National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said one of the U.S. troops suffered critical injuries in the attack that occurred earlier Monday. The Iranian-backed militia Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups, under an umbrella of Iranian-backed militants, claimed credit for the attack that utilized a one-way attack drone.

Iraqi officials said U.S. strikes targeting militia sites early Tuesday killed one militant and injured 18. They came at a time of heightened fears of a regional spillover of the Israel-Hamas war.

U.S. CENTCOM conducts strikes against Kataib Hezbollah terrorist group targets in Iraq

In response to multiple attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Syria, U.S. military forces conducted airstrikes against multiple facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups… pic.twitter.com/mmL4WqFXq9

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) December 26, 2023

Iran announced Monday that an Israeli strike on the outskirts of the Syrian capital of Damascus killed one of its top generals, Razi Mousavi, who had been a close companion of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the former head of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Soleimani was slain in a U.S. drone strike in Iraq in January 2020.

Iranian officials vowed revenge for the killing of Mousavi but did not immediately launch a retaliatory strike. The militia attack Monday in northern Iraq was launched prior to the strike in Syria that killed Mousavi.

Biden, who was spending Christmas at the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, was alerted about the attack by White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan shortly after it occurred Monday and ordered the Pentagon and his top national security aides to prepare response options to the attack on an air base used by American troops in Irbil.

US troops in Iraq and Syria attacked two dozen times in two weeks

Sullivan consulted with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Biden’s deputy national security adviser, Jon Finer, was with the president at Camp David and convened top aides to review options, according to a U.S. official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity.

Within hours, Biden convened his national security team for a call in which Austin and Gen. CQ Brown, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed Biden on the response options. Biden opted to target three locations used by Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups, the official said.

The U.S. strikes were carried out at about 4:45 a.m. Tuesday in Iraq, less than 13 hours after the U.S. personnel were attacked. According to U.S. Central Command, the retaliatory strikes on the three sites “destroyed the targeted facilities and likely killed a number of Kataib Hezbollah militants.”

“The President places no higher priority than the protection of American personnel serving in harm’s way,” Watson said. “The United States will act at a time and in a manner of our choosing should these attacks continue.”

The latest attack on U.S. troops follows months of escalating threats and actions against American forces in the region since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel that sparked the devastating war in Gaza.

The dangerous back-and-forth strikes have escalated since Iranian-backed militant groups under the umbrella group called the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and Syria began striking U.S. facilities Oct. 17, the date that a blast at a hospital in Gaza killed hundreds. Iranian-backed militias have carried out more than 100 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria since the start of the Israel-Hamas war more than two months ago.

In November, U.S. fighter jets struck a Kataib Hezbollah operations center and command and control node, following a short-range ballistic missile attack on U.S. forces at Al-Assad Air Base in western Iraq. Iranian-backed militias also carried out a drone attack at the same air base in October, causing minor injuries.

The U.S. has also blamed Iran, which has funded and trained Hamas, for attacks by Yemen’s Houthi militants against commercial and military vessels through a critical shipping choke point in the Red Sea.

The Biden administration has sought to prevent the Israel-Hamas war from spiraling into a wider regional conflict that either opens up new fronts of Israeli fighting or draws the U.S. in directly. The administration’s measured response — where not every attempt on American troops has been met with a counterattack — has drawn criticism from Republicans.

Number of troops injured in drone attacks jumps to 56

The U.S. has thousands of troops in Iraq training Iraqi forces and combating remnants of the Islamic State group, and hundreds in Syria, mostly on the counter-IS mission. They have come under dozens of attacks, though as yet none fatal, since the war began on Oct. 7, with the U.S. attributing responsibility to Iran-backed groups.

“While we do not seek to escalate conflict in the region, we are committed and fully prepared to take further necessary measures to protect our people and our facilities,” Austin said in a statement.

The clashes put the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani in a delicate position. He came to power in 2022 with the backing of a coalition of Iranian-backed parties, some of which are associated with the same militias launching the attacks on U.S. bases.

A group of Iranian-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces were key in the fight against Islamic State militants after the extremist group overran much of Iraq in 2014. The PMF is officially under the command of the Iraqi army, but in practice the militias operate independently.

In a statement Tuesday, Sudani condemned both the militia attack in Irbil and the U.S. response.

Attacks on “foreign diplomatic mission headquarters and sites hosting military advisors from friendly nations … infringe upon Iraq’s sovereignty and are deemed unacceptable under any circumstances,” the statement said.

However, it added that that the retaliatory strikes by the U.S. on “Iraqi military sites” — referring to the militia — “constitute a clear hostile act.” Sudani said some of those injured in the strikes were civilians.

His time in Washington, which will include meetings on Tuesday at the White House and with Congress, is part of a last-minute push by the Biden administration to convince lawmakers to pass a supplemental funding bill, as officials warn that the money for Ukraine is running out.

President Joe Biden has asked Congress for $61.4 billion for wartime funding for Ukraine as part of a $110 billion package that also includes money for Israel and other national security priorities. But the request is caught up in a debate over U.S. immigration policy and border security. The U.S. has already provided Ukraine $111 billion for its fight against Russia’s 2022 invasion.

“If there’s anyone inspired by unresolved issues on Capitol Hill, it’s just (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and his secret clique,” Zelenskyy told an audience of military leaders and students at the National Defense University. “Ukrainians haven’t given up and won’t give up. We know what to do. And you can count on Ukraine. And we hope just as much to be able to count on you.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who introduced the Ukrainian president, said America’s commitment to Ukraine is unshakeable and supporting the war is critical to ensuring the security of the U.S. and its allies.

“America’s commitments must be honored. America’s security must be defended. And America’s word must be kept,” Austin said.

He said Zelenskyy is “living proof that a single person’s leadership can help rally an embattled democracy and inspire the free world and change the course of history.”

With Congress in its final work week before leaving for the holidays, questions remain as to whether Republicans will be able to come to an agreement on any rounds of future funding for Ukraine or Israel without White House concessions on additional border security as illegal crossings surge. But any border package also runs the risk of alienating some Democrats.

According to the Defense Department, there is about $4.8 billion remaining in presidential drawdown authority, which pulls weapons from existing U.S. stockpiles and sends them quickly to the war front, and about $1.1 billion left in funding to replenish the U.S. military stockpiles.

John Kirby, the White House National Security Council spokesman, told reporters Monday that Zelenskyy’s visit comes at a critical time.

“This is exactly the right time to be having President Zelenskyy in town to have these discussions, because of what’s going on in Ukraine, the increased activity we’re seeing by the Russian armed forces as winter approaches, but also what’s going on on Capitol Hill,” said Kirby.

He said Biden will make clear to Zelenskyy when they meet that the White House is standing firm on the supplemental budget request. White House spokesman Andrew Bates said top Office of Management and Budget, National Security Council and White House legislative affairs officials have continued to press the case for the funding.

Associated Press reporters Aamer Madhani and Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.

House and Senate negotiators included a measure in their compromise draft of the annual defense policy bill to stop federal dollars from going toward the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group. That body was established by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in 2021 to address an increase in concerning behavior among troops. Members had proposed a host of reforms the Pentagon could make to better track, prevent and respond to cases of extremism, which the department is still working to implement nearly two years later.

But earlier this year, Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., introduced the measure to halt the working group, describing its work as unnecessary. He argued his proposal was key to “eliminating the ‘wokeness’ in our military,” referring to what he sees as a rise in radically progressive policies at the Pentagon.

Alford was one of a handful of House Republicans who introduced multiple measures to restrict the Defense Department’s extremism-prevention efforts and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives through the annual defense policy bill. Negotiators stripped away the harshest of those provisions, but several made it into the final draft.

Now, the end of the Countering Extremist Activity Work Group would mean the Pentagon will face less accountability as it works to implement the group’s recommended reforms, argued Wendy Via, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

“It was clearly a concession – one we wish hadn’t been made,” Via said. “We were pursuing to keep that working group because once it’s gone, we’re never going to get it back.”

The compromise measure is expected to be voted on by the full House and Senate by the end of next week.

If the bill is approved, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security would gain the responsibility of overseeing the military’s extremism-prevention efforts and the implementation of the working group’s proposed reforms, according to an explanation from House and Senate negotiators that accompanied the final draft of the bill.

Via believes that separating those duties between two under secretaries would make it more difficult to implement the reforms. As of last month, the Pentagon was still struggling to track and report extremism data in a cohesive way.

The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General published a report Nov. 30 that found the service branches investigated 183 allegations of extremist activity among troops in the past year, including 78 cases of service members advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government. While leaders were able to report the number of allegations investigated, they did not track how many allegations of extremist activity were received but not investigated.

The IG’s office found that the Army, Navy and Air Force had separate reporting structures and used different electronic systems for tracking allegations of extremism. The lack of data about allegations that weren’t investigated made it difficult for the IG to gauge how effectively the Defense Department prevented and responded to extremist activities during the past year, the report states.

Without the working group, Josh Connolly, the senior vice president of Protect Our Defenders, said he would expect to see future reports showing more problems that haven’t been addressed. Protect Our Defenders is a nonprofit that works to end sexual violence and racism in the military and urged lawmakers to keep the working group intact.

“It’s clear that combating the very real threat of extremism within our ranks does not seem to be a priority of Congress, even when all evidence points to persisting problems,” Connolly said.

The advocacy group Human Rights First also pushed Congress to maintain the Pentagon’s extremism-prevention efforts. While some advocates believe the work wouldn’t go far without the working group, Liz Yates, a researcher with Human Rights First, said she was reassured by the explanation from House and Senate negotiators that claimed the group’s reforms would still be implemented.

Yates believes that negotiators shifting the oversight of the reforms to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security was an attempt to “hold that progress” made by the working group.

“It ensures the implementation of those provisions will be continued,” Yates said.

However, the Pentagon should be more transparent about its progress to implement the reforms, Yates argued. While the Defense Department has taken incremental steps – such as expanding the list of extremist activities prohibited by the military – multiple news outlets reported this summer that the department abandoned most of the working group’s recommendations. Pentagon spokesmen have not answered whether the working group had ended its efforts or held additional training to focus on how the military’s core values run counter to extremist ideologies.

Human Rights First, along with dozens of veterans and military family advocacy groups, anti-extremism groups and individual extremism experts, sent a letter to Austin in September, criticizing him for the lack of transparency about the Pentagon’s progress.

“There’s a lot of work left to do and a lot more that needs to be done,” Yates said Dec. 8. “We definitely want to see more transparency and understanding.”

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

A staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Reserve from Texas was arrested Wednesday on felony charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, where authorities say he pushed and grabbed police officers and called one officer a “traitor.”

Kyle Douglas McMahan, 41, of Watauga, was taken into custody in Dallas nearly three years after authorities say he joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the Capitol wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat with “God” written on it in black marker.

After the riot, his Google search history included: “Can I resign from the military if I do not want to serve an illegitimate president?” and “capitol terrorists identified,” according to court papers.

He faces felony charges of assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers and obstruction of law enforcement, as well as additional misdemeanor offenses.

There was no lawyer immediately named in the court docket. The voice mailbox was full for a number listed for McMahan and a person who answered the phone at a number listed for a relative declined to comment.

The Air Force Reserve Command said in an emailed statement that McMahan is a reservist at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas. McMahan is a staff sergeant in the 301st Fighter Wing medical squadron and a traditional reservist who is not actively participating in the unit, the command said.

Authorities say McMahan was seen on camera pushing back and forth against an officer outside a Capitol door before going into the building. During another encounter with law enforcement inside, prosecutors say he attempted to swat at an officer and grabbed an officer’s fingers, appearing to crush them in his hand.

Before he left the Capitol, he was captured on video telling one officer: “You’re a traitor,” according to court papers. Later that day, he was seen outside the Capitol wearing a green ballistics helmet and carrying an American flag.

Authorities say McMahan boasted on social media about being at the riot, writing: “For those that think we went in because of Trump is uninformed. We the people are the ones that need to rid our government of corruption, abuse and tyranny!”

He is among roughly 1,200 people who have been charged with federal crimes stemming from the riot that left dozens of police officers injured and halted the certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. Those charged include dozens of former and active duty military or members of the reserve.

Nearly 900 defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted by a judge or jury after trials. Over 700 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving prison sentences ranging from three days to 22 years.

Richer reported from Boston. AP Researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed.

The latest aid comes as Congress remains stalled on legislation that would provide new funding for Ukraine as it battles to push back Russian forces, as well as money for Israel’s war with Hamas and other security needs. The Biden administration has said funding to aid Ukraine is running out, and the Pentagon packages of weapons and other equipment for the war have become much smaller in recent months.

Ukraine aid in peril as Senate Republicans walk out of heated briefing

The White House is seeking nearly $106 billion, but the bill has gotten bogged down in negotiations over border security and because of increasing reluctance from Republican lawmakers to approve significant spending on the Ukraine war. GOP lawmakers are insisting on policy changes to halt the flow of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border as a condition for the assistance.

As part of the push to break the deadlock, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was scheduled to address U.S. senators by video Tuesday, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he had to cancel his appearance.

Drawdown authority

The latest weapons package will be provided through presidential drawdown authority, or PDA, which pulls weapons from existing U.S. stockpiles and sends them quickly to the war front, said U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the aid has not yet been publicly announced.

Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday there is about $1.1 billion left in funding to replenish U.S. military stockpiles for weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine. And he said there is roughly $4.8 billion in drawdown authority still available.

Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov is scheduled to meet with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon on Wednesday afternoon.

Although the war has been static along most of its more than 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line as wintry weather has set in, both sides have continued to launch airstrikes. Ukraine is working to keep up the pressure over the winter, in order to prevent Russia from solidifying battle lines.

U.S. officials said the new aid will also include AIM-9M and AIM-7 missiles for air defense; artillery rounds, vehicles to tow equipment, demolition munitions and other missiles and more than 4 million rounds of ammunition.

A Chinese naval force was mobilized to track the USS Gabrielle Giffords during the operation, according to a statement from the People’s Liberation Army Southern Theater. The U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet said the ship “was conducting routine operations in international waters ... consistent with international law.”

Chinese and Philippine naval and coast guard ships have confronted each other repeatedly around the shoal in the Spratly Islands in recent months as China tries to prevent the Philippines from resupplying and repairing a rusting warship that it intentionally ran aground in 1999 to serve as a military outpost.

Dwarfed by China’s military might, the Philippines has sought America’s help in its multiple territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. agreed to an expansion of the U.S. military presence in the country early this year and launched joint sea and air patrols with the United States late last month.

China accuses the U.S. of meddling in waters far from its shores and renewed its charge that America is the one raising regional tensions following the sailing of the USS Giffords near Second Thomas Shoal. The ship is a littoral combat ship designed to operate in coastal areas.

“The U.S. deliberately disrupted the situation in the South China Sea, seriously violated China’s sovereignty and security, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and seriously violated international law and basic norms governing international relations, fully demonstrating that the U.S. is the biggest threat to peace and stability in the South China Sea,” the statement from the Chinese military’s Southern Theater said.

China has staked claim to virtually all of the reefs and other outcroppings in the South China Sea, building some into islands with runways that could be used by the military. Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also say they are the rightful owners of territory in the same waters in a complex web of overlapping claims.

The U.S. has long been the major military power patrolling the South China Sea, an important shipping lane and fishing grounds, operating out of bases in the Pacific. China’s emergence as a military power and its ambitions to be a regional and global power are challenging American long-standing dominance.

A statement from the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, based in Japan, said its operations in the South China Sea demonstrate a commitment “to upholding a free and open Indo-Pacific region where all nations, large and small, are secure in their sovereignty, can resolve disputes without coercion, and have the freedom to navigate and fly consistent with international laws, rules and norms.”

The Philippine coast guard said Sunday that it had sent two ships to Whitsun Reef, another disputed territory in the Spratly Islands, to challenge and document what it estimated to be more than 135 Chinese vessels massing in the area. The Philippines called them a maritime militia and said their presence is illegal. The vessels did not respond to radio challenges, the coast guard said.

China, as in similar incidents in the past, said the reef belongs to China and that the nearby waters are an important operating area and shelter for Chinese fishing boats.

“It is reasonable and lawful for Chinese fishing boats to operate and take shelter in the waters,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said. “The Philippine side should not make irresponsible remarks about that.”

Veteran Lance Cpl. Joel David Beal had been fighting for Ukraine with the volunteer group Chosen Company since February or March, company commander Ryan O’Leary told Marine Corps Times on Nov. 24.

While fighting in Pervomais’ke in Donetsk Oblast, Beal was hit by a mortar round after jumping out of his trench in an attempt to destroy a Russian infantry vehicle that was attacking his comrades, O’Leary said.

“He was just fearless,” O’Leary said.

Ukraine war has the Marine Corps revamping IED training

In response to a Marine Corps Times query about whether Beal had been killed in Ukraine, a State Department spokesperson on Nov. 22 confirmed the death of a U.S. citizen in Ukraine on Oct. 12 but declined to provide more details, out of respect for the family’s privacy.

Beal served in the Marine Corps from 2006–2010, leaving as a lance corporal, according to information provided by Corps spokeswoman Yvonne Carlock.

A rifleman, he deployed to Iraq from June 2008 to October 2008. His awards included the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (twice), Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and National Defense Service Medal.

His final duty assignment was 1st Intelligence Battalion at Camp Pendleton, California.

Beal’s death was first reported by Task & Purpose. Marine Corps Times could not get in touch with Beal’s family.

In Chosen Company, Beal’s callsign was Gander, though O’Leary said he doesn’t know the origin of the name. Beal was close with fellow Marine veteran Lance Lawrence, who was killed in July, according to O’Leary.

Beal volunteered for every mission, O’Leary said. On one mission, when Beal was the driver of his team’s Humvee, he noticed one of his teammates had dropped a 40 mm grenade launcher near the Russian position.

Beal dismounted the Humvee and circled to the other side of it while shooting at the Russian position, according to O’Leary. The Marine veteran picked up the grenade launcher and lobbed rounds at the Russian fighters as he returned to the driver’s side, “and then just drove off like it was nothing,” O’Leary said.

“He had conviction in what he was doing, and he lived through that conviction,” O’Leary said.

Beal is at least the seventh U.S. Marine veteran killed in the war in Ukraine.

Other Marine veterans known to have died in the war are Lawrence; Ian Frank Tortorici, 32, killed in June; Cooper “Harris” Andrews, 26, killed in April; Pete Reed, 33, killed in February; and Grady Kurpasi, 50, and Willy Joseph Cancel, 22, each killed in April 2022.

New findings from the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General reveal DOD investigated 37 more cases of extremism this year than in 2022, which was the first year the IG issued a report on the subject. Congress mandated in 2021 that the IG annually gauge how effectively the Defense Department prevents and responds to extremist activities in the ranks.

The report’s findings show ongoing issues with how the services track and report data, which in turn makes measuring the military’s response challenging. While the Army, Navy and Air Force reported the number of allegations that were investigated, the departments did not track how many allegations of extremist activity were received but not investigated, the IG found.

“Tracking of allegations not referred for inquiry or investigation is challenging, impacting data accuracy,” the IG’s office said in a news release Thursday. “The report highlights ongoing challenges in compiling and validating data, emphasizing the need for consistent implementation of data collection.”

Earlier this year, the IG’s office found that the Army, Navy and Air Force each had a different reporting structure and used different electronic systems for reporting allegations of extremism.

The Army uses several independent databases to collect information, “making it impossible to track” the number of allegations that weren’t referred for investigation, the report states.

The Air Force also lacks a single reporting system, and the Air National Guard was inconsistent at reporting allegations it received because of the complexity of cases in which members weren’t activated at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The Navy said reporting the data to the IG was “time consuming” and that multiple policies “created confusion.” The sea service also cited concerns about compromising the privacy of troops.

All services are in the process of implementing a standardized system to streamline how data is collected and reported, the analysis said. The new process includes notifying the IG’s office about new allegations and reporting whether the allegations are referred for investigation.

The system is also designed to notify the IG about decisions on whether the allegations are substantiated and what punishments are doled out. The report didn’t say when that new process is expected to go into effect.

Though the information was difficult to compile and validate, the IG’s office did report a breakdown of allegations that were investigated from Oct. 1, 2022, through Sept. 30, 2023. During that period, the Defense Department investigated 58 allegations of gang activity, in addition to the 183 cases of extremism.

Of those 275 total allegations, 68 were not substantiated and 136 are open cases. Sixty-nine of the allegations led to service members receiving some sort of punishment, including two courts-martial and 19 involuntary discharges. The report did not specify what types of allegations led to disciplinary measures.

In addition to the 78 allegations involving troops wanting to overthrow the US government, the 183 cases of extremist activity included 44 instances of service members advocating for terrorism and 22 cases of service members advocating for or committing violence to achieve political, religious or discriminatory goals.

Three allegations were made about troops advocating for or committing violence to deprive people of their rights, and 32 allegations centered on troops advocating for widespread discrimination of people based on race, religion, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation.

The final four allegations involved service members encouraging other military personnel or DOD civilians or contractors to break the law or disobey orders in order to disrupt military activities.

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

It was just weeks after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, where some veterans and service members joined a chaotic protest aimed at thwarting a peaceful transfer of presidential power. In response, the Pentagon had mandated a one-day training on domestic extremism, with units across the country left to decide the best way to convey the message.

At the Louisiana hospital, the specialist and five others filed into the downstairs labor and delivery unit, where a major led them through a slide presentation. The session lasted one hour, and then the workers went back to their regular duties. Nearly three years later, the specialist can’t remember much of the training, other than the gist: “Don’t do terrorism.”

“If I learned anything new, I’ve already forgotten it,” he said.

An Air Force first sergeant in Georgia also struggles to recall much of the training he received, but he remembers how the slides were delivered — and the response. His unit’s stand-down occurred as part of a regular briefing that takes place before 7 a.m.

Like with other mandatory trainings required by the Defense Department, the director breezed through it, and the 100 or so airmen in attendance were eager to be done, the first sergeant said. The stand-down was completed in just 15 minutes, during which fellow airmen complained about it being a waste of time. A few even fell asleep, he said.

“If a leader doesn’t display, ‘I believe in what I’m delivering to you,’ then you’re going to have chaos, which is what we had,” he said. “It was an epic failure and didn’t meet the goal of what DOD wanted presented.”

Now, nearly two years after the training, much of it described in forgettable terms, the stand-down has been the subject of debate. Thomas Spoehr, a scholar with the conservative Heritage Foundation, called it unwarranted, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., suggested it “hurt the military.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin argued that the training prompted productive discussions, while former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley previously defended the need for troops to understand white rage and learn about factors that incited rioters to attack the Capitol.

Troops, meanwhile, described the effort as half-hearted, disorganized and no different than the kind of training they may receive about sexual harassment and assault prevention. One sailor thought it was less rigorous than other stand-downs he’d sat through in the wake of safety mishaps.

In the days and weeks after the training, there was little follow-up discussion about extremism prevention. A soldier called it a “one and done” training and remarked on the lack of messaging about the topic compared to the Army’s Equal Opportunity or Sexual Harassment/Assault Prevention programs.

In the time since, the stand-down has come to represent what some critics of President Joe Biden view as his administration’s attempt to politicize the military. It is also one of the only concrete steps the Pentagon has taken to address extremism since Jan. 6.

Today, extremism prevention is the target of conservatives in Congress who don’t want to see any more time or money spent on the issue.

Years of debate

As of September, 193 individuals with military backgrounds had been charged or convicted for their roles in the breach of the U.S. Capitol, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism. Veterans and service members account for about 17.5% of all defendants charged in the Capitol attack so far, while they comprise only 7% of the U.S. population.

In the days immediately following the attack, Austin called for a stand-down to address extremist ideologies within the ranks. According to training materials made public by the Pentagon, the stand-down was meant to remind service members of the oaths they took to defend the Constitution. It was also meant to convey a message that troops could be booted if caught advocating for extremist ideologies, and serve as a warning about being targeted by extremist organizations for recruitment.

According to the curriculum, the department was seeing an increase in concerning behavior among troops at the time, as well as a rise in reports about suspicious activities. The training noted that while service members do have protections under the First Amendment, they are also held to a higher standard because of their access to classified information and military equipment. Training materials cited a 1974 Supreme Court decision that First Amendment protections could be applied differently to service members because of the necessity for obedience and discipline.

The instructional period called on troops to reject certain activities, including fundraising, demonstrating, or recruiting for gangs and other organizations determined to be “detrimental to good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment,” as well as those considered “incompatible with military service.” Espousing extremist or discriminatory doctrine would have consequences, the training materials said.

Some Democrats and extremism prevention experts have defended Austin’s decision to initiate a stand-down, arguing that even a small number of extremists in the U.S. military could pose an outsized problem. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism released a study this summer that found 451 people with military backgrounds committed extremist offenses from 1990 through 2022. Of those, 170, or nearly 38%, either plotted or followed through with a deadly terrorist attack, making extremists with military backgrounds 2.4 times more likely to be classified as mass fatality offenders compared to those who had never served.

Anthony Brown, a former House lawmaker from Maryland and now the state’s attorney general, argued that Austin “rightly made this issue a priority.”

“We must not let our military continue to be a training ground for extremist organizations,” Brown said. “And we cannot allow members of those extremist organizations to simultaneously be members of the armed forces.”

While the stand-down was applauded by some, a handful of Republicans blasted it as a farce and called it a means for the Biden administration to push their agenda. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, described it as a “witch hunt” for extremists.

The stand-down has become a familiar talking point among lawmakers who decry a rise of “wokeness” in the military, referring to what they see as radically progressive policies. The increasingly prominent argument about the military being too “woke” has slowed negotiations on the annual defense policy bill, led to the promotion blockade of about 400 military nominees and emerged as a talking point among those vying to become the Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election.

Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., criticized the stand-down as time taken away from honing service members’ war-fighting capabilities. In September, Banks said expunging “wokeism” from the U.S. military was now his top mission in Congress.

“‘Wokeism’ will eat our country inside-out if we let it, and we’ve got to stop it from taking over and transforming the military,” Banks said.

As debates about the stand-down persist, Military Times sought the input of troops who experienced the training firsthand. Dozens responded, each requesting anonymity while sharing their observations. Respondents represented four military branches and underwent training at an array of locations, from aboard a missile cruiser to inside the Pentagon, deployed to Afghanistan and at installations across the country.

While some participants interviewed by Military Times saw no reason for the training and suggested it ignited division among the ranks, others thought it was a good initiative that didn’t go far enough. Even if political beliefs and experiences differed, most respondents were equally frustrated about how the training was carried out. A dozen described the stand-down as leadership merely “checking a box,” while others called it “perfunctory,” a “waste of time” or compared it to a school assembly.

“It was largely an exercise in futility,” said one retired Air Force colonel who was working as a deputy mission support group commander at the time of the training. “We’re checking boxes, not providing value.”

Amy Cooter, a research fellow with the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, heard similar feedback about the stand-down during interviews she conducted with veterans this year for a study about the radicalization of service members.

“Most seemed to think much more was needed — numerous interviewees so far have talked about how they think the military needs more frequent and standardized instruction,” Cooter said. “Additional and quality direct instruction is likely needed both early and throughout service and also at time of separation.”

Experts who study extremism and political violence generally agree that the stand-down was a good idea and a positive first step toward rooting out such behaviors. However, the follow-through has fallen short, multiple experts told Military Times.

And now, some lawmakers are trying to put an end to any work still underway.

A ‘lack of transparency’

Stevan Weine, a psychiatry professor at the University of Illinois, wrote a paper about the best practices for addressing violent extremism and has been studying the subject for the past decade. The stand-down was a “one-shot approach,” he said, instead of the sustained effort that should be in place.

Violent extremism is a relatively new field of study. There isn’t a set of scientifically proven methods for preventing extremism, but there are some agreed-upon best practices, Weine said.

According to a study funded by the Justice Department, people are more likely to turn to extremist movements when they’re dealing with issues like failed relationships, unemployment, mental health concerns and drug or alcohol abuse, or if they have a history of traumatic experiences or criminal involvement.

To address extremism in the ranks, the Pentagon should teach its leaders how to spot service members at risk for radicalization, Weine added. When that happens, there should be a clear process to intervene.

“I could imagine a longer training that’s not only telling people what to be aware of but giving them the tools to address this challenge ... and the skills to differentiate between a person who might be just sharing some ideas online, versus a person who’s posing a threat,” Weine said. “You have to make sure this is firmly on the radar of different levels of leadership within the military. I think it takes more than a one-time talk to help people to incorporate that into how they think and how they behave.”

Following the stand-down, Austin created a Countering Extremism Working group that, by December 2021, unveiled a host of recommendations, only pieces of which have been implemented two years later. The Defense Department did adopt a new policy recommended by the working group, meanwhile, that expanded the previous definition of extremist activities prohibited by the military. Those activities now include online interactions that promote terrorism, as well as rallies, fundraising or organizing in support of extremist ideologies.

The Pentagon also added information about extremism into pre-separation counseling that service members undergo as they’re leaving the military. The contents of the new slides, shared with Military Times, encourage exiting service members to “guard against attempts to be radicalized, continue to take a stand against extremism organizations, and report suspicious activities to proper authorities.”

While the Pentagon has taken those incremental steps, multiple news outlets reported this summer that the department abandoned its anti-extremism efforts — and most of the working group’s recommendations. A Pentagon spokesperson did not respond to inquiries from Military Times this summer and again in November about whether the working group had ended its efforts.

In response to concerns about the efforts concluding, a Pentagon official briefed reporters in June that the department was working to implement more training that would focus on how the military’s core values run counter to extremist ideologies. A Pentagon spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment in November about whether the training had been completed.

Organizations that work to prevent violent extremism aren’t sold on the Pentagon’s sincerity. In September, seven veterans and military family advocacy groups, as well as 29 anti-extremism groups and three individual extremism experts, sent a letter to Austin, criticizing him for the lack of transparency about the Pentagon’s efforts.

“As close observers in this field, we understand the urgency of this threat and the impact it has on service members, veterans, and their families,” the letter reads. “We urge the DOD to continue the essential work you have begun in addressing white supremacy and other forms of extremism in the military — and to inform Congress and the American public about progress made towards fulfilling these critical commitments and recommendations.”

That letter wasn’t the first plea sent to Austin to continue the anti-extremism work he started. Back in April, Heidi Bierich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, said the working group had “fizzled” and sent a letter to Austin, asking the agency about any continued attempts to address extremism. The group’s other co-founder, Wendy Via, told Military Times in November that she believed military leaders had succumbed to political pressure.

“Some good ideas came out of the working group, but there’s a complete lack of transparency — an unwillingness to share the status of this,” Via said. “I think the political pressure is overwhelming.”

The watchdog organization American Oversight went so far as to sue the Defense Department for documents that could provide insight into the military’s anti-extremism work. The group filed two lawsuits in June, asking for the release of any studies the Pentagon might have initiated concerning incidents of white supremacist, white nationalist, white separatist, far-right, alt-right or pro-Nazi activities or ideologies among service members.

According to court documents, the Pentagon was working as of mid-November to hand over thousands pages of documents to American Oversight. It remained uncertain at the time of publication whether the documents would illustrate progress in rooting out extremism or — as some experts in the field had suspected — that politics had shut those efforts down.

Stand-down ‘not enough’

Despite whether the Pentagon ended its anti-extremism efforts in secret already, some members of Congress were working in November to make certain all efforts would cease.

As of publication, lawmakers were expected to negotiate the 2024 defense policy bill when they returned from the Thanksgiving recess. The House and Senate each passed their own versions of the bill earlier this year, and together they included 22 proposals that target the military’s anti-extremism initiatives, as well as its diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

One measure included in the House bill would prohibit any federal funds from going to the Countering Extremism Working Group.

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., who introduced the measure, said it was key to “eliminating the ‘wokeness’ in the military and the unnecessary extremism working group.”

Alford is one of the lawmakers to criticize Biden’s administration for pushing “woke” policies into the armed forces, blaming the extremism stand-down in 2021 for having tarnished the military’s reputation.

“As one of your first acts, Mr. Secretary, you put our military — every single member, active duty and reserve — to mandatory training to root out extremists,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., at a congressional hearing in March. “That sent a message.”

Some service members who shared their stand-down experiences with Military Times agreed with those sentiments. A Navy chaplain who was asked to review the stand-down curriculum as it was being developed believed the messaging ostracized conservatives. A senior Army enlisted advisor in Tennessee said the training — and anything not related to military readiness — wasn’t worth doing.

“The amount of things that I’ve seen in the military that were done for politicians and not for soldiers — this, to me, was just another example of that,” the senior enlisted advisor said. “This training did not increase readiness or increase the lethality of the U.S. military, and that’s what I’m focused on.”

While many service members and elected officials perceived the stand-down as political or criticized how it was carried out, the Pentagon’s decision was the right one, said numerous experts, including Weine, Via and Cooter.

Allison Jaslow, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said the military was in a unique position to tackle the problem “head on.”

“It’s hard to overstate the value of awareness — of an entire community of people having to acknowledge out in the open what we might otherwise prefer to overlook,” Jaslow said.

Weine agreed, arguing it was key for the Pentagon to clearly state that troops’ involvement in extremist activities was not acceptable. The stand-down was the Pentagon “making an investment in prevention,” Weine said.

“I had no problem with what the secretary did,” Weine said. “The problem is, it was not enough.”

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

U.S. fighter jets struck a Kataib Hezbollah operations center and a Kataib Hezbollah command and control node near Al Anbar and Jurf al Saqr, south of Baghdad, on Tuesday, two defense officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to provide additional sensitive details of the attacks.

There were Kataib Hezbollah personnel at both sites at the time of the strikes, but the officials said they could not yet confirm whether anyone there was killed.

Militia officials in Iraq said the attack had killed eight Kataib Hezbollah members.

The U.S. airstrikes followed an initial retaliatory strike by an AC-130 gunship that was in the air when the Iranian-backed militants fired two short-range ballistic missiles at Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq late Monday evening. The gunship was able to locate the origin of the missiles, and fired on several militants who had fled in a vehicle, killing several of them.

Kataib Hezbollah in a statement meanwhile said it was considering “expanding the scope of targets” if the U.S. military continues with its strikes, adding that the attack “will not go unpunished”.

The dangerous back-and-forth strikes have escalated since Iranian-backed militant groups under the umbrella group called the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and Syria began striking U.S. facilities Oct. 17, the date that a blast at a hospital in Gaza killed hundreds. The attacks have continued unabated since, with at least 66 rocket and missile attacks hitting U.S. facilities and wounding at least 62 service members.

The Monday attack stood out in that it was the first time militants had used ballistic missiles, and the U.S. response inside Iraq was immediate.

It was also noteworthy because the previous planned counterattacks by U.S. warplanes had focused on militant weapons caches and training centers in Syria, due to political sensitivities in Iraq.

The office of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who rose to power through the backing of an Iran-backed political coalition, called the recent escalations “a dangerous development,” reflecting the delicate balance the government must strike between Iranian factions and U.S. military presence.

In a statement, Sudani’s office called the the U.S. attack a violation of the country’s sovereignty and of the U.S.-led coalition’s mission to combat Islamic State militants on Iraqi soil, given that the attack was done without giving Iraq notice. Over the past month however, the Iraqi premier has also called for the authorities to pursue the attackers of U.S. bases in Iraq, as he tries to maintain a delicate balance in maintaining positive ties with both Washington and Tehran.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials speaking on background said the U.S. is trying to communicate that it does not seek wider conflict, but that the Iran-backed attacks against American forces must stop and that the U.S. will take further action if needed. The U.S. has moved considerable assets to the region — two carrier groups, multiple squadrons of warplanes and U.S. personnel to try and dissuade factions from turning the crisis between Israel and Hamas into a regional war.

It’s not the first time the U.S. has taken significant action against Kataib Hezbollah. Iin 2020 a series of Kaytusha rocket attacks by Kataib Hezbollah against Camp Taji in Iraq killed three service members — two Americans and a British soldier — and seriously wounded several others. In response the U.S. conducted two rounds of airstrikes taking out multiple weapons facilities.

Kareem Chehayeb reported from Beirut. Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report from Baghdad.

The Philippine Air Force said Wednesday its aircraft had taken part in joint patrols the day before in the vicinity of Batanes, the northernmost province of the Philippines, which is only about 200 kilometers (125 miles) from Taiwan, a self-governed island that China claims as its own.

The patrols run through Thursday and also include both the U.S. and Philippine navies. They come only days after Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called the situation in the South China Sea increasingly “dire” as China seeks to assert its presence in an area where multiple nations have competing territorial claims.

Asked about the patrols, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing’s position had been made clear to both the Philippines and the U.S.

“The Philippines-U.S. joint patrol drill must not undermine China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests,” she said.

The U.S. 7th Fleet said the patrols were part of routine American interaction with its allies and partners in “preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”

China claims virtually the entire South China Sea as its own waters, which has led to disputes not only with the Philippines but also with Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei. These claims have long been regarded as potential flashpoints in the region, and have fueled U.S.-China rivalry.

Earlier this month a Chinese coast guard ship blasted a Philippine supply ship with a water cannon in disputed waters, and last month a Chinese coast guard ship and an accompanying vessel rammed a Philippine coast guard ship and a military-run supply boat near a contested shoal, according to Philippine officials.

Speaking on Sunday in Honolulu, Marcos said China has been showing interest in atolls and shoals that are “closer and closer” to the coast of the Philippines, with the nearest atoll about 60 nautical miles (111 kilometers) away.

“Unfortunately, I cannot report that the situation is improving,” Marcos said. “The situation has become more dire than it was before.”

In announcing the start of the joint patrols, Marcos said on X, formerly known as Twitter, that they were “testament to our commitment to bolster the interoperability of our military forces.”

“Through collaborative efforts, we aim to enhance regional security and foster a seamless partnership with the United States in safeguarding our shared interests,” he wrote.

Under Marcos, who was elected last year, the Philippines has been deepening its relationship with the U.S. in a shift from his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, who had been closer to China and Russia.

In February, Marcos approved an expansion of the U.S. military presence in the Philippines to add four new bases from five existing sites under a 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the longtime treaty allies.

The move, which Marcos said would boost the Philippines’ coastal defense, dovetails with the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen an arc of military alliances in the Indo-Pacific to better counter China.

Marcos has also been strengthening ties with others, including Tokyo, signing an agreement earlier in the year to allow Japanese troops to join training exercises.

The North’s claim could not immediately be independently confirmed. But the launch was certain to invite strong condemnation from the United States and its partners because the U.N. bans North Korea from conducting satellite launches, calling them covers for tests of missile technology.

The North’s space authorities said in a statement that its space launch vehicle placed the Malligyong-1 satellite into orbit on Tuesday night following liftoff from the country’s main launch center and an intended flight.

The statement said that leader Kim Jong Un observed the launch. It said the fired spy satellite would enhance North Korea’s war readiness in response to its rivals’ hostile military moves and that more would be launched at an early date.

South Korea and Japan said earlier that they detected the North Korean launch. The Japanese government briefly issued a J-Alert missile warning for Okinawa, urging residents to take shelter inside buildings or underground. South Korea’s military said it maintains its readiness in close coordination with the U.S. and Japan.

“Even if North Korea calls it a satellite, the firing that uses ballistic missile technology is a clear violation to related United Nations Security Council resolutions,” Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said. “It is also a serious threat that affects the safety of the people.”

A spy satellite is among the key military assets coveted by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who wants to modernize his weapons systems to cope with what he calls escalating U.S. threats. North Korea attempted to launch a spy satellite twice earlier this year, but both launches ended in failure due to technical issues.

North Korea had vowed a third launch would take place sometime in October. But it didn’t follow through or give a reason for not following that launch plan. South Korean officials have said the delay occurred likely because North Korea was receiving Russian technological assistance for its spy satellite launch program.

North Korea and Russia, both U.S. adversaries that are increasingly isolated globally, have been pushing hard to expand their relationships in recent months. In September, Kim traveled to Russia’s Far East to meet President Vladimir Putin and visit key military sites, touching off intense speculation of a weapons deal between the two nations.

The alleged deal involves North Korea supplying conventional arms to refill Russia’s ammunition stock drained in its war with Ukraine. In return, foreign governments and experts say that North Korea seeks Russian help in enhancing its nuclear and other military programs.

During Kim’s Russia visit, Putin told state media that his country would help North Korea build satellites, saying Kim “shows keen interest in rocket technology.”

Russia and North Korea dismissed the allegation on their arms transfer deal as groundless. Such a deal would violate U.N. bans on any weapons trading involving North Korea.

The White House said in October that North Korea had delivered more than 1,000 containers of military equipment and munitions to Russia. But South Korean Defense Minister Shin Wonsik said this week that North Korea had sent about 3,000 such containers to Russia.

Kim previously said North Korea needed spy satellites to better monitor South Korean and U.S. activities and enhance the effective use of its nuclear missiles. But South Korea has said a North Korean spy launch program also involves its efforts to manufacture more powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“If North Korea succeeds in launching the military reconnaissance satellite, it would signify that North Korea’s ICBM capabilities have been taken to a higher level,” South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said in written responses to questions from The Associated Press last week. “Therefore, we will have to come up with reinforced countermeasures.”

Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, said Tuesday’s launch raises more questions than answers, such as whether the North Korean satellite actually performs reconnaissance functions and whether Russia provided technical and even material assistance.

“What is already clear is that this is not a one-off event but part of a North Korean strategy of prioritizing military capabilities over economic development, threatening rather than reconciling with South Korea, and further aligning with Russia and China instead of pursuing diplomacy with the United States,” Easley said.

Since last year, North Korea conducted about 100 missile tests in a bid to establish a reliable arsenal of nuclear weapons targeting the U.S. and its allies. Many foreign experts say North Korea has some last remaining technologies to master to acquire functioning nuclear missiles.

But they say that possessing a rocket that can place a satellite into orbit would mean North Korea can build a missile capable of carrying a warhead with a similar size of the satellite.

South Korea’s military recently suggested it could suspend a 2018 inter-Korean agreement to reduce tensions and resume front-line aerial surveillance and firing exercises, if the North went ahead with its launch.

Japan’s coast guard said earlier Tuesday that North Korea had told Tokyo that it would launch a satellite sometime between Wednesday and Nov. 30.

The U.S., South Korea and Japan subsequently urged North Korea to cancel the launch. They had earlier condemned North Korea’s two previous satellite launches as violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. But permanent council members Russia and China have stymied any Security Council response.

In June, Kim’s sister and senior ruling party official, Kim Yo Jong, called the U.N. Security Council “a political appendage” of the United States. She slammed the U.N. council for allegedly being “discriminative and rude,” saying it only takes issue with the North’s satellite launches while thousands of satellites launched by other countries are already operating.

In the two previous launches in May and August, North Korea used its new Chollima-1 rocket to carry the Malligyong-1 reconnaissance satellite.

In the first attempt, the North Korean rocket carrying the satellite crashed into the ocean soon after liftoff. North Korean authorities said the rocket lost thrust after the separation of its first and second stages. After the second launch failure, North Korea said there was an error in the emergency blasting system during the third-stage flight.

South Korea retrieved debris from the first launch and called the satellite too crude to perform military reconnaissance.

Some civilian experts said North Korea’s Malligyong-1 satellite is likely capable only of detecting big targets like warships or planes. But by operating several such satellites, North Korea could still observe South Korea at all times, they said. In April, Kim Jong Un said North Korea must launch several satellites.

Besides spy satellites, Kim is eager to introduce other sophisticated weapons such as more mobile ICBMs, nuclear-powered submarines and multi-warhead missiles. Observers say Kim would ultimately want to use an enlarged weapons arsenal to wrest greater U.S. concessions like sanctions relief when diplomacy resumes.

In response, the U.S. and South Korea have been expanding their regular military exercises that sometimes included U.S. strategic assets such as long-range bombers, a nuclear-armed submarine and aircraft carriers. On Tuesday, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and its battle group arrived at a South Korean port in a fresh demonstration of strength against North Korea.

Yamaguchi reported from Tokyo.

The two leaders spent four hours together — in meetings, a working lunch and a garden stroll — intent on showing the world that while they are global economic competitors they’re not locked in a winner-take-all faceoff.

“Planet Earth is big enough for the two countries to succeed,” Xi told Biden.

The U.S. president told Xi: “I think it’s paramount that you and I understand each other clearly, leader-to-leader, with no misconceptions or miscommunications. We have to ensure competition does not veer into conflict.”

Their meeting, on the sidelines of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, has far-reaching implications for a world grappling with economic cross currents, conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, tensions in Taiwan and more.

They reached expected agreements to curb illicit fentanyl production and to reopen military ties, a senior U.S. official said after the meeting ended. Many of the chemicals used to make synthetic fentanyl come from China to cartels that traffic the powerful narcotic into the U.S., which is facing an overdose crisis.

Top military leaders will resume talks, increasingly important particularly as unsafe or unprofessional incidents between the two nations’ ships and aircraft have spiked, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the agreements ahead of Biden’s remarks.

Chinese jets ramp up incidents with US aircraft, new videos show

The U.S. official described a significant back and forth between the two leaders over Taiwan, with Biden chiding China over its massive military build-up around Taiwan and Xi telling Biden he had no plans to invade the island.

Biden, the official said, said the U.S. was committed to continuing to help Taiwan defend itself and maintain deterrence against a potential Chinese attack, and also called on China to avoid meddling in the island’s elections next year. The official described the Taiwan portion of the talks as “clear-headed” and “not heated.”

Biden also called on Xi to use his influence with Iran to make clear that Tehran, and its proxies, should not take steps that would lead to an expansion of the Israel-Hamas war.

During the exchange on Iran, Biden did most of the talking and Xi mostly listened, according to the U.S official. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has assured the U.S. that the Chinese have communicated concerns to Iran on the matter. But the official said the U.S. has not been able to ascertain how seriously the Iranians are taking concerns raised by Beijing.

According to a statement released by China Central Television, the state broadcaster, Xi was most focused on Taiwan and the U.S. sanctions and restrictions against Chinese products and businesses.

Xi urged the U.S. to support China’s peaceful unification with the self-governed island, calling Taiwan “the most important and most sensitive issue” in the bilateral relations. He also raised Beijing’s concerns over export controls, investment screenings, and sanctions imposed by the U.S., which he said “have severely harmed China’s legitimate interests.”

“We hope the U.S. side can seriously treat China’s concerns and take actions to remove unilateral sanctions and provide a fair, just, non-discriminatory environment for Chinese businesses.”

Xi said he and Biden also agreed to establish dialogues on artificial intelligence and stressed the urgency for the two countries to cope with the climate crisis, the state broadcaster reported.

Both leaders acknowledged the importance of their relationship and the need for better coordination. But their differences shone through: Xi indicated he wants better cooperation — but on China’s terms. And he sought to project strength to his domestic audience in the face of U.S. policies restricting imports from China and limiting technology transfers to Beijing.

Biden, meanwhile, will also spend time this week in California working to highlight new alliances in the Indo Pacific and efforts to boost trade with other regional leaders.

Xi, speaking through an interpreter, declared it “an objective fact that China and the United States are different in history, culture, social system and development.”

The presidents and their respective aides on trade, the economy, national security and regional diplomacy gathered across from one another at a single long table, the culmination of negotiations between the two leaders’ top aides over the past several months. It was Biden and Xi’s first conversation of any kind since they met last November in Bali.

They’re seeking to build back to a stable baseline after already tense relations took a nosedive following the U.S. downing of a Chinese spy balloon that had traversed the continental U.S., and amid differences over the self-ruled island of Taiwan, China’s hacking of a Biden official’s emails and other matters.

For Biden, Wednesday’s meeting was a chance for the president to do what he believes he does best: in-person diplomacy.

“As always, there’s no substitute for face-to-face discussions,” he told Xi. With his characteristic optimism, Biden sketched a vision of leaders who manage competition “responsibly,” adding, “that’s what the United States wants and what we intend to do.”

Xi, for his part, was gloomy about the state of the post-pandemic global economy. China’s economy remains in the doldrums, with prices falling due to slack demand from consumers and businesses.

“The global economy is recovering, but its momentum remains sluggish,” Xi said. “Industrial and supply chains are still under the threat of interruption and protectionism is rising. All these are grave problems.”

The relationship between China and the U.S. has never been smooth, he said. Still, it has kept moving forward. “For two large countries like China and the United States, turning their back on each other is not an option,” he said.

More pointedly, Xi also suggested it was not up to the U.S. to dictate how the Chinese manage their affairs, saying, “It is unrealistic for one side to remodel the other, and conflict and confrontation has unbearable consequences for both sides.”

Robert Moritz, global chairman for the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, said business leaders are hoping for signs of more cooperation and a firmer commitment to free trade between the world’s two largest economies following the Biden-Xi talks.

“What we are looking for is a de-escalation and a bringing of the temperature down,” Mortiz said during a CEO summit being held in conjunction with the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum that has brought together leaders from 21 member economies.

“Discussion isn’t good enough, it’s the execution on getting things done” that will matter, he said.

The Biden-Xi meeting and broader summit events attracted protests around San Francisco, but the demonstrations were kept at distance. A large crowd loudly condemning Xi marched from the Chinese Consulate toward the summit venue at the Moscone Center nearly two miles away. Speakers implored the Biden administration to stand up to Xi and China’s human rights violations.

Late Wednesday, Xi was to address American business executives at a $2,000-per-plate dinner that will be a rare opportunity for U.S. business leaders to hear directly from the Chinese leader as they seek clarification on Beijing’s expanding security rules that may choke foreign investment.

Foreign companies operating in China say that country’s tensions with Washington over technology, trade and other issues and uncertainty over Chinese policies are damaging the business environment and causing some to reassess their plans for investing in the giant market.

Even before Biden and Xi met, there were some signs of a thaw: The State Department on Tuesday announced that the U.S. and China — two of the world’s biggest polluters — had agreed to pursue efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030, through wind, solar and other renewables.

There were also light moments between the two leaders who have logged much time together over the last decade. Biden asked Xi to extend his early birthday wishes to Xi’s wife, who will be celebrating next week. Xi thanked the president for reminding him. The Chinese leader said that he’s been so busy working he had forgotten the big day was nearing.

Biden and Xi held their talks at Filoli Estate, a bucolic country house and museum about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of San Francisco. The event was carefully staged, Biden first to arrive at the grand estate, then Xi. After their handshake and smiles they sat down with aides for talks that lasted more than two hours.

Next came a working lunch with inner-circle members from both administrations. They ate ravioli, chicken and broccolini, with almond meringue cake and praline buttercream for dessert.

Before they parted, the two strolled the property along a red brick path through impressive topiary and knotted gothic trees. Asked by reporters how the meeting went, the president said “well” and flashed a thumbs up.

Long and Tang reported from San Francisco. Associated Press journalists Zeke Miller, Sagar Meghani and Josh Boak in Washington and Michael Liedtke and Janie Har in San Francisco contributed to this report.

The plan is to revive the regular talks under what’s known as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement, which until 2020 had been used to improve safety in the air and sea, said a U.S. official, who requested anonymity to preview the leaders’ expected announcement.

Rep. Mike Gallagher previews plans to deter China from invading Taiwan

U.S. military leaders have expressed repeated concerns about the lack of communications with China, particularly as the number of unsafe or unprofessional incidents between the two nations’ ships and aircraft has spiked.

According to the Pentagon’s most recent report on China’s military power, Beijing has “denied, canceled or ignored” military-to-military communications and meetings with the Pentagon for much of last year and this year. The report warns that the lack of such talks “raises the risk of an operational incident or miscalculation spiraling into crisis or conflict.”

The U.S. views military relations with China as critical to avoiding any missteps and maintaining a peaceful Indo-Pacific region. Here’s a look at the often fraught relationship between the U.S. and Chinese militaries.

A decade of talks and visits

More than 15 years ago, the Defense Department was making progress in a growing effort to improve relations with Beijing as both sides stepped up military activities in the Indo-Pacific.

The U.S. was concerned about Beijing’s dramatic and rapid military growth. And China was suspicious of America’s expanding presence in the region. In an effort to improve transparency and communication, defense leaders from the two countries were meeting regularly. And in a 2008 speech in Singapore, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that relations with China had improved, and that a long-sought direct telephone link between the U.S. and China had finally been established. He said he had used it to speak with the defense minister.

He and other defense chiefs, Joint Chiefs chairmen and regional high-level U.S. commanders routinely traveled to China over the next decade, and Chinese defense leaders came to the Pentagon. “We don’t want miscalculations and misunderstandings and misinterpretations. And the only way you do that is you talk to each other,” noted then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in 2013.

The following year Hagel made a historic visit to Yuchi Naval Base and became the first foreign visitor to go aboard China’s first aircraft carrier as it was docked at the base.

The Defense Department’s 2014 report on China’s military power referred to “sustained positive momentum” in U.S. ties with Beijing, and noted there was a growing number of agreements, conferences, calls and military exercises. It said the two militaries established new channels for dialogue and signed two agreements to improve transparency and reduce the risks of unintended miscalculations by ships and aircraft in the Pacific.

Persistent tensions

Even as military leaders were meeting, the Obama administration’s widely touted “pivot to the Pacific,” which added troops, ships and other U.S. military activity in the region, triggered vehement criticism from Beijing. And China’s aggressive campaign to militarize a number of manmade islands in the South China Sea alarmed the U.S. and other allies in the Pacific.

Allies worried that China would seek to limit international transit through the region, and that the islands could be used as bases for military action. In 2018, the Trump administration abruptly withdrew an invitation for Beijing to participate in the military exercise known as Rim of the Pacific, citing what it called strong evidence that China had deployed weapons systems on the islands. China has argued that it is within its rights to build up defenses in the South China Sea on what it believes is its sovereign territory.

The Pentagon routinely complained that there was little tangible progress in the press for greater transparency in China’s military ambitions and its burgeoning defense budget. And China bristled at America’s continued support for Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing views as its own.

More broadly, the U.S. issued sharp condemnations of China’s escalating cyberattacks targeting government agencies and breaches and cyberespionage into sensitive defense programs.

The pandemic and Pelosi

Direct military contacts with Beijing dropped off during the COVID-19 pandemic, due both to travel restrictions and tensions over China’s potential responsibility for the deadly virus that began within its borders. And in August 2022, Beijing suspended all military contacts with the U.S., in the wake of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan.

Pelosi was the highest-ranking American lawmaker to visit Taiwan since 1997, when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich traveled there. And her visit sparked a surge in military maneuvers by China. Beijing dispatched warships and aircraft across the median line in the Taiwan Strait, claiming the de facto boundary did not exist, fired missiles over Taiwan itself, and challenged established norms by firing missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

U.S. officials suggested China was simply using Pelosi’s visit as a convenient excuse to cut off ties, which were strained by other points of contention, including economic sanctions.

But the lack of communications heightened worries about an increase in what the Pentagon calls risky Chinese aircraft and warship incidents in the past two years. Officials noted that even as tensions with Russia have spiked over the war in Ukraine, military commanders have continued to use a telephone line to deconflict operations in Syria.

The Defense Department last month released video footage of some of the more than 180 intercepts of U.S. warplanes by Chinese aircraft that have occurred in the past two years — more than the total number over the previous decade. Defense officials said the Chinese flights were risky and aggressive, but stopped short of calling most of them unsafe — a term used in egregious cases. They said this was part of a larger trend of regional intimidation by China that could accidentally lead to conflict.

Carolyn Bartholomew, chairwoman of the congressionally mandated U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said a key goal for the administration should be to get a commitment from the Chinese government to scale back on such dangerous incidents.

Bonnie Lin, director of the China Power project at the Center for Strategic and International Security, a Washington-based think tank, said it was important to restart the talks under the maritime agreement.

Resumption “would be a signal that the two sides can work together more,” Lin said at a CSIS forum Tuesday.

The attacks, 27 in Iraq and 28 in Syria, are part of an escalation in strikes by Iranian-backed militias in those countries that has steadily continued since Oct. 17.

In response, the Pentagon has deployed support troops and air defense units to the region to protect bases housing U.S. forces, as well as launched multiple strikes on facilities in Syria known to store weapons.

300 US troops headed to Middle East amid Israel-Hamas war

Singh pushed back on questioning as to whether the U.S. strikes have failed to deter the militias from further attacks.

“We have a very robust presence in the region right now,” she said. “That is sending, I think, a very strong message of deterrence. And while I certainly hear your question, we always reserve the right to respond in a time and place of our choosing.”

While U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria have come under drone attacks from time to time in recent years, the escalation since the beginning of the Hamas-Israel conflict is unprecedented.

Pentagon officials have not directly drawn a line between the attacks and U.S. support for Israel.

“I think that we are all sensitive to the fact that there are tensions in the region ... you are seeing, and we probably will continue to see, groups that may try to exploit the situation to benefit their own interests, to include Iranian proxy groups,” Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said during a briefing Nov. 2.

At the height of Friday’s four-hour faceoff in the high seas, a Chinese coast guard ship blasted a water cannon toward a Philippine motorboat delivering food and other supplies to Filipino forces on a marooned, rusting warship that serves as the country’s fragile territorial outpost at Second Thomas Shoal.

US warns it will defend Philippines after Chinese vessels incidents

China has steadfastly stood by its claim to virtually the entire strategic waterway, clashing with its smaller neighbors and drawing in the United States, Manila’s treaty ally and China’s main rival in the Asia-Pacific region. Washington and its allies have deployed navy ships and fighter aircraft to promote freedom of navigation and overflight, build up deterrence and reassure allies like the Philippines.

There are fears that the recurring confrontations at Second Thomas Shoal, which lies within the U.N.-sanctioned Philippine exclusive economic zone but is claimed by China and surrounded by its flotilla, could ignite an armed conflict pitting the U.S. against China. Philippine officials said Saturday they would never take any step that could ignite a larger conflict but would not be deterred in defending the country’s sovereign rights in the South China Sea.

Despite the Chinese blockades and coercive maneuvers, the Philippine contingent managed to deliver supplies to the handful of Filipino marines aboard the BRP Sierra Madre and left without incident. The slightly listing Philippine warship, donated by the U.S., has been crumbling with age but is still actively commissioned, meaning an armed attack would be considered by Manila as an act of war.

Two Associated Press journalists and several other members of the media who were invited on board three Philippine coast guard ships securing two supply boats witnessed the dangerous cat-and-mouse maneuvers in rough waves. It’s part of a shame campaign Philippine officials said they would press on to expose China’s growing aggression in one of the world’s most important trade routes.

Filipino forces would continue to adhere to the rule of law and would not be provoked by China’s strong-arm tactics, Philippine coast guard Commodore Tarriela said.

“Regardless how dangerous the maneuver that they’re going to throw at us, whether they use water cannon, whether they use military-grade laser, we are not going to allow them to make Philippine coast guard personnel on board our vessels to escalate the tensions,” Tarriela said.

At least 38 Chinese ships were spotted in Second Thomas Shoal’s vicinity on Friday, including a Chinese navy fast assault craft and a hospital ship, the Philippine coast guard said.

One of the Philippine coast guard ships, the BRP Cabra, was surrounded five times by the Chinese coast guard and other ships, but managed each time to move away until it was hemmed in near the shoal.

“We grow more confident each time we steer past through the Chinese blockades,” the Cabra’s commander, Emmanuel Dangate, told AP. “We feel all the more the need by all to follow the international regulations to prevent collisions.”

The campaign to expose China’s aggression at sea would continue, Tarriela said in a news conference, where photographs, video and drone shots of Friday’s confrontations were shown.

“I believe that our effort in transparency initiative has been very successful in rallying support from the international community to condemn the illegal actions of China and to make the Filipino people aware of what’s happening,” Tarriela said.

Washington reacted to Friday’s confrontation by repeating that it stands with its oldest ally in Asia “in the face of the People’s Republic of China’s repeated harassment in the South China Sea.”

The U.S. State Department renewed a warning that Washington is obligated to defend the Philippines under a 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty if Filipino forces, public vessels or aircraft, including those of its coast guard “face an armed attack “anywhere in the South China Sea.”

“The PRC’s actions are inconsistent with international law and follow a pattern of dangerous operational behavior in the South China Sea,” the State Department said in a statement. It cited a 2016 international arbitration decision that invalidated China’s expansive claims to the waterway on historic grounds, including Second Thomas Shoal.

China refused to participate in the arbitration, which was brought up by the Philippines in 2013, after Chinese ships took control and surrounded another disputed area, Scarborough Shoal. Beijing dismissed the 2016 ruling as a sham and continues to defy it.

A Philippine government task force said Friday that vessels belonging to China’s coast guard and its paramilitary maritime militia “recklessly harassed, blocked and executed dangerous maneuvers in another attempt to illegally impede or obstruct a routine resupply and rotation mission.”

China’s coast guard said it “followed the Philippines ships in accordance with the law, taking necessary control measures, and made temporary special arrangements for the Philippines side to transport food and other daily necessities,” spokesperson Gan Yu said in a statement.

It urged the Philippines to stop actions that infringe upon China’s rights and said China would continue to uphold its national sovereignty.

“China urges the Philippine side to immediately stop making trouble and provocation at sea and to tow away the illegal grounded vessel as soon as possible,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said at a briefing in Beijing.

China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a 10-nation bloc that includes the Philippines, have stepped up efforts to hasten negotiations for a nonaggression pact called a code of conduct that aims to prevent war from breaking out in the South China Sea. But the skirmishes at Second Thomas Shoal would likely continue on a regular basis with Chinese ships, including its navy, surrounding the shoal and the Philippines vowing to defend it at all cost and keep its forces there.

Last month, a Chinese coast guard ship and another vessel blocked then collided with a Philippine coast guard ship and a military-run supply boat near the shoal. China accused the Philippine vessels of trespassing in what it said were Chinese waters.

That’s according to new survey data from the U.S. military’s Medical Surveillance Monthly Report. Issues published in the summer charted military health provider encounters and hospitalizations from 2018–2022, and also tracked five-year trends in troop medical evacuations for noncombat conditions.

Some of the trends are dramatic: In U.S. Central Command, the region encompassing the Middle East, medical evacuations attributed to mental health disorders have risen markedly every year since 2019.

In 2022, 38.8% of evacuations from Central Command were mental health-related, compared to 33.5% in 2021 and 27.2% in 2020. In 2022, 268 troops were evacuated for mental disorders from Central Command, out of 691 total evacuations for the region. Mental health related events were the largest evacuation category in Central Command for 2022.

Senators push DoD to approve recruits who’ve sought mental health care

In U.S. Africa Command, where the rate of overall medical evacuations increased steeply in 2022 due to changing global force posture, mental health was the second most common cause of medical evacuations at 14.8%, behind “non-battle injury and poisoning” at 30.1%. Thirty four service members were evacuated for mental disorders from Africa Command in 2022, out of 229 total evacuations.

By comparison, the mental health medical evacuation rate from Iraq was 11.6%, about one-third of the current rate, for the nine years between 2003 and 2011, according to Medical Surveillance Monthly Report data.

All troops were evacuated to the U.S. or Europe, where they saw a medical provider for further treatment, according to report criteria.

In-theater medical encounters attributed to mental health disorders also are on the rise overall. Those increased from 4.4% to 6.2% during the five-year surveillance period, with “adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” topping the list of mental health conditions requiring an encounter.

Stateside, data shows that rate and numbers of active-duty and reserve component hospitalizations decreased from 2018 to 2022 “for all major diagnostic categories except mental health disorders.” Those saw a slight increase, from 5.7% to 5.9%.

Mental health disorders topped the list of reasons for hospitalization for every year in the survey data, but the number of hospitalizations in 2022, at 19,079, was 1,000-plus more than the number in 2018, which was 18,012.

In the same period, hospitalizations for injury and poisoning dropped by nearly 1,600. And those for musculoskeletal issues dropped by by nearly 1,700. Total hospitalizations for all conditions dropped nearly 14%, from 66,128 hospitalizations to 57,009 hospitalizations.

While ambulatory visits ― those not requiring a hospitalization ― for mental health disorders were only the third most-common category for service members, behind “other” and musculoskeletal system issues, the visit rate for mental health issues were dramatically on the rise.

Mental health-related ambulatory encounters rose 20% from 2018–2022, from 1.9 million to 2.3 million. Here too, adjustment disorders topped the categories for these visits.

The increase in military mental health issues requiring treatment or intervention has not occurred in a vacuum.

An estimated one in five American adults now live with a mental illness, and the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a global increase of about 25% in the prevalence of behavioral health conditions including anxiety and depression, according to the World Health Organizations.

In the military, a rise in medical provider encounters for mental health disorders is not necessarily a bad thing, said Dr. Kimberly Hepner, a senior behavioral scientist at Rand. It speaks, she said, to efforts in the military and in the civilian world to destigmatize the process of seeking treatment and establish an understanding that “mental health care is health care.”

The stressors and shared experience of COVID-19, she said, contributed to that mindset shift.

On the other hand, a rise in mental health-related evacuations for deployed troops represents a clear concern, Hepner said. She pointed to a widely acknowledged shortage of in-house military mental health providers that parallels a national shortage of behavioral health clinicians.

Because of this shortage, she said, more troops are receiving behavioral health care from the private sector, through civilian providers contracted by the military’s Tricare health system. Though this is a better solution than allowing mental health needs to go unmet, she said these contracted providers are less likely to understand the readiness requirements for deployment.

“If I were sitting at a military training facility, assessing readiness at every session would be my bread and butter,” she said. “But a provider in the community may not understand those issues as well; they may be newer to seeing service members and not as well versed in the need to assess readiness.”

As a result, she said, service members who are not psychologically healthy enough to handle deployment stressors may be getting cleared for deployment more often. And this is a serious concern, she said, as it’s disruptive to the military’s ability to carry out forward missions effectively.

According to the recent Medical Surveillance Monthly reports, the most common diagnoses associated with medical evacuations from Central Command and Africa Command in 2022 were “reaction to severe stress and adjustment disorders.”

“Depressive episode,” “major depressive disorder, recurrent” and “other anxiety disorders” also were high on the list.

For Hepner, the clear solution is to increase the number of behavioral health providers inside military treatment facilities ― a process that she acknowledges could take time. She also said the military likely needs to understand more about the underpinnings and precursors of these mental health-related medical evacuations, and examine the existing efforts to screen and assess troops prior to deployments.

“Something potentially could be missed at that stage, even though the readiness assessment right now is quite extensive,” she said. “And so there are questions about, how could that process be improved.”

As all the military services face historic challenges in meeting recruitment goals, some have sought ways to accommodate prospective enlistees with histories of mental health issues.

The Army in 2018 changed policy to allow potential recruits with a past incident of self-harm before the age of 14. Some lawmakers now want a full removal of exclusions for prospective recruits who’ve sought mental health care in the past.

Hepner said it’s important to remember that a mental health care encounter or hospitalization doesn’t preclude a return to full health and duty capability, and in fact that that’s the common outcome of behavioral health treatment.

“I think we want to continue to highlight that this is care that all service members should have access to, and that getting access to high quality behavioral health care, will help service members return to full duty and complete their mission,” she said. “And we want to support them to be able to do that.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated Nov. 13 to correct the spelling of Dr. Kimberly Hepner’s name.

According to the FBI’s criminal complaint, Cassidy Busbin, stationed at Fort Campbell, Ky., posted a link to a news article about the murder of Maryland Circuit Court Judge Andrew Wilkinson, who was shot in his driveway in Hagerstown, Md last month. In addition to the article, Busbin’s Oct. 26 post also featured a comment that read, “this is whats [sic] going to happen in clarksville [sic] if they keep fucking down soldiers especially to the judges and lawyers we are protesting.”

Since 2021, Busbin has used social media to voice his frustrations with 10 local judges, law enforcement officers and attorneys, according to the complaint, made public Wednesday morning and first reported on by Court Watch. Two of the judges told the FBI they feared for their lives after Busbin’s Oct. 26 post.

One judge alleged that she “felt that if she continued to do her job, she may suffer the same fate as the Maryland judge,” the complaint reads. Another judge said he “has never experienced anything like this because of something that transpired in his courtroom.”

Busbin’s anger reportedly stemmed from divorce and custody hearings in 2021, according to the complaint. He recently posted on social media about a fathers’ rights protest planned for Nov. 17 at the local courthouse, where protestors would be armed. “Fathers’ rights” refers to a movement that lobbies for greater paternal privileges in family law.

In addition to the threats against public officials, Busbin was accused of threatening a battalion commander assigned to Fort Campbell. Busbin’s brother is also a soldier stationed at the installation, the complaint states. According to the complaint, he messaged his brother’s battalion commander Oct. 26, accusing him of being in violation of the U.S. Constitution. A second message to the commander read, “tell your wife i [sic] said hey btw.” At the time, the commander was deployed abroad while his wife was living near Fort Campbell.

Busbin was also arrested on an unrelated charge Oct. 27 and underwent a mental health evaluation over concerns that he was threatening judges. The evaluator determined that Busbin posed an imminent threat of harm or death to others. He was admitted to an on-base hospital, the complaint states.

Busbin was released Nov. 1, and his chain of command restricted him to the installation for one week. That hold was expected to lift Thursday.

In a statement Wednesday, Lt. Col. Tony Hoefler, a spokesperson for Fort Campbell, said the installation was working with law enforcement in the investigation. The Army confirmed Busbin was stationed at Fort Campbell but did not provide additional details about his service.

The case comes amid a rise in threats against judges and other public officials across the United States. A report by the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center in August found 74 cases in 2022 in which federal authorities investigated threats against public officials – the most of any year over the past decade.

Of the 500 federally investigated threats since 2013, about 42% were made against judges and law enforcement officers. Another 42% were made against elected officials, while many of the other threats were made against educators and health care workers. Nearly 80% of the cases resulted in conviction.

Pete Simi, one of the report’s authors and a Chapman University professor who studies extremist groups, told Military Times that the increase in threats was likely due to a loss of confidence in the country’s social institutions — including the criminal justice system — as well as the rise in social media use and increased support for using violence to achieve political goals.

“I think the strategy of using threats to express grievances and target public officials seems to be becoming somewhat normalized,” Simi said. “Obviously, that is very troubling.”

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

Romanian and Ukrainian pilots will use the aircraft, which arrived at Fetesti Air Base in southeast Romania on Tuesday, at the European F-16 training center, the ministry explained. The training center will be officially opened “in the near future,” the ministry added.

The Netherlands and Denmark are in charge of coordinating European efforts to provide Ukraine with F-16 capabilities, and the U.S. defense company Lockheed Martin will provide training support and help maintain the aircraft.

The Dutch government has said it will make 12-18 F-16s available for training purposes, with the aircraft remaining the property of the Netherlands and solely flying in NATO airspace.

F-16 instructors will use those jets in a refresher course. They will then train Romanian and Ukrainian pilots.

The Netherlands has also set a goal of teaching Ukrainian personnel how to maintain F-16s. The Dutch government said in August that training had already begun in the U.K. and Denmark. The U.S. confirmed it started training Ukrainian military pilots on the F-16 in October.

The Dutch government in August also promised to provide Ukraine with F-16s, but insisted a number of conditions are met, including that enough Ukrainians are trained to operate the jet and that infrastructure at Ukrainian airfields is made suitable to operate the fighter.

The Netherlands is buying a total of 52 F-35 jets to replace its fleet of F-16s, with the planned last flight of the latter in 2024. The Netherlands in June 2022 ordered an additional six F-35s, with 33 of the aircraft delivered and operational as of September 2023.

The Netherlands said that, as of Nov. 3, it has supplied €2.1 billion (U.S. $2.3 billion) in military aid to Ukraine amid its fight against a Russian invasion.

The report comes as tensions are soaring between Russia and the West over the fighting in Ukraine. Adding to those tensions, President Vladimir Putin last week signed a bill revoking Russia’s ratification of a global nuclear test ban in a move that Moscow said was needed to establish parity with the United States.

The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that the Imperator Alexander III strategic missile cruiser fired the Bulava missile from an underwater position in Russia’s northern White Sea, and hit a target in the far-eastern region of Kamchatka. It wasn’t immediately clear from the statement when the test launch occurred.

The Imperator Alexander III is one of the new Borei-class nuclear submarines that carry 16 Bulava missiles each and are intended to serve as the core naval component of the nation’s nuclear forces in the coming decades. According to the Defense Ministry, launching a ballistic missile is the final test for the vessel, after which a decision should be made on its induction into the fleet.

The Russian navy currently has three Borei-class submarines in service, one more is finishing tests and three others are under construction, the Defense Ministry said.

Liam Collins, who joined the Marine Corps in 2017 and was a leader of a neo-Nazi group, was accused by federal authorities of building and selling firearms, threatening to shoot Black Lives Matter protestors and conspiring to destroy government-owned energy facilities. Collins was kicked out of the Marine Corps in 2020.

Facing charges alongside four others from his neo-Nazi group, Collins pleaded guilty Oct. 24 — as part of a plea deal — to one weapons charge for delivering an unregistered firearm across state lines, according to court records. He pleaded not guilty to other weapons charges and to one count of destruction of an energy facility.

The plea agreement remained sealed by the court as of Friday. Collins’ attorney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the case. The court scheduled his sentencing for Jan. 23 in Wilmington, North Carolina.

According to federal indictments, Collins joined the Marine Corps with the intention of gaining experience and training to benefit his neo-Nazi group, which went by the acronym BSN. He was stationed at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina, where he allegedly stole body armor and rifle magazines and delivered them to other neo-Nazi members, according to federal prosecutors.

Posting on the now-defunct web forum Iron March under the aliases “Disciple” and “Niezgoda,” Collins described his neo-Nazi group as “a modern day SS” that goes hiking and camping together, does gym sessions and performs live-firing training exercises, according to the indictment. Collins reportedly added that the group had planned to “buy a lot of land,” and posted that everyone in the group would be required to have served in the military.

“I’ll be in the USMC for 4 years while my comrades work on the groups [sic] physical formation,” Collins posted in 2016. “It will take years to gather all the experience and intelligence that we need to utilize — but that’s what makes it fun.”

Charged alongside Collins were Jordan Duncan, Paul Kryscuk, Justin Hermanson and Joseph Maurino. Duncan served in the Marines from 2013 to 2018, and then worked as a contractor for the Air Force and later the Navy. Hermanson served in the Marines as part of the same unit that Collins was last assigned, and Maurino was a member of the New Jersey Army National Guard.

In a message to Collins on Iron March, Kryscuk shared his ideas for the group, which included buying property in “predominantly white and right leaning” locations, where they could recruit residents and stockpile weapons to take over local governments and industries.

According to the indictments, the group had planned to destroy transformers, substations and other components of the power grid at about a dozen locations across Idaho and its surrounding states. Prosecutors accused Collins of asking BSN members to purchase thermite, a powdered mixture used in incendiary bombs. The group had discussed using the substance to burn through transformers.

“It was the purpose of the conspiracy for the defendants ... to attack the power grid both for the purpose of creating general chaos and to provide cover and ease of escape in those areas in which they planned to undertake assassinations and other desired operations to further their goal of creating a white ethno-state,” the indictment reads.

Plea deals have already been reached in the cases against Kryscuk, Hermanson and Maurino. Kryscuk pleaded guilty in 2022 to the charge of destruction of an energy facility, according to court records. Hermanson pleaded guilty in 2022 to one weapons charge, and Maurino pleaded guilty to a weapons charge earlier this year. None of the individuals have been sentenced, court records show.

In August, Duncan filed to have his indictments dropped, arguing the charges against him were unconstitutional, WGHP reported.

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said the figure was current for the 24 hours up to 6:00 a.m. Wednesday and that 37 of the aircraft had crossed the median line in the Taiwan Strait, which China no longer recognizes as an informal divider between the sides.

It said Taiwan had monitored the situation, scrambled jet fighters, dispatched ships and activated land-based missile systems, all standard responses to Chinese military activities, which include crossing into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone but not into its actual airspace.

Such Chinese maneuvers have become frequent and aggressive since then- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August 2022. China suspended military communication with the U.S. to show its displeasure over her trip to Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory to be brought under under its control by force if necessary.

China’s military maneuvers are seen as intended to break down Taiwanese morale, exhausting its pilots and other personnel and wearing down its equipment. Despite that, the present status of de-facto independence remains widely popular among the island’s voters and the defense budget has been increased to purchase new equipment from the U.S., its chief ally, and to produce some items locally, including submarines.

At an international defense forum in Beijing on Monday, China’s second-ranking military official Gen. Zhang Youxia reiterated threats by the Chinese government to retaliate against moves toward establishing Taiwan’s formal independence, saying that “no matter who tries to split Taiwan from China in any form, China and the Chinese military will never allow that to happen.”

Zhang, who is also vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, which oversees the world’s largest standing military, opened the three-day event in the absence of former Defense Minister Gen. Li Shangfu, who would have normally hosted the event.

Li was removed from his position last week after a two-month absence from public view. The government has not provided any reason for his removal.

The Beijing event, attended by military representatives from dozens of countries, was an occasion for China to project regional leadership and boost military cooperation. That comes despite frictions with the U.S., with Japan over an uninhabited East China Sea island group, with its Southeast Asian neighbors over China’s claim to virtually the entire South China and with India along their disputed border.

But in a sign that Washington and Beijing were considering a possible resumption of military dialogue, the U.S. was represented at the forum by a delegation led by Cynthia Carras, the Defense Department’s leading official on China. As of Wednesday, it appeared she had departed without holding any formal meetings with Chinese officials or speaking to the media.

North Korea and Russia have been actively boosting the visibility of their partnership in the face of separate, deepening confrontations with the United States. Their diplomacy — highlighted by a summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Putin in September — has triggered concerns about an arms arrangement in which North Korea supplies Russia with badly needed munitions in exchange for advanced Russian technologies that would strengthen Kim’s nuclear-armed military.

Both Pyongyang and Moscow have denied U.S. and South Korean claims that the North has been transferring arms supplies to Russia.

According to lawmaker Yoo Sang-bum, the South Korean National Intelligence Service believes the North shipped more than a million artillery shells to Russia through ships and other transport means since early August to help boost Russia’s warfighting capabilities in Ukraine. Those shells would roughly amount to two months’ worth of supplies for the Russians, Yoo said.

The agency believes North Korea has been operating its munitions factories at full capacity to meet Russian munition demands and has also been mobilizing residents to increase production, Yoo said. There are also signs that North Korea dispatched weapons experts to Russia in October to counsel Russian officials on how to use the exported North Korean weapons.

NIS officials didn’t immediately respond to a request to confirm Yoo’s account of the meeting. The agency has a mixed record on tracking developments in North Korea, which is made difficult by Pyongyang’s stringent control of information.

There are concerns in South Korea that North Korea could receive sensitive Russian technologies that would enhance the threat of Kim’s nuclear weapons and missiles program. But the NIS believes it’s more likely that the Russian assistance would be limited to conventional capabilities, possibly including efforts to improve North Korea’s aging fighter aircraft fleets, Yoo said.

It’s also likely that North Korea is receiving Russian technological assistance as it pushes ahead with plans to launch its first military reconnaissance satellite, Yoo quoted the NIS as saying. Following consecutive launch failures in recent months, the North failed to follow through on its vow to attempt a third launch in October. The NIS believes that the North is in the final phase of preparations for the third launch, which is more likely to be successful, Yoo said.

Kim has repeatedly described space-based reconnaissance capabilities as crucial for monitoring U.S. and South Korean military activities and enhancing the threat posed by his nuclear-capable missiles. Experts say the decision to meet Putin at Vostochny Cosmodrome, a major satellite launch facility in the Russian Far East, hinted at Kim’s desire to seek Russian technology assistance over spy satellites.

United Nations Security Council resolutions ban North Korean satellite launches because it views them as cover for testing long-range ballistic missile technologies.

The United States, South Korea and Japan issued a joint statement on Oct. 26 that strongly condemned what they described as North Korea’s supply of munitions and military equipment to Russia, saying that such weapons shipments sharply increase the human toll of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

The statement issued by the countries’ top diplomats came days after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied U.S. claims that his country received munitions from North Korea as he returned from a two-day trip to Pyongyang.

The White House had earlier said that North Korea had delivered more than 1,000 containers of military equipment and munitions to Russia. The White House released images that it said showed the containers were loaded onto a Russian-flagged ship before being moved via train to southwestern Russia.

In the night intercept, the Shenyang J-11 twin-engine fighter closed on the U.S. Air Force plane at an “uncontrolled excessive speed, flying below, in front of, and within 10 feet of the B-52, putting both aircraft in danger of a collision,” the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said in a statement released late Thursday.

“We are concerned this pilot was unaware of how close he came to causing a collision,” the military said.

China’s Foreign Ministry put the blame on the U.S., suggesting the American aircraft was flying over the South China Sea as a deliberate provocation.

“The U.S. military planes traveled thousands of miles to China’s doorstep to flex muscle,” said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning.

“That is the source of maritime and air security risks, and is not conducive to regional peace and stability.”

Chinese jets ramp up incidents with US aircraft, new videos show

The U.S. military said in its statement that the aircraft was “lawfully conducting routine operations” ahead of the intercept Tuesday, but did not immediately respond to questions Friday about specifically what the B-52 was doing over the South China Sea or whether it was with a group of planes.

After a similar incident in May, the Chinese government dismissed American complaints and demanded that Washington end such flights over the South China Sea.

China has been increasingly assertive in advancing its claims on most of the South China Sea as its territorial waters, a position rejected by the U.S. and other countries that use the vast expanse of ocean for shipping.

China’s claims have led to longstanding territorial disputes with other countries in the South China Sea, one of the world’s busiest trade routes. A Chinese coast guard ship and an accompanying vessel last week rammed a Philippine coast guard ship and a military-run supply boat off a contested shoal in the waterway.

Following that incident, U.S. President Joe Biden renewed a warning that the U.S. would be obligated to defend the Philippines, its oldest treaty ally in Asia, if Filipino forces, aircraft or vessels come under armed attack. He spoke in a news conference with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Wednesday at the White House.

China reacted by saying the U.S. has no right to interfere in Beijing’s disputes with Manila.

“The U.S. defense commitment to the Philippines should not undermine China’s sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, nor should it support the illegal claims of the Philippines,” Mao, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, told reporters Thursday in Beijing.

The U.S. and its allies regularly conduct maritime maneuvers in the South China Sea, and also routinely fly aircraft over the area to emphasize that the waters and airspace are international.

Aerial intercepts are common, with the U.S. saying there have been more than 180 such incidents since the fall of 2021.

They are not often as close as Tuesday’s incident, however, and with tensions already high between Beijing and Washington, a collision would have had the potential to lead to an escalation.

The U.S. military said in its statement that the incident will not change its approach.

“The U.S. will continue to fly, sail and operate — safely and responsibly — wherever international laws allow,” the military said.

Likewise, China showed no sign of backing down.

“China will continue to take resolute measures to maintain its national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” Mao said.

The U.S. confirmed on Thursday that it plans to send Cynthia Carras, principal director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia, to represent the U.S. Defense Department at the Xiangshan Forum in Beijing this month.

The international gathering hosted by the Chinese Defense Ministry aims to discuss security cooperation and raise China’s status as a global power and rival to the U.S. and its Asian allies, including Japan and South Korea.

China froze military exchanges after then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi last August visited self-governing Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory.

In one of the most notable incidents, Chinese defense officials refused to answer a call in February from U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin following the shooting-down of a suspected Chinese spy balloon that had flown across North America, sparking a major diplomatic crisis between the sides that have already seen ties plummet to a historical low.

In a statement, the Pentagon said it “welcomes the opportunity to engage with (People’s Liberation Army) representatives at the Xiangshan Forum on ensuring open and reliable lines of communication, ensuring crisis communications channels, reducing strategic and operational risk, and avoiding misperceptions.”

Earlier on Thursday, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Col. Wu Qian told reporters that “China attaches great importance to the development of military-to-military relations between China and the United States.

The annual Xiangshan Forum is scheduled for Oct. 29-31.

“As we see it, the ranks of the personnel taking part in the exchanges are not the most important. What is more important are the contents of the exchanges,” Wu said.

The comments came as China’s top diplomat Wang Yi departed for Washington to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. That follows a series of high-level visits from the United States to China in recent months. In the latest sign of thawing ties, Blinken met Chinese President Xi Jinping, the leader of the ruling Communist Party, in Beijing in June.

China had attributed its refusal to restart military communications to sanctions imposed by Washington, including a refusal to allow former Defense Minister Li Shangfu to visit the U.S.

However, on Tuesday China announced the removal of Li as defense minister without giving any explanation or naming a replacement.

In answer to a reporter’s question on Li’s removal, Wu said: “I suggest you pay attention to the release of authoritative information.”

Former Foreign Minister Qin Gang was also removed from office this year under circumstances that the government has yet to explain.

China’s highly opaque political system lends itself to heavy speculation around the reasons why officials are removed, mostly focusing on possible corruption, political differences or violations of an unwritten code of personal conduct.

China on Thursday also released video it said showed a close encounter between the Chinese navy and the USS Ralph Johnson, claiming the American destroyer harassed the navy’s latest-generation type 052 destroyer Guilin while it was undergoing routine training in the South China Sea on Aug. 19.

China claimed the USS Ralph Johnson took a sharp turn and accelerated, crossing the bow of the Chinese ship near the disputed Paracel Islands, which China calls Xisha.

“What the US side wants is to threaten China’s national security with unrestricted provocation and nuisance against China,” Wu said, adding that the “Chinese military is always on high alert and will take all necessary measure to firmly safeguard the sovereignty, security and maritime rights of the nation.”

China claims almost all of the strategically vital South China Sea as its own territory. Neighboring countries, including U.S. ally the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also claim territory in the region.

Associated Press defense correspondent Lolita Baldor contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.