target

July 1 (Asia Today) — South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back urged senior commanders Wednesday to complete a key military capability review and work toward proposing a target year for the transfer of wartime operational control by the end of 2026.

“A military that cannot make its own decisions cannot become a strong military,” Ahn said while presiding over a meeting of senior commanders from across the armed forces at the Defense Ministry in Seoul.

Ahn called on the military to make every effort to present what officials have described as an “X-year” for the command transfer at this year’s South Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting.

“Regaining wartime operational control is a path toward building a stronger Republic of Korea and advancing the South Korea-U.S. alliance to a new level,” Ahn said.

He said the transfer would allow the South Korean military to take the lead in wartime planning, operational preparations and the execution of military operations.

Ahn made similar remarks earlier Wednesday while chairing a quarterly meeting reviewing progress on the command transfer.

“This year, we face the critical task of completing the Full Operational Capability verification and determining the timing of the OPCON transition,” Ahn said. “Let us fulfill the historic mission of regaining wartime operational control.”

The Defense Ministry aims to complete verification of the future Combined Forces Command’s Full Operational Capability at the annual Security Consultative Meeting, or SCM, scheduled for November in Washington.

The ministry then plans to recommend a target year for the transfer to the presidents of South Korea and the United States.

South Korea regained peacetime operational control of its armed forces in 1994. During wartime, designated South Korean and U.S. forces remain under the operational control of the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, which is led by a U.S. general.

The allies have agreed that wartime command will be transferred after mutually established conditions are met rather than on a predetermined timetable.

The assessment of South Korea’s ability to lead the combined defense is divided into three stages: Initial Operational Capability, Full Operational Capability and Full Mission Capability.

The ministry said the Full Operational Capability assessment has been completed and that finishing its verification would allow the allies to begin specifying a transfer timetable.

U.S. and South Korean defense officials have repeatedly said the transition must be carried out in a stable and systematic manner under their jointly approved conditions-based plan.

Ahn also emphasized cooperation among the Army, Navy and Air Force.

He said each service must maintain its professional expertise but warned that service-specific interests should not create barriers to joint operations.

“Each service should ask itself how much time it allocates to joint training during the year,” Ahn said.

“Jointness must become part of military culture through the process of learning, training and thinking together beginning at the service academies and then be refined and developed in the field.”

The remarks came amid concern that the ministry’s plans to reform and potentially integrate elements of the military academy system could weaken the specialized education provided by each service.

Senior commanders also discussed developing a military based on artificial intelligence and advanced technology and restructuring South Korea’s armed forces by 2040.

They reviewed lessons from Russia’s war in Ukraine and recent fighting in the Middle East, including the growing battlefield use of artificial intelligence, drones and robots as relatively inexpensive and efficient weapons.

The ministry said it would begin pilot programs using newly developed artificial intelligence models during the second half of the year.

It also plans to provide private companies with a catalog of military data that could support defense technology development.

The military will expand the number of units assigned to test commercially developed drones from one to nine to support South Korea’s domestic drone industry, the ministry said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260701010000411

The California dream, according to the latest Times’ poll: National Guardsmen patrol the border with Mexico, bayonets at the ready. Every resident, citizen and non-citizen alike, carries a tamper-proof identi ty card (You can’t leave home without it). Countless times a day, the card is shown to bureaucrat or police officer to prove citizenship. The 14th Amendment, guaranteeing citizenship to the U.S.-born, is abrogated. Truant officers, lists in hand, enter classrooms and pull undocumented children from behind their desks, trundling them into vans for shipment to relocation centers. At hospitals nearby, emergency-room doctorsturn away the sick or injured who do not possess the identity card.

Every now and then, the people of California surrender themselves to a recurrent paranoid delusion that is virtually a badge of Californian identity. Now is such a time. And the combination of a paranoid-delusional populace and demagogic politicians has engendered among Californians a mean-spiritedness, a detachment from reality–and worse, a fear of freedom itself.

It happened in Los Angeles on Oct. 24, 1871, when a mob, which included some of the city’s best citizens, tortured and hanged 17 Chinese men from downtown lampposts, among them a teen-age boy, then looted the Chinese quarter.

It happened in the 1930s, in the midst of the mother of all Depressions, to Dust Bowl migrants. In February, 1936, the city of Los Angeles declared both the federal and state constitutions null and void, dispatched 126 police officers to seal off all California’s land borders from entry by migrants–all American citizens–who could not prove their net worth.

It happened most sweepingly in 1942, when American citizens of Japanese descent were shipped off to what were euphemistically called relocation centers.

It happened in June, 1943, when thousands of young servicemen wandered the streets of Los Angeles, beating up young Mexican males, stripping them of their zoot suits, blaming them, implicitly and explicitly, for the fact that they, the Anglos, had to go off to war while the Mexican youths were able to stay home and jitterbug.

As Yogi Berra would say, “It’s deja vu all over again.” Just as Californians once believed that the Chinese, the Japanese, the Dust Bowlers, or Mexican youths in zoot suits were the cause of their ills, they now believe, with the full force of mass psychosis, that illegal immigrants–read: illegal Mexicans–constitute the gravest threat to our way of life, in a close third to the economy and crime, to which illegal immigration is intimately linked.

Think of it! Mexican illegals responsible for bloated bureaucracy. Mexican illegals responsible for special-interest-dominated politicians. Mexican illegals responsible for a soaring divorce rate, the breakdown of the family, AIDS, venereal disease, declining standards in culture and education, anti-female violence in rap music, drugs, child abuse, spousal batterings, the loss of religion and personal morality, deferred maintenance of the infrastructure, teen-aged pregnancies, the Inquisition of political correctness, slovenliness in personal dress–or whatever other symptom one might choose to signify the decline of California as a culture.

To say all this is not to deny that California faces a terrible array of problems, including illegal immigrants. As Delmore Schwartz once pointed out, even paranoids have enemies. Illegal immigrants are a drain on the public sector. The underground economy–with its exploitative wages, lack of benefits, forged and perjured documents–corrupts employer and employee alike.

Furthermore, in an economy partly dependent upon illegal immigration, citizenship is devalued. What previous generations struggled for across a lifetime–the chance to live and work in America–is stolen by means of false papers. The ghetto existence of illegal immigrants reinforces an unfortunate tendency in the legal immigrant community not to learn English, not to assimilate, on some level, the language, legal and institutional structures, heritage and historical identities of the United States of America.

As bad as these problems are, however, they are not the whole picture. The state’s current malaise cannot be blamed on the young busboy, far from home, washing dishes late into the night in an upscale restaurant on the Westside. Indeed, in the vast majority of instances, Mexican illegals are doing the work that others–even those on welfare–will not do, yet needs to be done.

How did we lose faith in the premise of America and California, which is freedom and an open society, personal liberty, courage, fairness and, whenever possible, generosity to others who also wish something better for themselves? Why are we talking about bayonets on the border when, every day, there are tens of thousands of legal crossings between Mexico and California crucial to the survival of our economy? Why are we scapegoating obliquely, perhaps, yet with loathsome effectiveness, the fact of Mexican immigration to America, an immigration that was absolutely necessary for the creation of modern California?

Mexican labor built the interurban electrics that made possible modern Los Angeles and its hinterlands. Mexican labor played the major role in the creation of the agricultural economy that still remains the leading component of California’s domestic product.

Californians had it easy in that long arc of prosperity extending from World War II through the ‘80s? When it was taken away–when California began to suffer like the Rust Belt or rural New England or Appalachia–they turned around and blamed the weakest, especially an underclass approaching non-personhood.

Paranoia is intrinsically self-destructive. Paranoids not only blame others; they do damage to themselves. And so it is not surprising that the current paranoid-delusional mind-set, not content with soldiers on the border and identity cards, with kids yanked from classrooms and the sick denied treatment, now seeks to sink the North American Free Trade Agreement. True, the treaty requires some amending, but to kill the entire idea of economic cooperation with Mexico on the ground that Mexico will hijack our economy is to betray in an instant how far our self-esteem has sunk, how far we have devolved into paranoia. We want it both ways: to see the Mexicans as, on the one hand, illegals enervating our social system; and, on the other, to see them back on their own turf, capable of stealing our industrial base.

What a horrible hypocrisy for California to simultaneously exploit and berate those who come only for a better life.

WASHINGTON — Jennifer Siebel Newsom has spent more than a decade cultivating an identity distinct from her husband, Gov. Gavin Newsom, as an active documentary filmmaker and gender equity activist with her own organizations, staff and salary.

The 51-year-old calls herself California’s “first partner,” a title she coined herself to signal an equal footing with the governor and gender inclusivity.

Her independent streak has generated her a steady income. She earns money from a set of organizations she founded or controls. They include the Representation Project, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equity through film and education programs; Girls Club Entertainment, a for-profit production company she owns that holds the copyrights to her documentaries; and the California Partners Project, a second nonprofit that works closely with her government office and receives donations solicited by the governor.

Since its creation in 2020, the California Partners Project has received nearly $5.1 million from so-called “behested payments,” raising alarms over the years about the influence large companies have amassed in Sacramento.

California law allows officials to solicit donations to specific charitable or governmental causes when the payments are reported within 30 days. The public donation system, however, came under scrutiny in 2020 when payments made at Newsom’s behest — to a variety of organizations, not just the California Partners Project — ballooned to an unprecedented $226 million to help fund the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

With no limit on how much money can be donated by organizations or individuals at the behest of the governor, millions of dollars flowed in to prop up public services during the pandemic and fund Newsom’s favored programs, including an effort to address homelessness and a public safety campaign promoting the importance of wearing masks. The top donor of Newsom-behested payments in 2020 was tech giant Facebook, which gave $27 million for gift cards that went to front-line healthcare workers and for public health ads.

“It’s not illegal, but it certainly pushes the bounds of campaign finance law, and the first couple has been doing this for some time,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University. “In this battle between Newsom and [President] Trump this makes their [the first couple’s] actions, these payments and the operation of the nonprofits a rich target for scrutiny.”

The Newsoms’ financial arrangements are now the subject of renewed scrutiny. The governor has accused the Trump administration — specifically, the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service — of questioning their friends and former employees about him and his wife. The governor said the probes are politically motivated, a personal vendetta because he’s considering a run for president in 2028.

Newsom said he and his wife have nothing to hide, and promised to release all of his recent tax returns — though he has not announced when.

In turn, the governor has demanded that the Department of Justice release all records pertaining to the probe.

“The American people deserve to know who ordered this abuse of power and how far it goes,” the governor wrote on social media last week.

“These are dark days in our nation’s history when the leader of the free world spews animus openly and without shame — aiming to silence and destroy not only his political opponents, but their friends, colleagues, and families,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement to The Times. ”My husband and I will continue to push back on this vindictive attack — and I certainly will not let this distract me from the important work ahead to protect the health, wealth, and safety of women and children and give California kids the best start in life. Together, we can set an example of strong leadership that protects people rather than preys on them.”

To better understand the finances, here is a breakdown of how Siebel Newsom’s company and nonprofits are working.

The Representation Project

Alongside the release of her first documentary, “Miss Representation,” in 2011, Siebel Newsom created her nonprofit, which originally shared the same name as her film. The organization licenses her films and reimburses costs to her production company.

The nonprofit earns some revenue from licensing the first partner’s documentaries for use in classrooms, college campuses and workplaces. Licensing for film screenings at schools starts at $49, while corporate licensing for her films starts at $995; purchase of screening rights also comes with curricula to facilitate discussions.

The Representation Project has earned more than $5.2 million in revenue from film screenings, licensing and speaking fees since 2011, according to a review of its tax filings.

The Representation Project is not required to disclose its donors but has received at least $2.6 million since 2014 from various charitable foundations that disclosed the gifts in their own tax filings. Several corporations that have had business before the state have donated to Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co., AT&T and Kaiser Permanente.

Its past donors also include entrepreneur and progressive donor Susie Thompkins Buell, who is credited as a producer on several of Siebel Newsom’s documentaries, as well as the Marin Community Foundation and Onward Together, the political action organization founded by Hillary Clinton.

Four months after Newsom took office in 2019, the state Department of Education recommended that high schools screen two of his wife’s films, “Miss Representation” and “The Mask You Live In,” a move that has garnered criticism from conservative media outlets. The state said the films “can help facilitate a discussion about the impact of mass media and gender socialization on self-image and relationships with others.”

Though it does not specify where its films have been licensed, the nonprofit boasts in annual impact reports that its films and curricula have “reached over 2 million students” and “are being used in over 5,000 schools in fifty U.S. states.”

Since founding the Representation Project in 2011, Siebel Newsom has received more than $1.9 million in compensation from the nonprofit organization, according to a review of federal tax records. Her separately owned film production company, Girls Club Entertainment, has collected about $2.2 million in independent contracts from the nonprofit, records show.

Combined, the two streams of money total about $4.1 million flowing from the charity to Siebel Newsom personally or to entities she controls over the span of a little over a decade.

Her current annual salary is $161,250 for a 40-hour workweek, records show. Siebel Newsom earns income from both her production company and her nonprofit, according to state financial disclosures.

Jeff Tenenbaum, a nonprofit attorney with 30 years of experience advising nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations, declined to comment on Siebel Newsom’s specific case. But generally, he explained the legal framework that would apply to an arrangement like the one described in the filings.

Under federal tax-exempt organization law, he said, the “private benefit doctrine” governs whether a nonprofit’s overall activities unduly benefit any single individual — including through indirect payments to entities they own. The tax law asks whether too much benefit flows to one person or entity.

This is separate and distinct from the “private inurement” doctrine, which prohibits nonprofits from paying greater-than-fair market value compensation to insiders, including founders, and which requires that such compensation arrangements be approved by individuals with no conflicts of interest.

“Theoretically, a situation like this could raise some private benefit concerns,” Tenenbaum said, when the structure of the arrangement was described to him.

The doctrine does not prohibit all private benefit, he said, only what the federal tax code calls “impermissible” private benefit.

“There has to be too much benefit compared to the benefit to the public,” he said. Whether that threshold is crossed here, he said, would require a fuller review of the organization’s finances, contracts, and other considerations, including copyright ownership issues relating to the films produced.

Girls Club Entertainment

An actress and documentary filmmaker, Siebel Newsom founded her production company to develop independent films with a focus on combating gender stereotypes and empowering girls and women. She serves as the company’s chief creative officer.

She has written, produced and directed five films exploring themes of inequality and traditional gender roles. Siebel Newsom is best known for her 2011 documentary “Miss Representation,” which focused on the few and narrow representations of girls and women in American media.

Tax records show that the production company owns the rights to “Miss Representation” and has licensed the film to the Representation Project for a minimum of seven years for the purpose of distributing and screening the film in public. Costs associated with film production — including the writer, director and producer fees — have been reimbursed by the Representation Project, tax filings show.

Her latest documentary, “Miss Representation: Rise Up,” examines “the rising backlash against women’s progress and the hostile landscape of technology designed to harass and, ultimately, silence women.” The film premiered this month at the Tribeca Film Festival.

California Partners Project

In 2020, Siebel Newsom founded the California Partners Project, a nonprofit focused on improving gender equity in the workplace and the safety and well-being of children in online spaces. She does not collect compensation from the nonprofit or serve on its board.

It hosts an annual “gender equity summit” and provides resources for parents on issues such as social media safety and child mental health.

In the fall of 2024, Siebel Newsom and the California Partners Project hosted representatives from TikTok, Meta, Pinterest and other social media platforms for an event about children’s online safety. A day before the panel, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta took a more forceful tack to go after the tech industry by joining with 13 other states in a lawsuit against TikTok that accused the platform of exploiting young app users with its addictive features.

In September of 2024, the governor signed a bill to prohibit internet services and applications from providing “addictive feeds,” defined as media curated based on information gathered on or provided by the user, to minors without parental consent.

The California Partners Project also does not publicly disclose its donors in its tax filings, but much of the nonprofit’s funding appears to come from behested payments. Siebel Newsom does not receive a salary from the organization.

Since its founding, the Newsoms have steered more than $5 million to the nonprofit via behested payments, according to a review of the disclosures. While many donations to the California Partners Project come from charitable foundations, it also received hundreds of thousands from companies including Silicon Valley Bank, Pinterest and the charitable arm of Blue Shield of California.

Its biggest funder is the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, a Sonoma County tribe that operates a casino in Rohnert Park and spends heavily in state and federal elections. The tribe has given $2.3 million to the nonprofit since 2022. In June 2023, Newsom appointed tribal Chairman Greg Sarris to the University of California Board of Regents. Newsom has also supported efforts by the tribe to block a smaller tribe from building a casino in nearby Vallejo.

Blue Shield, which has reported giving $100,000 to Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit, also has a cozy relationship with her husband. The nonprofit health insurer was an early donor to Newsom’s 2018 campaign for governor and later received a $15-million no-bid contract to distribute COVID vaccines. State regulators in 2024 also signed off on the nonprofit’s request to restructure and establish a new parent corporation out of state, a move that raised alarm among healthcare advocates.

The California Partners Project did not respond to questions about its donors and spending.

The Trump Department of Justice going after people who make the president mad or even sad is nothing new, in this dangerous age when the presidency is increasingly about placating the desires of the old man in the Oval Office.

Leticia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff. Most recently, E. Jean Carroll, who sued President Trump personally and won a huge settlement on her claim that he sexually assaulted her. Now, the Department of Justice is investigating her for potential perjury.

It would be easy to think of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s announcement Monday that the U.S. Department of Justice is now targeting his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, as just another addition to that list.

But this attack on Siebel Newsom (alleged attack, anyway — the Department of Justice has not confirmed she is a target) is something much darker in our slide into authoritarianism. While the details of what is being investigated are murky and the president hasn’t chimed in yet, it has all the appearances of the Trump administration seeking to stop a political rival who has a real shot at knocking MAGA out of the top office.

“It’s not just random or accidental that the wife of a major presidential candidate is being investigated,” Steven Levitsky, a professor of politics at Harvard University, told me Monday. “That’s the nature of selective prosecution and that is a pillar of authoritarian rule.”

Levitsky is an expert on authoritarian regimes, and how they take and keep power. His point that Newsom is a viable challenger may seem obvious — Newsom himself is already fundraising off of it. But this particular alleged investigation bears a moment of pause because it is not the regular decline of justice we have been witnessing to this moment.

“This is different,” he said. “This is forward-looking persecution.”

Until now, Levistky points out, Trump has screamed and hollered for the prosecution of those who have wronged him in the past, sometimes even the distant past. Yes, he’s disgraced the Department of Justice with the demand it function as his own personal hammer of retribution, even putting his own personal attorney, Todd Blanche, in charge when Pam Bondi wasn’t accommodating or successful enough at stomping perceived enemies and quashing the Epstein files.

But those prosecutions have largely been grievance-based, not aimed at keeping power.

Going after Siebel Newsom seems more like a forward-looking, preemptive strike targeting Newsom ahead of the 2028 election through every decent man’s Achilles’ heel, his family.

In fact, the right-wing media — which is closely tied to the whims of the White House — has been targeting Siebel Newsom for months.

In particular, Siebel Newsom has been attacked for her work as a documentary filmmaker who focuses on female empowerment and parsing how and why we have the gender norms that we do when it comes to masculinity and femininity. I’ll let you figure out how popular that is in MAGA world, where real women make sandwiches.

Conservative commentator Sean Hannity has gone after Siebel Newsom for saying she sometimes changes the gender of a book’s character from “he” to “she” when she’s reading to her children. Fox News has attacked her for daring to give her boys dolls to play with, leading some MAGA influencers to label her “psychotic” or “abusive.” Right-wing icon Megyn Kelly called her a “nutcase” for sharing the tragic story of her sister’s death when Siebel Newsom was 6.

And other media have focused on the fact that some of the films she has been involved with have been approved for use in California schools, leading to conspiracies that Newsom used his influence to force his wife’s “woke” agenda on kids, by which we are apparently talking about the liberal plagues of decency and inclusion.

Newsom’s office said that in recent weeks, relatives, friends and business associates of the family have been contacted by investigators from the FBI and IRS. Siebel Newsom also does work around online safety for children, but it seems likely that any attention would focus on these films, and related nonprofits, and the perennially popular MAGA boogeyman of schools forcing ideologies on kids. Throw in Siebel Newsom’s company making even a dollar, and the way the IRS can find problems with any tax return, and you’ve got about 10,000 hours of right-wing propaganda.

So whether the pressure to target Siebel Newsom came from the White House or not, Newsom’s announcement raises the troubling specter that this administration is getting more serious about remaining in control by kneecapping potential replacements before they grow too strong.

In his Monday video, Newsom urged Trump with mano a mano bravado to come after him as much as he wanted, but to leave his wife and family out of it. But I would not underestimate Siebel Newsom, who showed her strength when she testified against disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, laying out publicly a private, painful tale.

Siebel Newsom’s office told me she’s fine being part of any fight against Trump.

“There are clearly no boundaries to what Donald Trump will do to get his way or to challenge those who get in his way,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement.

The “governor and I will continue to speak truth to power because the American people deserve so much more.”

By coming out in advance of any official announcement of an investigation by the Department of Justice, Siebel Newsom and her husband may be able to take control of the narrative, something Trump detests.

That pushback, Levitsky said, is critical, not just for them, but more importantly for all of us. After last year, when so many institutions and individuals crumbled in the face of Trump’s power, the strength of our democracy increasingly depends on those with political capital standing up to him.

Coming out punching first does just that.

The race pitting a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump against Congressman Thomas Massie, a rare Republican critic of Israel, has become the most expensive House of Representatives primary contest in the history of the United States.

The avalanche of spending, totalling more than $34m by Monday, according to official records, highlights the significance of the elections that could oust one of the few Republican opponents to the war with Iran.

In the final stretch of the campaign ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Massie has sought to highlight the oversized role of pro-Israel groups – including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – in the race.

He said the election will be a “referendum on foreign policy” and whether pro-Israel lobby groups will be able to “bully” members of Congress.

“You can tell that I’m ahead in the polls, and they’re desperate,” Massie told ABC News on Sunday.

“That’s why they’re sending the secretary of war to my district tomorrow. That’s why the president’s losing sleep and tweeting about this. That’s why AIPAC has dumped another $3m into my race this weekend.”

Trump has been incessantly bashing Massie on social media, and in an unusual move, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has travelled to Kentucky to campaign for Ed Gallrein, the Navy SEAL veteran challenging the congressman.

Massie has been critical of the unconditional US military aid to Israel and of the country’s abuses in Gaza and Lebanon. He has also helped spearhead the push for the release of government files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The money

Despite the intensity of the race, the candidates have not raised record amounts of money themselves.

The bulk of the spending, more than $25.8m, has come from outside groups, known as super political action committees (super PACs).

Super PACs are usually used by special interest groups to spend heavily to oppose or support a candidate without the constraints of legal limits on direct campaign contributions.

Pro-Israel groups and donors have played a central role in the flood of funds and ads directed against Massie, with three groups linked to them spending more than $15.5m in the race, Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows.

United Democracy Project (UDP), AIPAC’s election arm, has spent more than $4.1m.

The RJC Victory Fund, which is affiliated with the Republican Jewish Coalition, came in with around $3.9m.

MAGA KY has been the largest spender, at $7.5m.

The PAC’s finances have not been made fully public. But available records show that one of the group’s top funders is Paul Singer, a pro-Israel billionaire investor who has also made the largest individual donation to UDP over the past year – $2.5m.

MAGA KY also received funds from Preserve America PAC, a group linked to Israeli-American megadonor Miriam Adelson.

Details of the finances of Preserve America PAC remain unclear for this election cycle. But Adelson donated $106m to the PAC in 2024 to help elect Trump as president.

Trump has openly admitted that Adelson and her late husband Sheldon Adelson have influenced his Middle East policies.

Before the race in Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District, the most expensive House primary was the 2024 election that ousted then-Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman, in which pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, were also the largest spenders.

The third most expensive primary also involved AIPAC and its pro-Israel allies, who succeeded in helping defeat progressive Congresswoman Cori Bush in 2024.

The Trump factor

Beyond the millions of dollars in pro-Israel spending, Massie needs to survive another potent force in Republican politics – Trump’s wrath.

The US president has all but purged the party of lawmakers who have disagreed with him on major issues.

Most recently, Senator Bill Cassidy – who voted to convict Trump after the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot – lost his primary to a challenger backed by the US president.

Trump is actively campaigning against Massie. In less than 24 hours between Sunday and Monday, the US president fired off three social media posts berating the congressman, calling him “weak”, “pathetic” and a “bum”.

“The worst Congressman in the long and storied history of the Republican Party is Thomas Massie,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday. “He is an obstructionist and a fool. Vote him out of office tomorrow, Tuesday. It will be a great day for America!”

However, Massie appears to have a few advantages that other Republican dissidents lacked.

Over the years, the congressman has built a reputation as a combative, principled libertarian and has gained popularity among right-wing commentators.

His campaign directly raised $5.5m, significantly more than Gallrein’s $3.1m, while also receiving outside support from pro-gun rights and libertarian PACs.

Massie has also been endorsed by some of his Republican colleagues, including Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, an outspoken right-wing lawmaker.

And due to the involvement of pro-Israel groups, Massie’s supporters are arguing that the race is not all about Trump, who remains popular amongst Republican voters.

“Why does Trump hate Massie? Is the congressman a secret liberal? Not at all,” right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson said in his newsletter on Monday.

“Unlike nearly everyone else in the Republican Party, Massie has refused to go along with the White House’s abandonment of the America First principles that got the president elected. He is one of the few honest people in politics. Everyone who cares about our country should root for him.”

A former Philippine Navy warship was sent to the bottom today by the combined effects of maritime strike drills launched by Japanese, Philippine, and U.S. forces in the Luzon Strait, one of the world’s most strategic and tense bodies of water. The maneuvers, which reportedly involved a variety of anti-ship missiles and rocket artillery, were part of the broader Balikatan exercise, which is especially important in the context of rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

Located roughly 50 miles offshore, the target vessel for a live-fire sinking exercise (SINKEX) campaign was the decommissioned Philippine Navy Rizal class patrol corvette, the former BRP Quezon. The ship was originally completed for the U.S. Navy as an Auk class minesweeper during World War II, serving as the USS Vigilance before being transferred to the Philippines and serving in a new role in the late 1960s. The BRP Quezon, which had a standard displacement of 890 tons, was decommissioned in 2021.

The maritime strike (MARSTRIKE) drills were conducted on the island of Luzon, which sits at the northern end of the Philippines, and is the country’s largest and most populous island. Specifically, the live-fire drills took place around the Paoay Sand Dunes, in the coastal region of Ilocos Norte.

The drills began around 10:00 a.m. local time with a U.S. Army M30/31 Guided Multiple-Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) fired as a “probing round,” with the location of the target vessel being confirmed around 10:15 a.m.

The GMLRS artillery rocket is a highly precise, rapid-strike weapon that can attack targets to a distance of around 50 miles, which would put it right at the limit of its range. It is fired from the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) that can launch six guided or unguided 227mm artillery rockets or a single Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile without reloading. GMLRS is not capable of engaging moving targets, so it has limited application in the traditional anti-ship mission set.

In a combined strike, anti-ship missiles were reportedly then launched from a U.S. Marine Corps Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) and from a Philippine Navy C-Star system.

Of these, NMESIS employs an uncrewed variant of the 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), also known as the Remotely Operated Ground Unit Expeditionary-Fires (ROGUE-Fires), on which is mounted a launcher with two ready-to-fire Naval Strike Missiles (NSM). These have a range of around 130 miles and have low-observable features, making them harder for enemy air defenses to detect and engage.

NMESIS is meant to be rapidly deployable and capable of highly dispersed operations in austere areas. As an uncrewed vehicle-launcher combo, small teams of Marines monitor multiple launchers dispersed around an area and move them regularly to keep them from being targeted by the enemy. The system was first deployed in a Balikatan exercise last year, as you can read about here.

While Philippine media reports that the NMESIS, operated by the Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, fired a missile during today’s drill, this is refuted by a report from Stars and Stripes. The 3rd MLR is notable in itself, being expressly designed to fight within an enemy’s own littorals, with all the challenges that brings.

Meanwhile, the C-Star is the Philippine Navy’s primary anti-ship missile. Produced by South Korea’s LIG Nex1, a version of this missile is used by the Republic of Korea Navy as the Haeseong. The Philippines uses the C-Star to arm its two Miguel Malvar class and two Jose Rizal class frigates, which are also made in South Korea. Similar to the U.S.-made Harpoon, the C-Star is a turbojet-powered, sea-skimming missile with a range of around 90 miles.

In the drill, the C-Star was likely fired from the Philippine Navy frigates BRP Miguel Malvar and Antonio Luna, both of which are known to be taking part in Balikatan.

These were followed by two rounds fired from a Japanese land-based Type 88 anti-ship missile system, fired for the first time during a Balikatan exercise, and for the first time anywhere outside Japan. The Japanese missiles reportedly struck the hull of the target ship around 10:30 a.m.

JSDF Type 88 missiles fire for the first time in Balikatan 2026 | GMA News

Developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in the 1980s, the Type 88 (also known as the SSM-1) is the primary coastal anti-ship missile system of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, with a range of around 100 miles, although more capable and further-reaching weapons are now in development, as you can read about here.

Interestingly, in a video released of the live-fire event in Ilocos Norte, close protection was being provided to the truck-mounted Type 88 launcher by a Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS), also from the 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment. MADIS utilizes the JTLV and distributes different sensors and effectors between individual JLTVs, as you can read more about here. In this kind of scenario, it would be tasked with protecting the coastal missile battery against kamikaze drones and other aerial threats at short ranges.

The vessel sank rapidly, meaning that the Philippine Air Force wasn’t able to deliver more munitions onto the target. FA-50 light combat aircraft and A-29 Super Tucano turboprop close support aircraft had both been prepared to strike the same ship, but were stood down.

Other air assets taking part included a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and an MQ-9 drone.

With the ship sunk or sinking, a coup de grace was provided by a U.S. HIMARS, which fired onto the same coordinates.

Also involved in Balikatan is the Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Charlottetown, although it appears that it didn’t take part in the live-fire event.

According to a Philippine military spokesperson, another round of live-fire drills will take place tomorrow as part of Balikatan, utilizing a stand-by target vessel. This will also allow Philippine Air Force aircraft to take part.

The live-fire drills, conducted under the Balikatan exercise, signaled a notable expansion of Japan’s military role in the region as Tokyo strengthens security partnerships with its allies amid growing tensions with Beijing.

Overall, the live-fire exercise is highly significant due to its proximity to the Chinese mainland and the long range of some of the missiles that have been employed.

The Luzon Strait, into which the various missiles and rockets were fired, sits between Taiwan and the Philippines, spanning about 220 miles at its narrowest point. It serves as a vital shipping route and a highly strategic military corridor, particularly for China’s rapidly expanding naval forces. From this passage, assets stationed in the South China Sea can move into the Philippine Sea and the wider Pacific, and back again. This includes China’s growing fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, some of which underpin its second-strike nuclear deterrent.

The strait is also a crucial gateway for the U.S. Navy entering the South China Sea and would likely be a central battleground in any major conflict over Taiwan. Because of its importance, the area is closely monitored for activity both above and below the surface. In the event of war, it would quickly turn into a dense anti-ship missile engagement zone (SMEZ). The live-fire campaign today gave just a small taster of that kind of contingency.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Army test-fired a Tomahawk cruise missile from a Typhon launcher in the central Philippines, successfully hitting a target around 370 miles away in Nueva Ecija.

On this occasion, the Tomahawk missile was supporting ground troops in a night land maneuver exercise led by the 25th Infantry Division in Fort Magsaysay, part of the Balikatan exercise.

The Typhon ground-based missile system can also fire SM-6 multi-purpose missiles, which are used in this application in a quasi-ballistic missile land-attack mode. As for the Tomahawk cruise missile, this provided land attack and anti-ship capabilities. 

As we have discussed before, Typhon’s arrival in the Philippines in 2025 sent a clear signal to Beijing and throughout the region. It is a glimpse of what’s to come as the service works through plans to permanently base these systems in China’s backyard.

Compared to the longer-range Typhon, which is deployed further from the Luzon Strait, for the Balikatan exercise, the shorter-range NMESIS and Type 88 anti-ship missiles are pushed much closer to the zone in which their likely wartime targets would be found. As we have explored in the past, anti-ship missiles of this kind, and especially NMESIS, can also be deployed deeper into the strait, making use of smaller Philippine islands, like the Batanes island chain, although that ratchets up their exposure to counterstrikes considerably.

For both these kinds of missiles, their survival would rely upon the dispersal of launchers and other vehicles, as well as regularly moving them around to help prevent them from being targeted by the enemy. Of course, with the uncrewed NMESIS, this is designed from the ground up to not put personnel in harm’s way. All of this kind of doctrine is central to the Marines’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) strategy, which is now a core tenet of how it would fight in the Pacific.

Already, China has voiced its displeasure at the deployment of the U.S. Army’s Typhon system to the Philippines. What is now becoming a regular appearance of NMESIS, backed up by other highly mobile strike systems, including allied anti-ship missiles, within reach of the Luzon Strait, will undoubtedly trigger similar concerns in Beijing. However, the live-fire sinking exercise today underscores how critical this waterway is to the U.S. military and its allies in the region, just as it is to China. Having more varied and more mobile anti-shipping assets in the northern Philippines complicates targeting for China, while extending the capabilities of the anti-access strategy of the U.S. military and its allies in the Luzon Strait, should a conflict break out.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com