Home on the Range No More: Trump Wants Bison Gone

​

“The Trump administration is evicting bison from federal grasslands in Montana, favoring ranchers and Republican leaders over environmentalists and tribal leaders. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management canceled bison grazing permits, citing the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which prioritizes livestock for food production. This decision has sparked a conflict between American Prairie, a nonprofit aiming to restore bison populations, and local ranchers who view bison as a threat to their livelihoods.

​

The Trump administration is evicting bison herds from federal grasslands in Montana, siding with ranchers and Republican leaders over environmentalists and tribal leaders.

May 4, 2026Updated 2:41 p.m. ET

American Prairie, a nonprofit, has spent decades buying land in Montana to create a home for about 900 bison it owns.

American Prairie, a nonprofit, has spent decades buying land in Montana to create a home for about 900 bison it owns.

By Jack Healy

Photographs and Video by John Stember

Jack Healy reported from Phillips County, Mont., where he stepped in more than one bison patty.

Crazy Alice, a half-ton bison, likes to feast on grass and roll in the dirt, but her deepest attachment might be to a certain corner of the Montana prairie — when her handlers once moved her herd to a different pasture, she tried to break out and go back.

Now, the Trump administration wants to evict Crazy Alice and hundreds of other bison from that home on the range, and replace them with cattle. The resulting clash on the prairie has pitted ranchers and Republican leaders against a furry, snorting symbol of the American West.

“This is a part of our country’s heritage,” said Alison Fox, executive director of American Prairie, a deep-pocketed nonprofit that has spent two decades buying ranches and grazing leases on public land in northern Montana to create the newly embattled home for bison.

The conflict centers on 900 bison owned by the group, which was allowed by multiple administrations, including President Trump’s first, to graze on federal lands, much to the consternation of politically conservative ranchers who wanted the land for cattle.

This winter, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management reversed course and canceled the bison grazing permits. Citing the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the agency said the federal grasslands where the animals grazed should go to livestock being raised for food, not bison largely enjoying their right to roam. The agency deemed the bison to be wildlife, not production livestock.

Conservation groups condemned the decision, as did Native American tribes, who say the anti-bison effort threatens their own herds as they try to revive bison populations that were hunted to near extinction by 19th-century settlers.

But Montana ranchers like Perri Jacobs celebrated. She said the federal government, a perennial boogeyman for Western conservatives, finally seemed to be on her side.

"In order for them to have their dream, my dream and my neighbor's dream is going to die," said Perri Jacobs, center, a rancher and public grazing lands advocate, referring to the plan by American Prairie.

“These lands are here for food,” said Ms. Jacobs, whose family has raised cows in northern Montana for nearly 110 years. “We have to understand that progress and time march forward. Bison just don’t fit on the landscape anymore.”

Ranchers like Ms. Jacobs could give the Trump administration some sorely needed support in farm country, where Democrats and independents are trying to capitalize on anger over tariffs and the cost of diesel and fertilizer to flip Republican seats in this year’s midterm elections. Phillips County, where the beef over bison centers, is in Montana’s Second Congressional District, a Republican-held seat not on any forecaster’s battlefield map. In the western part of the state, though, Montana’s First District could very much be in play.

And the bison fight fits squarely in a larger war over the West, as the Trump administration pushes to open more public land to oil drilling, mining and logging.

Pro-bison environmental groups accused the Trump administration of bowing to pressure from Gov. Greg Gianforte of Montana and ranching groups that had pressed the administration to rule against bison grazing.

“I don’t think it’s actually about the bison,” said Ryan Busse, a Democrat running in a primary in Montana’s First District. “Gianforte is fine with oil companies doing whatever the hell they want on public lands. But some bison walking around and eating grass is a threat?”

The state’s powerful land board — which includes Mr. Gianforte and other high-ranking Republican elected officials — is also taking steps toward kicking bison off Montana state trust lands.

“We must ensure that public lands remain accessible and productive, rather than being locked away for the vision of special interests,” Mr. Gianforte said after the federal permits were canceled.

American Prairie has identified the northern grasslands of Montana as the only place left in the United States to restore an entire prairie ecosystem.

American Prairie argues that cows and bison can coexist, and is trying to undo the Bureau of Land Management’s decision. The bureau, it said, scrapped decades of successful land policies by arbitrarily redefining what constitutes “livestock” in the American West.

If the final decision goes into effect — potentially later this spring — American Prairie says it will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to alter fence lines and haul bison away from lands where they belong.

That argument falls flat with many ranchers along the rolling plains of Phillips County, which is larger than Connecticut and stretches south from the Canadian border to the Missouri River Breaks. Signs along cattle gates and wire fences declare, “Save the Cowboy, Stop American Prairie.”

The enmity began when American Prairie began buying ranch land and the accompanying grazing leases more than 20 years ago, with the aim of building one of the largest nature reserves in the country. Its property and grazing lands have grown to about double the size of Los Angeles.

The resentment has sharpened since the Covid-19 pandemic, as wealthy out-of-staters drove up land prices with dreams of snagging their slice of a state that’s been called “The Last Best Place.” Phillips County may lie a world apart from the ski chalets of Big Sky or the mansions on Flathead Lake to the west, but even there ranches now sell for $1 million or more, beyond the reach of locals in a county where the median household income is $53,000 a year.

American Prairie has far more buying power. The group took in more than $43 million in contributions in 2024, according to its tax returns, and its board is stocked with corporate executives and investors, including Jacqueline Badger Mars of the Mars candy fortune. It valued its total assets at nearly $207 million.

The group says it tries to be a good neighbor. Its bison are tagged and vaccinated, and kept behind well-maintained electrified fences to keep them from traipsing into cattle fields. It leases land not occupied by bison to local cattle ranchers, and has opened up public access through much of its land. It sends live bison to help tribes expand and diversify their herds, and donates meat to local food pantries.

“We’re following all the rules,” Ms. Fox said.

Kendall Koss leases land from American Prairie for his cattle and shares a border with its bison, but he disagrees with its mission. Above, he holds a photo of his ancestors and works the land with the help of Kelly, his son.

One sunny spring morning, Scott Heidebrink, American Prairie’s director of landscape stewardship, a bison skull tattoo on his right arm, bumped in his truck along dirt paths where herds of bison were grazing. Meadowlarks flitted through the grass, and female bison had just begun to give birth to the year’s calves.

“By any definition, those animals are livestock,” he said, pointing to a cluster who clomped away at the sound of his pickup.

Usually, conservative ranchers and farmers are the ones who gripe about federal meddling. But Mr. Heidebrink said the land bureau’s decision showed that under Mr. Trump, big government was now coming for them.

“They don’t go to our neighbors and say, ‘What are you going to do with that cow?’” he said.

On the edges of American Prairie’s holdings, Kendall Koss, 26, was torn about the bison’s presence on land his family has ranched for more than a century.

He leases some land from American Prairie for his cows and said he got along with the group’s local workers. But he resented outsiders who have driven up the price of Montana land, making it nearly impossible for a young rancher like him to grow his own operation.

With beef prices soaring and cattle populations near record lows, Mr. Koss said it had never been more important to put America’s prairies to work feeding people.

“I have nothing against the buffalo,” he said. “They’re a cool animal. I just don’t agree with what they’re doing.”

Jack Healy is based in Colorado and covers the west and southwest.“

How Trump's bungling turned his top issue into his greatest liability

 

 

Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Access to Abortion Pill by Mail

​

“The Supreme Court temporarily restored nationwide access to the abortion pill mifepristone, allowing it to be obtained by mail. This comes after a lower court ruling reinstated an FDA requirement for in-person visits to obtain the pill. The case, brought by Louisiana against the FDA, highlights the ongoing debate over abortion access and the safety of medication abortion.

​

A lower-court ruling had reinstated a Food and Drug Administration requirement that patients visit a health care provider in person to obtain mifepristone.

May 4, 2026Updated 11:30 a.m. ET

The Supreme Court has for now restored nationwide access to a widely used abortion pill.Hannah Yoon for The New York Times

The Supreme Court on Monday restored nationwide access to a widely used abortion medication in a temporary order that will, for now, allow women to once again obtain the pill mifepristone by mail.

In a brief order, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. paused a lower-court ruling from Friday that had prevented abortion providers from prescribing the pills by telemedicine and shipping them to patients, causing confusion for providers and patients. The one-sentence order imposes a pause until at least May 11. He requested that the parties file briefs by Thursday, and then the full court will determine how to proceed.

The state of Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration to restrict access to mifepristone, saying the availability of the medication by mail has allowed abortions to continue in the state despite its near-total ban.

Medication is now the method used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States, and is typically delivered in the form of a two-drug regimen through the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Friday’s ruling from the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit temporarily reinstated an F.D.A. requirement that patients visit medical providers in person to obtain mifepristone while the litigation continues. That rule was first lifted in 2021.

Two manufacturers of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, on Saturday asked the Supreme Court to intervene. In court filings, they said the Fifth Circuit ruling would cause chaos for providers and patients — and upend a major avenue for abortion access across the country. About one-fourth of abortions in the United States are now provided through telemedicine.

Justice Alito’s order, known as an administrative stay, was provisional and expected, but an important interim step for women seeking to obtain mifepristone in the next week. The order does not signal how the full court may eventually handle the case.

Justice Alito acted on his own at this stage because he is the justice assigned to handle emergency applications from the region of the country covered by the Fifth Circuit.

The Trump administration has defended the F.D.A. in court, but has not said whether it supports keeping in place the regulations that make it easier for women to obtain the pills. The F.D.A. is conducting a review of mifepristone, and the administration had asked the lower court to put the litigation on hold until that review is complete.

The case over access to the abortion pill puts the Trump administration in an awkward political position in the lead up to the midterm elections because many of President Trump’s allies and supporters oppose abortion. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the F.D.A., declined to comment on Saturday, citing the “ongoing litigation.”

After the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to eliminate the nationwide right to abortion, Republican-led states like Louisiana imposed strict bans. In response, many Democratic-led states passed shield laws that protect abortion providers who prescribe pills by telemedicine and send them to patients in states with abortion bans.

Louisiana and abortion opponents have asserted in court that the F.D.A.’s decision to allow abortion pills to be available by mail posed safety risks to women and increased health care costs for states that had banned abortion.

Major medical organizations and supporters of reproductive rights have pointed to more than 100 studies that have found the pills to be safe and effective, with serious side effects rare.“

John Roberts EXPOSED As Architect of Brutal SCOTUS Ruling

 

John Roberts EXPOSED As Architect of Brutal SCOTUS Ruling

 

Finishing Off Voting Rights Act, Supreme Court Declares Racism Over — Again

“The Court’s conservative majority used outdated examples to say the racial gap in voter turnout has closed, but in reality, the gap is growing.

Kamil Krzaczynski/Getty

This week, the Supreme Court destroyed what little remained of the Voting Rights Act. In Louisiana v. Callais on Tuesday, the Court eliminated the law’s protections against lawmakers drawing maps that dilute the political power of minority voters. The decision continued more than a decade of the Court’s assaults on what is often called the crown jewel of the civil rights movement.

The opinion’s reasoning is based in part on a claim that is simply not factual. Pointing out that Black and white turnout reached parity in “two of the five most recent Presidential elections,” Justice Samuel Alito assured Americans that racial disparities in voting are no longer a problem. But Alito’s claim represents egregious cherry-picking, as he was not referring to recent elections, but to those in 2008 and 2012 — the years that Barack Obama ran for president. In the three most recent presidential elections, the trend shows exactly the opposite. The indisputable fact is the racial turnout gap is widening, and the Roberts Court is partially responsible.

Alito’s sleight of hand is outrageous but not surprising.

The Supreme Court first took its sledgehammer to the Voting Rights Act in 2013. In Shelby County v. Holder, the justices suspended the provision requiring states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval from the federal government before they could make changes to election rules, a process known as preclearance. To get permission, the state or locality had to prove that any changes wouldn’t fall harder on racial and ethnic minorities than on white voters.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited the same two elections that Alito picked out in the new Callais decision: 2008 and 2012. Pointing to the fact that the racial turnout gap narrowed to zero in those years, Roberts argued that the Voting Rights Act had done its job and preclearance could be safely suspended.

As my colleague Michael G. Miller and I explain in our forthcoming book on the Voting Rights Act and Shelby County, the ruling was suspect even at the time. There was good reason to believe that 2008 and 2012 were anomalies — not the end of the racial turnout gap — in light of Obama’s candidacy driving up Black turnout.

And there was another possibility that the majority also refused to consider: that the protection of the law’s approval requirement itself was responsible for the narrowing of the turnout gap. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it in her dissent, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

And yet the Supreme Court continued to hammer away at the Voting Rights Act. In the 2021 case Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the ability to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to challenge laws that make it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot. The justices did this in direct violation of a promise in Shelby County to leave Section 2 intact. And in this week’s case, they finished off Section 2.

Which brings us back to Alito’s claim in Callais that racism in elections is over.

What Alito doesn’t mention is that since 2013, the racial turnout gap around the nation has exploded. It beggars belief that Alito was unaware of this fact. He reached back nearly 20 years to include the only two elections in American history in which Black and white turnout reached parity. Surely, he or one of his clerks checked to see whether they could update the Shelby County argument that racism in American elections was over by using more recent data. But the data is unambiguous: Roberts’s assurances in Shelby County were spectacularly wrong.

What’s worse, our research shows that much of the increase in the turnout gap was caused by the disastrous Shelby County ruling. Make no mistake: The turnout gap was always likely to expand when Obama was no longer running for office. But it would not have widened this much if preclearance were still in effect. How do we know this? In a recent peer-reviewed academic journal article, Miller and I show that Shelby County directly increased the racial turnout gap in parts of the country that were once covered by the law’s preclearance requirement. In fact, we estimate that by the 2022 midterm elections, the Shelby County effect was causing hundreds of thousands of ballots to go uncast by minority voters.

“In large part because of the Voting Rights Act, our Nation has made great strides in eliminating racial discrimination in voting,” Alito wrote in Callais. “And if, as a result of this progress, it is hard to find pertinent evidence relating to intentional present-day voting discrimination, that is cause for celebration.”

There was reason to celebrate . . . 13 years ago. The Voting Rights Act was at its strongest point ever, Black political participation rivaled white participation, and the nation had elected its first minority president.

But history didn’t stop then, and things have only gotten worse. As Alito himself wrote this week, “Far more germane [for understanding our current world] are current data and current political conditions.” He should take his own advice.“

Spain demands release of Gaza flotilla activists ‘held illegally’ by Israel | Israel | The Guardian

Spain demands release of Gaza flotilla activists ‘held illegally’ by Israel

"Israeli court extends detention of two men who were among 175 people intercepted near Crete on Thursday

Ashifa Kassam

Saif Abu Keshek was part of a flotilla of more than 50 vessels that tried to reach Gaza to deliver supplies. Photograph: Amir Cohen/Reuters

Spain’s foreign ministry has demanded the immediate release of a Spanish national it said was being “held illegally” by Israel after the interception of a Gaza-bound flotilla, hours after an Israeli court moved to extend his detention by two days.

Saif Abu Keshek, who lives in Barcelona, and Thiago Ávila, from Brazil, appeared in court in Ashkelon on Sunday, days after Israeli forces intercepted at least 22 boats from a flotilla that was attempting to break Israel’s maritime blockade of the devastated Palestinian territory to deliver aid.

The interception took place in international waters off Greece. Israel later said it had removed 175 activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla, which was made up of about 58 vessels carrying crew members from 70 countries. Two members of the flotilla, Abu Keshek and Ávila, were later taken to Israel for questioning.

On Sunday, the rights group representing the pair said the court had ruled to extend their detention and that no formal charges had been filed against them. “The court extended their detention by two days,” Miriam Azem, the international advocacy coordinator at Adalah, told Agence France-Presse.

A source from Spain’s foreign ministry told the Guardian on Sunday that the Spanish consul in Tel Aviv had attended Abu Keshek’s court hearing, adding that he was being “held illegally”.

His next hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, the source said, adding: “The Spanish government demands his immediate release.”

On Saturday, Adalah said its lawyers had met the two detained activists at Shikma prison in Ashkelon.

Thiago Ávila, who along with Saif Abu Keshek was taken to Israel for interrogation after their flotilla was intercepted near Greece. Photograph: Amir Cohen/Reuters

The right group said Ávila had told the lawyers he had been “subjected to extreme brutality” when the vessels were seized, saying he had been “dragged face-down across the floor and beaten so severely that he passed out twice”.

Since arriving in Israel, Ávila said he had been “kept in isolation and blindfolded”, according to Adalah.

Abu Keshek, meanwhile, had been “hand-tied and blindfolded … and forced to lie face down on the floor from the moment of his seizure” until reaching Israel, the group said. “Both activists are continuing their hunger strike in protest of their unlawful detention and ill-treatment,” it added.

Israel’s foreign ministry has accused the two activists of being affiliated with an organisation that is subject to US Treasury sanctions.

Washington accuses the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad (PCPA) of “clandestinely” acting on behalf of the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Israel’s foreign ministry accused Abu Keshek of being a leading PCPA member and alleged that Ávila was also linked to the organisation and “suspected of illegal activity”.

Israeli forces board humanitarian flotilla boats more than 600 miles from Gaza – video

On Friday, after it emerged that the two men had been taken to Israel for interrogation, Spain and Brazil issued a joint statement condemning what they described as the “abduction of two of their citizens in international waters by the government of Israel”.

The Spanish and Brazilian governments demanded the immediate return of their citizens, adding: “This flagrantly illegal action by the Israeli authorities outside their jurisdiction constitutes a violation of international law, which could be brought before international courts, and may constitute a crime under our respective national laws.”

Spain and Israel have long been at diplomatic odds, particularly as the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, emerges as one of Europe’s most vocal critics of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Speaking at a political rally on Saturday, Sánchez condemned the detention of Abu Keshek and Ávila. “We have seen that the Israeli authorities under [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s government have kidnapped several citizens who were on the flotilla heading to Palestine to deliver humanitarian aid and to continue reminding the world that there are people suffering in Gaza, in the West Bank, and throughout Palestine,” he said.

Sánchez added: “Now that Netanyahu has done this – kidnapping foreign citizens, one of them Spanish – and taken him to Israel, I have several things to say to Prime Minister Netanyahu. The first is that Spain will always protect its citizens. The second is that we will always defend international law, and this is a new violation of international law. And the third is that we want the release of the Spanish citizen who has been illegally kidnapped by the Netanyahu government.”

Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has been one of Europe’s most vocal critics of Israel’s war in Gaza. Photograph: Sergio R Moreno/GTRES/Shutterstock

Organisers of the flotilla said the Israeli interception took place more than 620 miles (1,000km) from Gaza and that their equipment was smashed, leaving them grappling with what they called a “calculated death trap at sea”. The Israeli military declined to comment when asked about the accusations by AFP.

The Global Sumud Flotilla’s previous attempt to reach Gaza in the summer and autumn of 2025 drew global attention after Israeli forces intercepted the boats off the coasts of Egypt and Palestinian territory. Crew members including the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg were arrested and expelled by Israeli forces.

The flotilla’s latest attempt came as a senior UN official said the humanitarian needs in Gaza remained “overwhelming.” About 1.8 million people – almost the entire population of Gaza – were displaced and dependent on aid, while hostilities continued and public health risks were mounting, Khaled Khiari, an UN assistant secretary general, told the security council last week.

Gaza, which is governed by Hamas, has been under an Israeli blockade – described by the UN as “a direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law” – since 2007.

Israel’s war in Gaza, triggered by the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, has led to severe shortages of food, water, medicine and fuel, and killed more than 72,500 Palestinians, according to aid agencies.

AFP contributed to this report"

Spain demands release of Gaza flotilla activists ‘held illegally’ by Israel | Israel | The Guardian

‘This is just disarray’: alarm inside Pentagon after Hegseth staff purges

"Insiders portray defense secretary as increasingly isolated after officers with impeccable reputations forced out

Robert Tait

Man testifies at hearing

Pete Hegseth testifies before the Senate armed services committee on Thursday. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP

Since Donald Trump’s first term, they have been viewed comfortingly as the “adults in the room,” a last line of defense against the impulsive whims of a president with access to the nuclear codes.

Now – after an unprecedented wave of firings that has been compared by some to Stalin’s purges – the Pentagon top brass no longer seem like such a reliable bulwark.

Since Trump returned to office in January last year, Pete Hegseth, the rumbustious defense secretary who has made it his mission to remake a military ethos he denounced as “woke”, has fired or forcibly retired 24 generals and senior commanders, with no performance-related reason given.

About 60% have been Black or female, an approach seemingly driven by the administration’s proclaimed onslaught against “DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) hires”.

Yet the officers forced out have had impeccable reputations. The most recent victim was Gen Randy George, the army chief of staff, ousted last month reportedly after he refused to obey Hegseth’s instruction to strike four officers – two Black men and two women – from a list of prospective promotions.

The spate of firings began in February last year with the termination of General CQ Brown as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, a figure that serves as the main interface between the armed forces and the civilian leadership.

Brown, who is Black and a distinguished former air force commander, was replaced by Dan Caine, a three-star general who had retired and had to be quickly promoted to earn the fourth military star needed to win Senate confirmation to a position some observers say he lacks the necessary qualifications for.

Prominent among the female officers removed was Lisa Franchetti, an admiral who was the first woman to be chief of naval operations and the first to sit on the joint chiefs of staff.

Hegseth was unapologetic at a hearing of the Senate armed services committee last week when Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, asked him if Trump had instructed him to single out Black and female officers for dismissal.

“Of course not,” he replied. More revealing was his follow-up: “Members on this committee and the previous leadership of this department were focused on height, social engineering, race and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy.”

In interviews with the Guardian, insiders have portrayed Hegseth – a former Fox News host known for combative public appearances and an aggressive stance towards journalists – as increasingly isolated within the Pentagon’s sprawling bureaucracy and surrounded by a small coterie of close friends and relatives.

Some say he expresses fear and paranoia about Trump firing him from a job for which critics say his background as a former national guard infantry major with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan is inadequate qualification.

Pentagon staff have been surprised to see him accompanied to official meetings by his wife, Jennifer, a former Fox News producer who frequently sits at the back during such encounters.

Hegseth’s other close companions are said to be his brother, Phil, who he has appointed as a senior adviser, along with Tim Parlatore, an attorney who has previously represented Hegseth and Trump, and Ricky Buria, a former marine and Biden administration holdover, to whom he has grown close.

Man holds woman’s hand
Pete Hegseth and his wife Jennifer at the White House correspondents’ dinner last weekend. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Most of the day-to-day work of running a vast department with around 2.1 million military personnel and 770,000 civilian employees worldwide is overseen by Steve Feinberg, the deputy defense secretary, who is a billionaire owner of an investment firm.

Hegseth, meanwhile, has focused on issues of personal interest to him. These include shaking up the Pentagon’s chaplain services – a preoccupation in line with his avowed Christian beliefs, which he is said to give frequent voice with the invocation that “Christ is king”.

Military analysts say Hegseth’s recent firings dovetail with plans spelled out in Project 2025, the radical blueprint drawn up by the rightwing Heritage Foundation that has closely guided Trump’s second-term policies.

“It talked about an officer purge and going after the so-called woke officers at the senior level,” said Paul Eaton, a retired army major-general who commanded US forces after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “They want to create ideologically pure armed forces that will be pliant to the president and his secretary of defense and whose oath will be more to a person than to the constitution.”

Eaton likened the removals to Stalin’s far bloodier purge of red army generals before the second world war – which is widely believed to have hampered the Soviet Union’s initial efforts to repel the 1941 invasion by Nazi Germany – warning that it could hinder US military operational capacity in its war effort against Iran.

“I believe that the senior leadership of the US military has been substantially damaged,” he said.

“You develop a fracture in the cohesion of the people at that level. It is if you haven’t been purged, you wonder if you are next if you say the wrong thing to the man or woman on your left or right that may invoke the wrath of the secretary of defense or the president.

“That’s a really unhealthy environment when you’re afraid to speak your mind, and not just truth to power, but truth in the defense of the armed forces against stupid decisions.”

The military’s willingness to resist Trump seems more crucial than ever in the light of the president’s recent vows to devastate Iran’s civilian infrastructure and his now-notorious warning that a “whole civilization will die” unless Iranian leaders agree to his conditions.

Veterans worry about the rank-and-file impact of threats to carry out war crimes or even genocide. They are also concerned about the ability of senior figures – including Caine – to stand against it.

“All the retired officers I know are seriously concerned of the long-term effect on the force of senior leaders saying things like no quarter, no mercy (comments that have been made by Hegseth), or [that] we’re going to eliminate a civilization without any remonstration from the senior military officials,” said Kevin Carroll, a former army colonel who has served in the offices of the defense secretary and the joint chiefs of staff.

“I think it poses a real long-term risk threat to the ethics and ethos of the force.”

Misgivings have been voiced about the standing of Caine, who has never held a senior command role and who some believe lacks the authority of previous joint chief chairs to resist Trump’s wilder impulses in the manner of Gen Mark Milley, who told officials to inform him of any suspect military order from the president in the wake of the 6 January, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol.

“He has an extremely unusual résumé, I think an unprecedented résumé for chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and that just has to make Caine feel that his job is always vulnerable when he sees Trump and Hegseth have fired people with excellent resumes like Brown, Franchetti or Randy George,” said Carroll.

Eaton said: “I hear he’s a good man, but something happens to you when you vault from a three-star to a four-star general and there is a massive growth requirement. His body language when he does briefings with Hegseth is not that of a man who is thrilled to be there.

“What he says to the president as his senior military adviser behind close doors, I don’t know. But if you have the president of the United States get within two hours or 90 minutes of committing a strategic war crime, going after a civilization neutralization as he was threatening, we definitely have something missing in the civilian-military relationship.”

Restraining Trump seems all the more urgent amid unconfirmed reports that he discussed the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran in a recent White House meeting.

A source with knowledge of the meeting insisted Trump was just “talking out loud about nukes” and not “demanding a strike”.

One senior official from Trump’s first administration proclaimed himself unsurprised, calling the president “enamored with nukes” and saying he had to be talked out of using them against North Korea in 2017, seeing them as the “ultimate expression of his toughness”.

Some question whether such powers of persuasion still exist in the present-day Pentagon.

“For years, we’ve been told that we don’t have to worry about a crazy president launching a nuclear war, because the military would not carry out any illegal order,” said Joe Cirincione, a veteran national security analyst and nuclear non-proliferation expert, who called for new rules of command over nuclear strikes.

“But that’s not real. What we’ve seen in the last year is the military repeatedly carrying out illegal orders. The attacks on the alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, the raid to seize [President Nicolas] Maduro in Venezuela, the war on Iran, have all been illegal – yet the military carried them all out.

“People don’t understand the president has sole unfettered authority to launch nuclear weapons whenever he wants, for any reason he wants. It’s a very short chain of command. It turns out that relying on the military to refuse an illegal order from the president is not an adequate barrier. We need something a whole lot stronger.”

On one famous previous occasion, the possibility of an unstable president ordering a nuclear strike was blocked by the actions of the Pentagon.

In 1974, with Richard Nixon’s presidency on the verge of disintegration over Watergate, the then defense secretary, James Schlesinger – fearing that the president’s fragile mental state might induce him to order a nuclear attack – ordered senior military figures to check any such commands with him.

It is hard to see such a restraining role being played by Hegseth, who by common depiction sees his role as catering to Trump’s every wish and has frequently matched his boss’s belligerent rhetoric towards Iran.

It adds up to scenario seen with bewilderment by Pentagon veterans seasoned in observing tensions between the civilian and military leadership but conditioned to seeing them resolved amicably.

“There was tension between the office of the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff when I served on the joint staff in 2002 and 2003 because of disagreements about Iraq over whether and how we should go to war,” said Carroll. “But it was all very professional and civil. This is just disarray. It’s crazy.”

Aram Roston contributed reporting"