated job protections hinder adaptability.

Workers who opted into the program often describe a mix of relief and regret, rooted in years of mounting pressures. One longtime employee at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) captured the sentiment: “Federal workers stay for the mission. When that mission is taken away, when they’re scapegoated, when their job security is uncertain, and when their tiny semblance of work-life balance is stripped away, they leave. That’s why I left.”

Such accounts reveal how entrenched routines in federal agencies can erode purpose over time, especially when layers of red tape slow down responses to crises like natural disasters. By streamlining staff, the administration seeks to refocus efforts on core duties, potentially allowing remaining teams to operate with greater speed and accountability—much like how private disaster relief organizations prioritize rapid deployment over bureaucratic hurdles.

The broader context includes threats of a government shutdown if Congress fails to approve funding by the deadline, with the Office of Management and Budget instructing agencies to prepare for mass firings via reduction-in-force procedures. This could push total reductions beyond 300,000 by year’s end, surpassing any single-year drop since World War II. Agencies like the Internal Revenue Service have already shed 25% of their staff through layoffs and buyouts, a change that could ease the burden on taxpayers by curbing overreach in audits and enforcement.

Another USDA worker, who faced probationary firing and reinstatement earlier this year, noted: “At that point, I felt they could terminate me at any time. It’s hard to focus on your work when they can just send you an email and you can be gone, and they completely changed the terms of my work. I was hoping things would stabilize and there would be an opportunity to go back, but now it doesn’t look like there will be an opportunity.”

The federal government is way too big. Just about any reductions in size and scope, whether forced or voluntary, would benefit the nation. We can easily recover from the vast majority of job roles being eliminated. We may not be able to survive the bloated and growing government.

This entry was posted in Government on September 29, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

Post navigation

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL “KLINGON PRISON” IN CHICAGO’S POOREST NEIGHBORHOOD IS A BLIGHT ON THE CITY AND COST $850 MILLION!!!
  • MILLENIALS SET TO INHERIT TRILLIONS, THEN WHAT?
  • MORONS, LOSERS AND WEIRDOS CROWD THE DEMOCRATIC CONTENDERS FOR PRESIDENT…DO WE WANT ANY OF THEM ?
  • RICH SNOWFLAKES IN PALM BEACH COMPLAIN ABOUT HE TRUMP NOISE…OH I FEEL SO BAD FOR THEM..
  • WHO ARE HE OWNERS OF PRIVATE YACHTS AND AIRPLANES???

Sterling Cooper, Inc. © 2023,  Privacy Policy