percent

No clear winner has emerged from Israel’s election, with nearly 90 percent of ballots counted and both major political blocs falling short of the 61 seats needed to form a government.

The Israeli Central Elections Committee said on Wednesday that it had counted more than five million votes as of 9pm local time (19:00 GMT). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is on course to win 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot is expected to secure 48 seats.

Projections from Tuesday’s voting also showed that the Arab parties – the Joint List and Ra’am – could hold a record combined 19 seats.

Final election results could come as early as Thursday evening, though no clear winner is expected to emerge.

More than 500,000 special double-envelope ballots remain to be counted, potentially changing the seat distribution. These include votes cast by soldiers, diplomats and others voting away from their registered polling stations.

The vote – the first since the October 7, 2023, attacks and the Gaza genocide – was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s premiership. The 77-year-old appears far from defeated, despite lacking a clear majority.

Netanyahu will remain caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed. President Isaac Herzog will begin consulting party leaders about forming a new administration next week, once the official election results are released.

Herzog has urged all parties to avoid another vote that would stall the formation of a government. But coalition building is the norm in Israel, and no party has ever won an outright majority in the country’s history.

Ahead of the vote, Eisenkot ruled out forming a minority government with Arab-led parties. Netanyahu has also rejected such a prospect.

As Netanyahu’s bloc is set to be the largest, analysts predict that he will form a unity government that could include Eisenkot. However, such an outcome is far from certain.

Eisenkot said in a post on X on Wednesday that his opposition alliance was now focused on the “heavy task entrusted to us – bringing change to Israel and establishing a Zionist mobilisation government”.

“This is the will of the people who expressed no confidence in the government of October 7th and the shirking, and in the bloc of shirkers in general. A bloc that is at the low point of two decades.”

Amid record turnout among Arab voters, Netanyahu’s Likud party accused Arab parties of stealing the election.

“The elections in the State of Israel were stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the elimination of the Jewish state through serious criminal offences of bribery, threats, violence, forgeries, and the use of prohibited software to mobilise voters,” the party said in a statement.

“The Likud party is transferring to the police, the Shin Bet, and the Central Elections Committee hundreds of testimonies and pieces of evidence regarding election theft in many Arab polling stations,” it said.

Israel’s predominantly Arab Joint List political alliance said in a statement published late on Wednesday by Turkish news agency Anadolu that preliminary figures showed Arab voter turnout played a decisive role in keeping Netanyahu and his coalition short of a parliamentary majority, while cautioning that the final results were yet to be announced.

Voters answered incitement and intimidation at the ballot box, it said, rejecting a “government of butchers” and its policies of home demolitions, racism and war crimes.

The Joint List said its electoral support reflected demands for political unity and a force capable of defending Arab citizens’ rights without concessions.

It pledged to work to remove Netanyahu’s government and prevent its return, saying it was ready to cooperate towards an alternative government.

Joint List leader Yousef Jabareen said the alliance could back an anti-Netanyahu government from outside, but would not join it.

Government websites in Europe and elsewhere have gone offline after news of critical vulnerabilities in a widely used programming language sent website operators scrambling to protect their systems.

Developers of the PHP programming language on Wednesday released urgent new fixes, saying all users were “encouraged to update immediately”.

PHP runs on the servers that host websites, building pages behind the scenes before they reach a visitor’s browser. Most people never see it, but it powers everything from blogs to online shops and government portals.

The vulnerabilities, which had been lurking in the software for years, were uncovered with the help of artificial intelligence. Details about them leaked online on Tuesday before fixes were available, forcing PHP to rush them out.

Experts said they were bracing for a wave of intrusions as hackers jumped to get ahead of the updates.

What is the bug?

Andrew Cullen, a lecturer on AI and cybersecurity at the University of Melbourne, said many devices in the world are connected to one piece of foundational software, which is where the bug was found.

The vulnerability allows a hacker to run code on a website, meaning they could change the website or force it to release personal information collected in a database, Cullen told Al Jazeera.

Both flaws stem from how PHP handles fatal errors, such as running out of memory. Because the problem sits in PHP itself, even the simplest website running an affected version can be vulnerable, and attackers could read passwords and other credentials from a server’s memory, the cloud security company Wiz said. Both flaws scored 9.2 out of 10 on the industry’s standard severity scale, placing them in the “critical” category.

The two flaws, nicknamed PHP2Shell, were found independently by two cybersecurity companies using AI. Calif, working with OpenAI, reported the first on August 11. Wiz, which is owned by Google, reported the second on August 24.

The vulnerabilities remained hidden in the PHP codebase for more than a decade and would have been extraordinarily complicated for a human hacker to take advantage of, Wiz said in a statement.

Calif and Wiz said they had coordinated with each other, the PHP team and OpenAI before making the vulnerabilities public.

However, Amazon security chief CJ Moses said his security team detected an attempt to exploit the vulnerabilities on October 17, four days before the public disclosure.

Moses said it was unclear how the hacker learned of the flaws while Calif’s and Wiz’s reports were still under embargo. Security researchers usually keep details of flaws secret until a fix is ready, so attackers cannot use them in the meantime.

Who can potentially be affected?

PHP, a language that dates back to the early 1990s and initially stood for Personal Home Page, underpins huge parts of the public-facing web and is baked into WordPress, Drupal, Joomla and Magento sites, meaning any critical vulnerability potentially has enormous knock-on consequences.

Calif, Wiz and the web infrastructure company Cloudflare said the flaws affect PHP 5.4 and later versions, more than a decade of releases.

Cullen said the vulnerability was “really unprecedented”, noting that PHP powers more than 70 percent of websites globally, although sites that have been updated are protected.

“There is a real risk to the kind of shared digital infrastructure that we all rely on,” Cullen told Al Jazeera. “There is concern in the cybersecurity community about what the blast radius for this will be, even though the developers of PHP have been very quick to try and develop patches for it.”

Cullen added that while AI was getting better at cybersecurity, it was also getting better at being a hacker. “This means that we are developing systems … that are making the internet safer by helping to fix bugs, but we’re also making it riskier by discovering bugs and creating bugs they’ll be able to hack,” he said.

What has the impact been so far?

In the Netherlands, the Dutch cybersecurity agency itself went offline, saying it had done so as a precaution because of the vulnerabilities. Several organisations followed the example and took public-facing websites offline, including the Port of Rotterdam, government portal Overheid.nl, the national football association KNVB, the websites for the country’s five largest political parties and several hospital ‌websites.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten said he was closely monitoring the situation.

Disruptions were even more widespread in Finland, where state IT services provider Valtori said government public network services had been taken offline “as a precautionary measure”.

France’s Ministry of the Interior said it had placed all of its websites into preventive maintenance.

Belgium’s Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation said it had temporarily taken its websites offline after reports of cyberattacks exploiting the PHP vulnerabilities although the country’s cybersecurity centre said it had not recorded any attacks on Belgian websites.

South Korea’s ⁠government raised ⁠its private-sector cybersecurity alert level and activated emergency response measures. It issued security guidance to about 28,000 companies with registered chief information security officers and 5,900 members ⁠of a government information-sharing ⁠network as well as operators of critical infrastructure, web-hosting firms and data centres.

The operator of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia also said it had taken down an unspecified number of systems until they could be safely patched while the Internet Archive, the sprawling online library, said it also briefly went offline to deal with the issue.

The lawsuit argues Trump bypassed Congress and misused a century-old law to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports.

A US food importer is suing US President Donald Trump over his 50 percent tariffs on Canadian goods, arguing he lacks the legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval.

Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey-based company that imports Canadian cheese, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the US Court of International Trade in New York.

The company says the tariffs are driving up its costs and disrupting its relationships with suppliers on both sides of the border. Between September 16 and October 11, Gellert had paid more than $520,000 in duties, according to the complaint.

“Gellert Global Group has spent generations building trusted relationships with suppliers, customers and partners across the food industry,” said Thomas Gellert, the company’s co-chief executive officer, in a press release. “These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain.”

The lawsuit challenges Trump’s decision to use a Depression-era law to impose tariffs on a wide range of Canadian products, including dairy products, furniture, clothing and wine.

Trump first imposed the 50 percent tariffs over the summer, accusing Canada of discriminating against American-made cars, alcohol and dairy products. He expanded the measures in September, adding more products in response to Canadian retaliatory tariffs.

The lawsuit argues that the law doesn’t apply to the Canadian policies the Trump administration says are discriminatory, since two of them “arose in response to the president’s own tariffs, while the third involves Canadian dairy policy governed by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)”.

It also questions why Canadian cheese is being taxed over disputes involving alcohol and cars.

“No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required,” said Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal organisation that filed the suit on Gellert’s behalf.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to the Reuters news agency.

At the centre of the case is Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries found to discriminate against American businesses.

The provision had never been used until Trump invoked it this year.

The lawsuit argues that newer laws passed by Congress since then, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, require investigations, public comment and other safeguards that Gellert says the Trump administration has bypassed, and that these override Section 338.

“The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff,” said Jeffrey Schwab, the Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel and director of litigation.

In addition, the lawsuit says that even if Trump is allowed to use the older law, he hasn’t met its requirements, including waiting 30 days before tariffs can be collected on new products added to the list.

The administration only waited seven days to start collecting tariffs on cheese in September, according to the lawsuit.

Gellert is asking the court to declare the tariffs illegal, stop them from being collected, and order refunds with interest for importers who have been impacted.

The lawsuit marks the fourth major legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs.

In February, the US Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs he imposed in 2025, and a trade court later ruled against a temporary 10 percent global tariff. A separate challenge to tariffs imposed over alleged forced labour in international trade is still pending.

The top 1 percent in Peru captured 42 percent of all new wealth generated between 2019 and 2025, an analysis by the nonprofit group Oxfam has found.

The report, released on Tuesday, highlights growing inequality in the South American country and raises questions about how the government is addressing deepening social divisions.

“Economic inequality in Peru has remained stubbornly high for decades. And when people feel that the same people always win, that nothing changes and nothing can change, inequality starts to look less like an injustice and more like the natural order of things,” said Alejandra Alayza, the executive director of Oxfam in Peru.

“That is a dangerous kind of fatalism, and we must tear it down.”

The nonprofit told Al Jazeera in an email that the 42 percent figure represents an increase from the 2000 to 2019 period, when the top 1 percent captured about 39 percent of all new wealth.

Just 1.4 percent of new wealth from 2019 to 2025 went to the poorest 50 percent of the country’s population, according to the group.

Experts warn the trend bodes poorly for public faith in government and democratic institutions.

Oxfam worked with the Institute for Peruvian Studies, a think tank in Lima, to publish a report this month on Peruvians’ perceptions of inequality in their country.

The groups found that 84 percent of Peruvians believed their country is governed by powerful interests that shape politics to their benefit. More than 75 percent also said that wealthy corporations and individuals avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

The survey also suggested that public opinion was in favour of action to address the issue.

About 70 percent of respondents said they want the government to do more to reduce inequality, which a majority felt had limited access to services such as healthcare, employment, education and justice.

“The undeniable scale of public support for action to reduce inequality leaves no room for complacency,” Alayza said.

“Inequality is not a force of nature; it is made by political choices. And different choices can build a different Peru.”

Political instability

Peru’s rising inequality has been accompanied by a period of political turmoil, particularly in the presidential palace.

A stream of probes, scandals and impeachments has led to Peru being governed by nine presidents in the last 10 years.

The latest, right-wing President Keiko Fujimori, was sworn into office in July after a narrow race that saw voting delays and heated recriminations among the leading candidates.

Experts believe powerful interests have found opportunity amid the political tumult.

“It’s sort of a paradox. How can you have such a rotation among elites but still have a relatively narrow political-criminal-business elite that holds a lot of power? I think both things are true in Peru,” Will Freeman, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Part of the political upheaval has come from clashes between the presidency and Peru’s powerful Congress, which has the power to impeach executive leaders on the basis of “moral incapacity”, an ambiguous term.

The repeated leadership shakeups have weakened Peru’s democracy, according to analysts.

In December 2022, for instance, then-President Pedro Castillo announced that he would illegally dissolve Congress in response to repeated attempts to impeach him.

His subsequent removal and arrest prompted widespread protests. The government of Castillo’s successor, Dina Boluarte, implemented a months-long crackdown on the demonstrations that rights groups say included widespread abuses for which there has been little accountability.

In the years since, the Peruvian government has also taken steps to weaken judicial oversight and hollow out anticorruption watchdogs.

The nonprofit Freedom House, which measures political freedom in countries around the world, ranked Peru as “free” in 2022. But its ranking dropped the following year to “partly free”, in light of the deadly clashes between security forces and protesters.

In its 2026 report, Freedom House maintained that Peru was only “partly free”, citing in part the denial of full political rights to certain groups, including Indigenous peoples.

“High-profile corruption scandals have eroded public trust in government, and the weakening of judicial independence has impacted the country’s governing bodies,” the nonprofit said.

Powerful interests, both licit and illicit, have taken advantage of those changes.

“The groups themselves are unstable and fluid,” said Freeman. “And yet, I think Peruvians are right to conclude that, generally, they are wielding outsized influence in defence of their own commercial interests or political power rather [than] in service of some kind of general welfare.”

GDP growth picks up from Q2 amid AI-driven boom in exports.

China’s economy has grown faster than expected in the most recent quarter amid booming exports underpinned by artificial intelligence, according to official figures.

China’s gross domestic product (GDP) expanded 4.5 percent in the July-September period from the same quarter a year earlier, picking up from 4.3 percent growth in the second quarter and beating most analysts’ forecasts, figures released on Monday by the National Bureau of Statistics showed.

During the first nine months of the year, GDP grew 4.6 percent year-on-year, according to the preliminary figures.

While China’s technology-related exports have surged during the AI boom, growth in the world’s second-largest economy has been dampened by weak domestic demand and a sagging property market.

China’s ruling Communist Party has set a GDP growth target of 4.5 to 5 percent for 2026, which would be among the slowest expansions in decades, excluding during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chinese exports surged more than 16 percent in the first three quarters of the year to reach 23.19 billion yuan ($3.47bn), according to the official data, largely due to strong demand for semiconductors and other tech-related goods.

Retail sales, a key measure of domestic consumption, increased 1.1 percent year-on-year in September and 2.6 percent during the first nine months of 2026.

Industrial production, which measures output in sectors such as manufacturing and mining, rose 5.5 percent in September, taking growth in the first three quarters to 5.3 percent.

Investment in fixed assets, which covers spending on real estate, factories and machinery, edged up 0.7 percent last month but contracted 7.2 percent during the January-September period.

Zhiguo He, a finance professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business who studies the Chinese economy, said that while China’s economy is on track to hit official targets, Beijing will be wary of the continuing reliance on export-driven growth.

“I expect Beijing is getting 4.5 percent as wanted,” He told Al Jazeera.

“A managed slow slowdown is the best Beijing can hope for,” he said.

“Real estate is still shrinking. This is what Beijing wanted and a good thing, and China’s households have been adapting their expectations based on this.”

Switzerland’s glaciers are rapidly receding due to a combination of winters with too little snow and record-high temperatures across Europe this summer, scientists say. In all, one of the world’s top ski destinations has lost nearly one-fifth of its glacial ice in just five years.

In a report (PDF) published by the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network (GLAMOS) and the Swiss Commission for Cryosphere Observation of the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT) on Thursday, researchers said Swiss glaciers lost 5.5 percent of their ice volume over the hydrologic year ending September 30, 2026, and nearly 20 percent since 2021.

Why is Switzerland, famed for its Alpine terrain and winter sports, losing its glaciers and what does this mean for the country?

Here’s what we know.

What have scientists discovered?

In September, a GLAMOS team visited 23 glaciers in Switzerland to record end-of-summer measurements of ice melt and snow accumulation.

Visiting one glacier named Scex Rouge in the Western Swiss Alps in early September, GLAMOS chief Matthias Huss, one of the report’s researchers, told the Reuters news agency that a measuring pole, about four metres (13 feet) high, was drilled into the ice in July to provide the team with a point of reference.

“Now when we have come back here, we saw the pole was out by three metres [10ft]. So just in August and September of this year, even excluding the heatwaves of June and July, we have lost three metres of ice at an elevation of almost 3,000 metres [9,843ft],” he explained.

“This clearly indicates these conditions that we had this summer, they are just inconsistent with the survival of these small glaciers in the Alps,” he added.

Why are glaciers in Switzerland losing ice?

According to the report, the total mean thickness of individual glaciers in Switzerland has fallen by between 2.5 and four metres in 2026. At glacier tongues – narrow glacial extensions of a glacier which project from land into a body of water – it had decreased by as much as 10 metres in some places over the summer.

“We can clearly attribute the massive ice loss to the warming, and thus anthropogenic [caused by humans] climate change. The summer has been the hottest on record in Switzerland. In addition, there was little snow in winter, and therefore the glaciers were poorly protected when the heat started,” GLAMOS chief Huss told Al Jazeera.

He noted that while their measurements have indicated that the melting has affected all glaciers in Switzerland equally, the effects were most visible on smaller glaciers.

“Those shrink very quickly and sometimes even completely disappeared. Also, large glaciers lost an enormous quantity of ice, but they remain impressive,” he added.

The report’s scientists warned that the glaciers also lost a total of about 2.2 trillion litres of water (581 billion gallons) between July and September alone.

“This is more than four times the annual drinking water consumption of all Swiss households,” the report’s researchers said and warned this could impact the country’s future water supply.

What does this mean for Switzerland?

Switzerland is a country known for winter sports and Alpine tourism, which depends on the glaciers. About 4 percent of the country’s entire workforce is employed in the tourism sector.

“This affects tourism and also how we perceive the mountains – they are no longer white but increasingly grey and black,” he told Al Jazeera.

He added that the water provided by glaciers is also important for the economy. “It is used to fill up hydropower lakes that produce clean energy, and supplies the biggest streams of Europe,” he said.

“We’re not yet seeing the full consequences as glaciers are still around and they contribute water when we need it. But this potential is soon being lost,” he added.

Harry Zekollari, a glaciologist and associate research professor at the Department of Water and Climate at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, shared a similar view.

He stressed that glaciers are important natural water suppliers, as they provide water when people need it most – in summer, when it is hot and dry.

“With climate change, glaciers initially provide more water during summer as they rapidly melt. However, as glaciers become smaller, there is less ice to be melted, and as such the water supply in summer decreases. This peak in water supply has now been passed for glaciers in the European Alps, meaning that we expect glaciers to provide less and less water in the coming years,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Glacier changes can also cause natural hazards, and since most of the ice lost turns into water that reaches the oceans, the consequences of glacier loss [in Switzerland and elsewhere] will be felt for coastlines all around the globe,” he added.

Is there a solution?

Yes. According to Zekollari, in order to save as much glacier ice as possible in Switzerland, the world needs to stabilise rising temperatures as soon as possible.

“Projections for the European Alps and Swiss glaciers show that if we are able to rapidly stop emissions, we may still be able to save about one-third of their ice mass. However, in a case with strong warming, these glaciers are projected to lose more than 90 percent of their volume by 2100,” he said.

He noted that the situation is less grim globally as some glaciers in other regions are more persistent.

“However, even globally, future emissions play a big role and will decide whether we lose about 25 percent of glacier mass by 2100 – that’s the good case, with limited warming – or rather 50 percent – the bad case, with more warming,” he said.

“The losses in the longer term – past 2100 – are even larger due to the long response of glaciers, but also here it is the future warming that decides how much remains. Every 0.1 degree Celsius warming matters.”

United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth plans to cut the number of positions in the US military reserved for generals and admirals by 20 percent, raising concerns about political interference in the military’s leadership amid strained relations with senior Pentagon officials.

An announcement is expected on Wednesday when Hegseth gives his “State of the Force” address to junior officers and enlisted personnel at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.

The Pentagon has presented previous cuts as a way to reduce bureaucracy. But analysts say Hegseth’s latest changes may be aimed at sidelining experienced commanders, discouraging dissent and appointing more officers loyal to President Donald Trump to the ranks.

So is the US military too top-heavy, and what could the cuts mean? Here’s what we know.

What is Hegseth planning?

Citing Pentagon officials, The Associated Press news agency has reported that Hegseth will double the 10 percent reduction in top-ranking personnel ordered last year, bringing the total decrease to 20 percent by January 1, 2027. The plan affects roughly 800 general and admiral positions across the one- to four-star ranks.

Congress sets statutory limits on the number of generals and admirals. A Congressional Research Service report recorded 848 active-duty generals and admirals in September 2025, below the authorised maximum of 857.

Cutting positions does not necessarily mean immediately dismissing everyone occupying them. An official told the Reuters news agency that some roles would be eliminated, while others would be assigned to lower-ranking officers.

Why are top-ranking military positions being removed?

The argument for reducing senior ranks predates Hegseth’s tenure, with supporters saying fewer layers of command would reduce administrative work and give officers closer to operations greater authority.

Walter Ladwig, a political scientist specialising in US foreign policy at King’s College London, said there is a credible case for reform. “Since the end of the Cold War, the overall size of the force has declined significantly, but we haven’t seen a corresponding reduction in the number of flag officers,” he told Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, we’ve seen headquarters and staffs proliferate.”

Trump and Hegseth have already fired or pushed into retirement more than two dozen military leaders since Trump took office in January 2025.

Those removed include General Randy George, the US Army’s top uniformed officer, in April, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the chief of naval operations, in February 2025. The administration also dismissed the only two women serving as four-star officers, alongside other senior female officers.

In February 2025, Trump also fired Air Force General CQ Brown as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a wider shake-up of top military leadership.

Other departures have been of civilian leaders. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned in late August after reported disagreements over Hegseth’s handling of senior military personnel.

The dismissals, alongside blocked promotions, have raised questions about how the administration selects commanders and whether professional disagreements could jeopardise careers. Robert Ralston, a lecturer in political science and international studies at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, said the proposed reductions should be weighed alongside these earlier decisions.

“These cuts appear to be part of a broader, sustained effort by Hegseth to fill the ranks based on political, rather than meritocratic, considerations,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Politics is driving these decisions, in my view.”

What political fallout could there be from this?

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona criticised Hegseth’s changes at the Pentagon. “The US military doesn’t need more testosterone; it needs better leadership at this point,” Kelly told MS NOW’s Morning Joe programme last week.

“The consequences of firing all these admirals and generals are that we’re losing a portion, a good portion, of a generation of great leadership.”

David Galbreath, professor of war and technology at the University of Bath in the UK, told Al Jazeera that resistance from Congress and military leaders could complicate the changes.

He pointed to the opposition that arose to President Jimmy Carter’s plans to withdraw US ground troops from South Korea as an example of how military and congressional pressure can constrain a president.

“I suspect that after the election, we are likely to see a much more confrontational Congress with investigations and impeachments of Hegseth,” he said.

Whether that prediction comes true will likely depend on November’s congressional elections and whether the Republican Party retains control of both chambers of Congress.

What criticisms have been made of Hegseth?

Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon has been marked by controversy and tensions with senior officials. In March 2025, he shared details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen in a Signal chat group which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief.

A number of US media reports about the dwindling supplies of weapons in the Middle East prompted his department to investigate leaks and restrict journalists’ access earlier this year. The New York Times reported in August that about 50 Joint Staff military and civilian officials had undergone polygraph tests amid growing mistrust inside the Pentagon.

Hegseth has meanwhile made ending what he calls “woke” culture a central priority, introducing new physical fitness requirements and abolishing diversity policies.

Ralston said the combination of dismissals and blocked promotions could damage morale and the military’s future leadership. “His relationship with senior military leaders has been adversarial, his scuttling of promotions has undoubtedly damaged morale, and will have long-term consequences for leadership pipelines within the Department of Defense,” he said.

King’s College’s Ladwig also described Hegseth’s relationship with senior Pentagon leaders as unusually confrontational but cautioned against interpreting every proposed cut as a power struggle.

“When a military is under civilian control, it means that the elected government has the right to determine defence priorities and reorganise the armed forces accordingly,” he said.

But Ladwig warned that the changes could encourage officers to hold back their professional recommendations when advising senior politicians. “That might create incentives for military officers to censor themselves rather than provide candid professional military advice, particularly if being politically aligned with the administration is seen as a path to success,” he said.

“This is a very worrisome pathology, and it’s the kind of thing that produces ineffective militaries in dictatorships.”