This week, Naked Capitalism is raising funds to support our mission against corruption and predatory practices, especially in finance. Join us by contributing through our donation page, which provides options for giving via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. Learn about the reasons for this fundraiser, our achievements over the last year, and our current goal of supporting our enhanced daily Links.
As the U.S. federal government faces a shutdown due to a funding stalemate in Congress, we see President Donald Trump deploying troops in various American cities, while Secretary of War Pete Hegseth asserts he is overhauling the U.S. military. Can we distinguish between a genuine clampdown and a mere spectacle?
Moreover, we cannot overlook the mounting signs of escalating conflict in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and potential unrest in South America.
I aim to apply a lens of calculated deception, delusion, and recklessness—similar to what I recently explored regarding Israel’s hasbara campaign and the European strategies for public sentiment control—to evaluate the latest actions taken by the Trump administration, encompassing propaganda, military maneuvers, and financial tactics.
Setting the context is crucial as we investigate these developments. The Trump administration is acting with urgency, sensing that the current financial bubble may be on the verge of bursting, a realization that can provoke desperate measures.
Philip Pilkington aptly captured this sentiment, referencing John Authers’ Bloomberg piece, “Assume an AI Bubble: What Difference Would It Make?”:
This comment on the AI bubble from @johnauthers is spot on. The recent stock market bubble feels less like an excitement-driven phenomenon and more like a desperate lifeline. There’s a prevailing sense that something is nearing its conclusion—specifically, USD hegemony—and everyone is simply trying to hold on. 🫧 pic.twitter.com/V7f70jFbEd
— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) October 1, 2025
Next, we’ll examine the Trump administration’s immediate efforts to leverage the ongoing shutdown.
True to form, Trump is leading the charge with his characteristic bravado during this shutdown crisis.
Trump: We can execute actions during the shutdown that are permanent and detrimental to them. This includes cutting off vast numbers of people and eliminating programs they value.
We can make changes in medical services and more, including benefits. We can significantly reduce the population reliant on these services. pic.twitter.com/hGFE4F2FoL
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 30, 2025
While it’s tempting to dismiss Trump’s rhetoric, Russ Vought, a significant figure in Trump’s team, is already implementing targeted cuts to directly impact Democrats.
Specifically, the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Second Avenue Subway. https://t.co/pR3W4JWmh2
— Russ Vought (@russvought) October 1, 2025
As the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Vought wields considerable power over federal allocations.
Recently, he received the “supervillain” treatment from the New York Times:
— Nat Wilson Turner (@natwilsonturner) October 1, 2025
The New York Times piece offers some noteworthy excerpts:
(Vought) has meticulously studied pitfalls from the first term. He has outlined steps to achieve a long-desired conservative objective: a president with significantly increased authority over the executive branch, including the power to halt spending, dismiss employees, manage independent agencies, and deregulate the economy.
…
Vought has begun to operationalize his plans, progressively remaking the presidency by restoring powers that had been diminished since the Nixon administration. His initiatives are enabling Trump to exert authority more aggressively than any modern president has done, posing a threat to the established checks and balances within America’s constitutional framework.As the impending government shutdown approaches, Mr. Vought’s influence is further magnifying. He is using this moment to push for cuts to agencies and the removal of employees, with his office advising agencies of potential mass layoffs unless Congress reaches a consensus to maintain government operations.
This ultimatum follows Vought’s recent successes, such as convincing lawmakers to reallocate $9 billion initially meant for foreign aid and public broadcasting that had already received Congressional approval—an unusual concession from Congress to the executive branch. Consequently, this legislative win eliminated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and helped solidify Trump’s domestic policy changes, which decreased expenses on Medicaid and food assistance programs.
Vought has spearheaded efforts to eliminate hundreds of regulations related to the environment, health, transportation, and worker safety, telling Trump during a cabinet meeting in August that his team has initiated 245 deregulation efforts this year. He has asserted executive influence over independent agencies, like the Federal Reserve, by mandating that their regulatory actions receive his office’s endorsement.
In his capacity as the interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he nearly halted all of the agency’s activities and aimed to terminate 90% of its workforce.
At the core of Mr. Vought’s strategy, associates contend, is a calculated effort to spark a legal challenge regarding Congress’s power over government expenditure, potentially setting a fresh legal precedent allowing the president to obstruct funding for any programs or policies he disapproves of.
The article also contrasts Vought’s methodical approach with the chaotic antics of Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative, which, while causing panic within various government sectors and resulting in significant job losses, lacked a sustained or well-considered strategy.
Meanwhile, Vought is adeptly masking billions of dollars allocated by Congress, as Notus reports:
Through its aggressive budget cuts and program eliminations, the Trump administration has consistently tested Congress’s exclusive power over financial appropriations. The administration asserts it has the latitude to redirect funds for initiatives aligning with Trump’s vision, a strategy that Republican congressional leaders have largely permitted.
This has resulted in billions in taxpayer funds becoming virtually impossible to trace—a level of obscurity that raises significant legal concerns about the administration’s maneuvers. Some of these allocated funds have expiration dates of September 30. If they are not utilized by this date, they will vanish as all funds approved by Congress for 2025 do.
Notus attempted to trace allocations for over 100 federal programs, only to encounter repeated dead ends. The data is often outdated or conflicting, and agencies have provided vague responses, with many cases lacking publicly available proof of expenditure.
…
The Government Accountability Office has initiated over 40 investigations to determine whether the administration has unlawfully withheld funds in breach of congressional directives, with findings already indicating violations by FEMA, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Health and Human Services.According to Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, the Trump administration is “really pushing the limits of what the executive can do without the consent of the legislative branch” as noted in July by The Wall Street Journal.
Her warnings intensified in late August when the White House clarified that OMB Director Russell Vought was set to pursue a controversial practice known as “pocket rescission” to enforce funding limitations.
Now, let’s turn our attention to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and his efforts to reshape the Pentagon through discourse.
One might easily dismiss Hegseth’s recent address as offbeat cultural commentary:
This oration is aimed at rectifying decades of degradation—some overt, others veiled. Our goal is to clear away distractions and allow leaders to lead once more. We’re putting an end to the “war on warriors,” as someone recently phrased it.
For too long, promotions within the ranks have been based on misguided criteria like race, gender quotas, and so-called historic milestones. We have blurred the lines between combat and non-combat roles and have excluded so-called toxic leaders under the pretense of risk assessments, fostering a culture of conformity instead.
Reckless political leaders have steered us off course, making us a bastion of wokeness. But that era is over. Today, I see before me a multitude of Americans who chose, at a young age, to serve something greater than themselves—fighting for God, country, freedom, and the Constitution.
Hegseth’s apparent anti-woke agenda has spurred the usual anonymous critiques in the media, leading us to question how united the U.S. military truly is behind Trump’s policies as reported by The Washington Post:
Military officials have voiced significant concerns regarding the Trump administration’s upcoming defense strategy, revealing a rift between the Pentagon’s political leaders and uniformed officers. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has summoned top brass to an unconventional summit in Virginia on Tuesday, according to eight current and former officials.
Critiques from several senior officers, including Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are emerging as Hegseth redefines U.S. military priorities, placing increasing emphasis on domestic threats, curtailing competition with China, and diminishing America’s global presence in Europe and Africa.
However, there might be more significant developments underway behind closed doors—details that haven’t yet been leaked to the media.
Larry Johnson cited a private correspondence with Naked Capitalism’s principal, which illuminates potential underlying intentions:
…it seems nonsensical to have summoned so many senior officials for such trivial matters. A stern memo or video communication could have sufficed.
This grand meeting, in my opinion, might serve to disguise a smaller, more critical gathering that truly required in-person attendance, and the participants could signal the real focus of the discussion.
Johnson elaborated on this idea, stating:
In addition to the considerable naval forces stationed off the coast of Venezuela, we are hearing reports of U.S. tanker aircraft en route to the Middle East through England. We observed similar activity leading up to the June 24 military action against Iran.
If the Trump administration is indeed plotting coordinated strikes against Venezuela and Iran, the commanders from USCENTCOM and USSOUTHCOM would likely be involved. This type of sensitive military planning is typically discussed in private settings; if CENTCOM and SOUTHCOM commanders were called to Washington on their own, it would likely attract attention. The presence of the naval force near Venezuela combined with the movement of aircraft toward the Persian Gulf likely signifies something significant in the making.
Trump’s domestic military deployments have also raised concerns, as revealed in statements reported by the Chicago Sun-Times:
“I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should utilize some of these problematic cities as military training grounds, including Chicago—due to the incompetence of its governor. They desperately need military support,” said Trump. He criticized crime rates in Chicago, even though statistics show they have fallen. “They need the military urgently.”
National Guard mobilization has already begun in Oregon, which Trump described as “a war zone.”
Trump also addressed the potential military response to protests, stating, “If they spit, we retaliate.” He informed military leaders that he had instituted an executive order to create a National Guard quick response unit last month “due to threats from within.”
Tyler Hicks at Inkstick considers whether the U.S. military is ideologically prepared for the kind of repression Trump appears to envision in his piece “‘Let’s Go Bash Some Skulls’: Inside the Militarization of Trump’s America.”
“The American right frames their political rivals and the Democratic Party as a formidable foreign insurgency,” notes (a California-based military officer named Michael). “Given the trajectory toward escalation already established, I can foresee a response that channels this National Guard and ICE energy against individuals with left-leaning ideologies.”
…
Kris Goldsmith, an Iraq War veteran and founder of Task Force Butler dedicated to addressing extremist groups, suggests that the “MAGA-fication” of the military has been an underappreciated trend. When the National Guard deploys domestically, “the generals aren’t on the frontlines wielding shields or batons; rather, it’s the younger recruits who grew up in the Trump era and enlisted during his presidency, aware that Trumpism is a potent political force.”
Trump and Hegseth are nurturing a new outlaw warrior ethos within the U.S. military, a trend extensively explored in The New York Times Magazine’s multi-part series titled “America’s Vigilantes: A Four-Part Investigation of the Culture of Impunity in the U.S. Special Forces.”
All four sections merit a read:
Nevertheless, I’ll focus on summarizing the NY Times’ five key takeaways from the series:
- The culture of rule-breaking in Special Forces emerged as a response to unconventional warfare.
- Special Operations commanders ignored evidence suggestive of potentially severe war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
- The military’s aggressive prosecution of Maj. Mathew Golsteyn indicates it could pursue actions against Green Berets when deemed appropriate.
- This wartime culture of lawlessness has contributed to a surge of domestic offenses committed by individuals associated with Army Special Operations.
- The operators’ vigilante mentality has gained traction among leaders like Trump and Hegseth.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, gained prominence through his staunch defense of Golsteyn and other service members implicated in war crimes. “They’re not war criminals; they’re warriors,” he asserted in 2019, shortly before Golsteyn and others received pardons from Trump.
Within the current administration, Trump and Hegseth actively promote loosening legal constraints on military actions both abroad and domestically, while simultaneously expanding military roles at home. They have deracinated the military’s senior legal advisors, deployed active troops for domestic patrols, and authorized lethal measures against those labeled “narco-terrorists,” acts that experts have deemed violations of international law.
However, Trump’s plans for the military have not fully infiltrated all ranks of the general officer corps.
Brigadier General Alan R. Gronewold, leader of the National Guard unit currently stationed in Portland, walks a fine line in a letter reported by Ken Klippenstein, who highlights that the troops are no longer under the command of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek:
“I understand some of you may hold strong opinions regarding this mission. That is acceptable. You are citizens first but also service members who took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and to obey the directives of both the President and the Governor. This oath does not come with an asterisk that reads, ‘only if I endorse the mission.’”
“I’ll be candid—this isn’t easy. Some individuals in Oregon may not back this mission. A few might even be antagonistic toward it. However, we have navigated challenging circumstances before. We are professionals who fulfill our obligations, irrespective of public reception.”
Klippenstein has also been shedding light on Trump’s concerning National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which classifies “anti-Christian” and “anti-American” views as markers of radical leftist violence.
Thus far, NSPM7 has been overlooked by Congressional Democrats and downplayed by the media, but I concur with Klippenstein that it signals a greater alarm than the avalanche of Executive Orders Trump has been issuing at unprecedented levels.
It’s evident that this iteration of Trump represents a far more perilous and alarming version than his previous term.
In my next piece, I will delve into Trump’s efforts to prosecute former FBI director James Comey for his alleged role in undermining Trump’s first term through the Russiagate scandal and how these actions might have inadvertently intensified Trump’s radicalization.
