A left-wing website called Raw Story has an article meant to make people shocked and angry about what SecWar Hegseth and his aides are doing to kick DEI/wokeness out of the Pentagon.
But it sounds good to us.
Read on and see at what point (if any) you get mad:
Hegseth built secret surveillance apparatus to punish ‘woke’ subordinates: report
By David Edwards | Raw Story
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ran a secret online search operation that effectively punished subordinates for behavior he has described as “woke.”
The result of what the New York Times called Hegseth’s “war on diversity” had serious consequences for officers who were up for promotion.
Hegseth and his top aides ordered the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to scour the internet for photos, videos or news articles that might draw his ire, the Times reported Friday. Then his own staff ran the searches again — to make sure the branches hadn’t missed anything, or tried to protect anyone.
Inside the Pentagon, the flagged material was code-named “derogatory material” screening.
Hegseth blocked promotions for at least 40 senior officers to general and admiral ranks this year. About half were women or members of minority groups.
Officers who had spoken publicly about diversity or urged troops to get the COVID vaccine were targeted.
Photos and articles posted on official Navy websites were turned into evidence against the officers they once celebrated.
Rear Adm. Stephen Barnett, already a one-star admiral, was the Navy’s top pick to be promoted to vice admiral and run its global base command — more experienced than any other candidate, and fresh off three years cleaning up a catastrophic fuel spill in Hawaii that sickened thousands. Hegseth passed over him anyway, selecting the Navy’s third choice, after flagging Barnett’s years-old remarks on the importance of diversity.
Hegseth has made no secret of what he was after. At West Point last month, he told graduates that previous military leaders had been “woke and weak.”
He declared at the Army War College in 2025 that “DEI is dead.”
It was not clear whether Hegseth had the legal authority to pull names from the lists at all — Congress had entrusted that power to the service secretaries, not the defense secretary.
?
Referenced article in the above: Secret Vetting and Blocked Promotions: Inside Hegseth’s War on Diversity (New York Times)
Someone sent STARRS VP Mike Rose this article and asked for comments. Rose said:
Thank you for sending me the NY Times article entitled “Secret Vetting and Blocked Promotions: Inside Hegseth’s War on Diversity.”
I would begin my reply by stating, as I often do, that one can perceive a glass of milk/water as half full or half empty, and both be true at the same time.
The reality can be the same but the perceptions different and sometimes even opposite.
For example, we at STARRS think “merit” and “unity ,” not “diversity,” are strengths in the military. The military cannot have policies promoting unity and diversity simultaneously. And when policies promoting diversity have sacrificed unity, policies restoring unity can interfere with what is perceived as diversity.
Former AF Chief of Staff CQ Brown stated on a video I saw that he was a Black man who happened to be in the Air Force. Is it in the military’s interest to teach that concept emphasizing race to subordinates, or is it more effective for the leader to set a non-racial unity tone to subordinates by stating he was in the Air Force and happened to be Black?
I could reply to many sentences in the article below by questioning the accuracy of the facts stated or perception portrayed, or by positing a justification for the action taken, but there is not enough time to do so. As just one example, I could respond to the term “Secret Vetting” by doubting that promotion selectins should be in public instead of in private. As another example, while the NY Times headlines with “Hegseth’s War on Diversity,” it could be more appropriate to say “Hegseth’s War on Racism,” meaning “reverse racism.”
I remind that it is the NY Times that promoted the “1619 Project” claiming, and teaching to youths, that America began in 1619 with the advent of the first slave in America, and that America, including its Constitution, was based on racism. Renown historians have disputed that, but that claim nevertheless has been promoted. Should American be reviled for having had slaves for praised/respected for having ended slavery (and at great cost/sacrifice). Whether you choose the former or the latter, or both, is analogous to whether you choose to see the glass has half empty or half full, or both.
Ask ourselves which view breeds a healthier future for the military and society: the half full or the half empty perception/teaching/policy.
Greg wrote, “a Pentagon spokesman did not respond to a detailed list of questions,” which is completely false 👇 https://t.co/0pcChX6ft5 pic.twitter.com/AvkFa1zOaw
— Acting Press Sec Joel Valdez (@JoelValdezDOW) June 19, 2026
Leave a Comment