this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
174 points (99.4% liked)

politics

23457 readers
2639 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Plans to brief billionaire businessman were scrapped over ethics concerns and confusion over who ordered it

Top Pentagon aides were developing a briefing for Elon Musk last month on more than two dozen highly classified weapons programs for fighting China until the department’s top lawyer intervened, people familiar with the plan said.

Acting Pentagon General Counsel Charles Young learned that a memo being drafted to show Musk contained information on 29 China-related “special access programs,” a designation for the military’s most sensitive secrets, the people said.

Young contacted a senior aide to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was traveling in Japan, to ask if the secretary had approved revealing China plans to the billionaire businessman. “The memo is on hold until you guys can get back and discuss,” Young wrote in a text reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 71 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What the fuck are people doing there? By what measure could Elon Musk's non-role at Doge have any relationship to our intel on Chinese weapons systems? And how could there ever be confusion as to who ordered a classified briefing? That's so far from how classification is supposed to work it doesn't make sense how it ever even got beyond a simple rejection.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

It was intentional until it leaked. They'd rather look even more incompetent with classified info than just admit whatever the real reason is or make up something fake to cover.

Looking even more incompetent is the best option they thought. That should be extremely worrying. Having yet another classified information scandal is the best option.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

They’d rather look even more incompetent with classified info than just admit whatever the real reason is or make up something fake to cover.

Every time something major breaks and it seems like everyone involved is extremely incompetent, this is what I assume.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was intentional from start to finish. They just don't want to admit that, because then they would have to admit the real reason, and that thought terrifies them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'm talking about the actual people making the reports, not the political appointees. They should have never let things bumble on being uncertain about who ordered the presentation. The systems and bureaucracy of the government have just completely failed to maintain processes and standards.