troop

WASHINGTON — The highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military says there are no plans to send troops to polling places during November’s midterm congressional elections, addressing concerns among Democrats that the Trump administration could use the military to interfere with the vote.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the statement in a letter to Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who recently asked Caine and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to confirm they won’t send troops to the polls.

“The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections,” Caine said in the letter to Slotkin, which was obtained Monday by the Associated Press. “Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material.”

Caine, who advises Hegseth and President Trump on military matters, also wrote: “I have neither received nor anticipate receiving any unlawful order concerning the role of the Joint Force in the upcoming November 2026 midterm elections.”

Anxiety among Democrats that the Trump administration could try to meddle in the midterm elections has grown, particularly after the president deployed federal agents in Democrat-led states over the objections of local leaders.

Slotkin told the AP earlier in August that Trump has been laying the groundwork to claim the elections were stolen. She noted that Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss in 2020 and has deployed the National Guard to cities against the wishes of Democratic leaders. He also deployed active-duty Marines to Los Angeles during his immigration crackdown in 2025.

Federal law prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” If any element of the military were to get involved, it would probably be the National Guard under state control.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles denied in a Vanity Fair interview last year that Trump would use the military to suppress voting in the midterms.

Sonja Thrasher, Slotkin’s press secretary, said Hegseth has not replied to the letter asking him to confirm troops won’t be deployed to the polls in November. Slotkin had asked for a response by last Thursday.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to an email from the AP asking for the status of Hegseth’s response to Slotkin. The Pentagon previously said it would respond directly to the senator.

Slotkin asked Hegseth during an April congressional hearing if he would follow orders to seize ballots. Hegseth called the question a “gotcha hypothetical,” but said, “I’ve never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won’t.”

In 2020, Gen. Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded to a similar letter from Slotkin, then a congresswoman.

“I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Milley wrote. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

BEIRUT  — President Trump long railed against forever wars.

For years, whether as president or candidate, he flayed electoral opponents and previous presidents with his signature barbs, calling their entanglements a “complete waste of time” (Afghanistan), “the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country” (Iraq) and “stupid” (Ukraine).

Yet he now appears to be stumbling into a forever war of his own.

From the first days of the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, Trump and his officials insisted their adventure abroad would be the exception, that the conflict would end in a matter of weeks.

Now, 4½ months later, after a torturous, start-stop vacillation between truce and war, the U.S. is pressing on with a fight that has no end in sight — or even a clear definition of what an acceptable end would be.

In the last week, the ceasefire collapsed, with the U.S. and Iran trading daily waves of strikes, leading to the deaths of two American servicemen on Friday when Iranian ballistic missiles struck Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, where U.S. assets and personnel are stationed.

On Sunday, as the U.S. and Iran launched more air assaults, the U.S. announced that a service member was killed Saturday in Iraq during the controlled detonation of unexploded ordnance from a downed Iranian one-way attack drone.

On March 9, the remains of U.S. Army Sgt. Benjamin N. Pennington, 26, of Glendale, Ky., then the seventh U.S. service member to die in combat during the Iran war, are transferred at Dover Air Force Base, Del.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

The deaths in Jordan were the first combat fatalities since the U.S. and Iran agreed to a ceasefire. One soldier remains missing, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

Including the most recent casualties, 17 U.S. service members have been killed and more than 430 wounded since the war began, the Pentagon says.

In Iran, at least 57 people have been killed and more than 517 injured in U.S. attacks in the last three weeks, according to Iranian health authorities. The death toll since the beginning of the war has surpassed 3,500, and more than 27,000 have been wounded.

The U.S. and Israeli militaries have — in the telling of Trump and various officials — decimated Iran’s navy and air defenses, eviscerated multiple layers of its leadership and bombed tens of thousands of targets across the country.

Despite that military pressure, and Trump’s insistence that members of Iran’s leadership “want to make a deal” (he’s said that an accord was on hand no less than 46 times since the start of the war), Tehran has refused to surrender its nuclear and missile arsenals and continues to support its regional militia allies.

Iran has also created a new pressure point to use against adversaries by blockading the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas flowed before the war. And it has widened the war’s footprint by targeting countries hosting American military assets.

Trump has vowed to expand bombings to include civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges in what he says is a bid to force Iran into negotiations once more.

He has also brought additional forces to the Middle East. According to Centcom, there are now 50,000 troops in the region, along with 20 naval warships and hundreds of warplanes.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the region, declined to comment on the deployments, though on Sunday the New York Times reported that the U.S. was sending to the region F-16 fighter jets from Germany and stealthy F-35 jets from Britain.

For observers, those moves signal that Trump is falling into an escalation trap.

“From Trump’s perspective, the easiest way to demonstrate resolve and power is by just bombing Iran and seeing what that brings about,” said Andreas Boehm, a Middle East expert and lecturer on international law at University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. Although those strikes seem tactically impressive, they have not helped him strategically, he said.

“In reality, it doesn’t change the situation because the Iranians won’t budge. And if you confuse tactical and strategic success, then you’re not going anywhere in any kind of war,” Boehm said.

An escalation on Washington’s part is also certain to spark a similar reaction from Tehran, said Vali Nasr, professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

“Iran gets a vote here,” Nasr said, adding Iran could up the ante by closing Bab al Mandab, the vital strait connecting the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. It could also widen attacks on infrastructure in Persian Gulf countries — moves that would trigger an even bigger ripple effect across global markets.

“Trump thought wars in the Middle East would be like Venezuela: a big in-and-out without a prolonged war,” Nasr said, referring to the Trump administration’s strike that saw U.S. forces abduct Venezuelan leader Nicholás Maduro and force the remaining members of his government to submit to U.S. control.

“And the reality is that it’s backfired,” he said.

Trump is not the first American president to think a foreign engagement wouldn’t last long. Whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, U.S. leaders dispatched troops on operations they thought would last weeks or months, dismissing warnings that they would be bogged down in years-long occupations.

Iran would be an especially sticky quagmire if Trump were to commit ground troops.

The country’s area — about 636,000 square miles — is more than double the size of Afghanistan, almost four times the size of Iraq, and five times the size of Vietnam — all nations where the U.S. struggled to prevail against adversaries not as well equipped and arguably less ideologically motivated than its adversaries in Iran.

Meanwhile, for a president whose central foreign policy campaign promise was no more wars, the growing number of casualties, along with the escalating damage inflicted by Iran on U.S. assets and allies, has exposed cracks in the support the Teflon-like Trump has enjoyed from his advocates.

Onetime MAGA acolytes, including flagship conservative figures such as Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones, have already turned on the president over the war and other issues. And Republican figures who had tied their star to Trump fear a drubbing in the midterms so long as the war continues.

If negotiations were to resume, it’s unclear whether Trump and his coterie of negotiators have the stamina or the foreign service expertise to bring about an accord.

After all, the 2015 Obama-era deal aimed at reining in Tehran’s nuclear program took 600 days and hundreds of diplomats and technical experts to negotiate.

With Trump relying on unconventional fixers such as his son-in-law Jared Kushner and real estate investor Steve Witkoff, not to mention his evisceration of the diplomatic corps, an agreement of that scale appears unlikely.

“Everything is dependent on the mood of one man,” Nasr said.

“It’s not the system that’s making the decision; it’s not the country making the decision,” he said. “It’s one man, and it depends how he feels like at one particular point in time.”

Tehran too may be less amenable to negotiations with Trump, given his history: During his first term, he pulled out of the nuclear deal and ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, a leading Iranian general.

In his second term, he launched bombing campaigns on Iran during negotiations — twice. And Iran accused the U.S. of repeatedly violating the April ceasefire and the memorandum of understanding signed in June.

Asked on NewsNation on Sunday about Iran’s announcement that it would no longer abide by the memorandum, Trump said, “I couldn’t care less.”

Such factors, said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, lead to a formula for prolonged conflict.

“It’s a forever war in the making, and the reason why is that Trump has proven he’s impossible to negotiate with,” Vaez said.

If an agreement as superficial as the memorandum of understanding — which deferred thornier issues for late negotiations — was derailed, then there’s little option other than repeated cycles of violence.

“Once you’ve proven that diplomacy doesn’t work,” he said, “then there’s only war.”

ANKARA, Turkey — President Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. will give a license to Ukraine to manufacture Patriot air defense systems to help counter Russian missile attacks, a huge coup for Ukraine which has badly needed the technology for the war now in its fifth year.

“We’ll give them the right to make Patriots. We’ll show them how to do it,” Trump said as he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a NATO summit in Turkey. “I think they can produce them pretty quickly.”

Patriots are expensive, in high demand and take a long time to produce. Zelensky has for years been asking for more of them, and more recently for a license so that Ukraine can manufacture its own.

The tone of Trump’s meeting with the Ukrainian leader was a break from earlier encounters which ended in acrimony, and Trump praised Zelensky’s willingness to reach a deal on ending the fighting in Ukraine.

He said the Ukrainian president has “done an amazing job” and “been very effective” in the war.

“We’ve actually developed a good relationship. It’s hard to believe,” Trump said, adding he believed a deal on ending the war was on the horizon and that the U.S. would “work on some kind of security package” to provide to Ukraine.

Trump takes aim at NATO partners

Trump wasn’t as friendly, however, with some his NATO partners, saying he was unhappy with the alliance for pushing back against his efforts to take control of Greenland and for not supporting his war in Iran.

NATO’s European members plus Canada have scrambled to meet the increased defense spending targets Trump has demanded, as the U.S. draws down the number of troops it has in Europe and insists that the continent take more responsibility for its own security.

But Trump reopened old wounds as he arrived at the meeting of 32 NATO leaders by insisting again that the United States should control Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory. He blasted some European countries for refusing to participate in the Iran campaign, singling out Spain as “a terrible partner in NATO” and renewing his threats to cut off trade.

Ahead of the summit, Trump said Greenland “is very important” for the U.S. but not for Denmark, declaring, “We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States.”

But Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said her country is “ready to defend every inch of NATO including our own territory” in the event of an attack, and would rely on NATO allies to honor their commitment to defend each other.

Trump’s criticisms have in the past drawn European countries closer together as they confront wars in Ukraine and Iran, a ballooning trade deficit with China, and threats from Russia.

The president’s renewed interest in Greenland could put at risk the entire future of NATO, which was founded in 1949 to counter the threat to European security posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sought to tamp down the president’s ire by giving him credit for recent increases in defense spending from NATO allies.

“Grab the win. It’s there,” Rutte told Trump on Wednesday.

NATO chief backs latest U.S. strikes on Iran

Ahead of the summit, Rutte praised Trump for the series of U.S. strikes on Iran overnight, after Tehran struck three merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

“I think what you did last night was absolutely necessary,” Rutte said to Trump. “It was a very strong response, and I’m with you on this.”

The U.S. strikes, as well as the revoking of a license allowing Iran to sell its oil on global markets, underscored the fragility of an interim deal to end months of fighting.

Trump said of the interim agreement with Iran: “For me, I think it’s over” — but added he will allow talks to continue.

“It’s just a waste of time dealing with them,” he said.

NATO leaders sought to show Trump they were boosting defense

Rutte has dedicated a huge amount of energy to keeping Trump’s support for NATO and to holding the summit together.

The NATO chief pointed to countries including Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Denmark that are investing more in defense, but noted the Trump administration expects “the Europeans and Canadians will equalize their spending with the United States.”

Last month Rutte went to Washington to hail the “Trump Trillion” — the $1.2 trillion that European allies and Canada have added to defense spending since Trump came to power in 2017.

As leaders converged on Ankara, Rutte hosted a “big reveal” event to showcase the many deals planned for the increased spending — much of it to be spent on U.S. companies, creating thousands of jobs for Americans.

At last year’s summit, the allies agreed to invest 5% of their gross domestic product on defense — 3.5% on their defense budgets and 1.5% on infrastructure so troops and equipment can move faster in times of conflict.

Yet figures released by NATO on Tuesday showed that Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and the Czech Republic have struggled to meet the alliance’s old spending target of 2% of GDP.

The Trump administration wants to see a leaner “NATO 3.0,” with Europe taking responsibility for its own security, including Ukraine, with conventional weapons while America would continue to provide its nuclear umbrella.

The Pentagon has launched a six-month review of U.S. military presence in Europe, leaving allies to seek clarity on just how deeply Trump intends to cut U.S. force numbers.

Ukraine’s Zelensky pushes for NATO entry

Zelensky made a fresh appeal Tuesday for Ukraine to be allowed to join the alliance, saying Ukrainian armed forces are highly experienced and would only boost NATO’s defense capabilities.

He’s highlighted Ukraine’s adaptability and its ability to strike deep inside Russia. He said Ukraine’s armed forces are “eliminating” on average 30,000 Russian troops every month.

Concern has been mounting among some countries with borders near Russia that Moscow might be preparing a hybrid attack — a combination of conventional warfare with tactics like cyberattacks — on the continent as President Vladimir Putin struggles to secure victory in Ukraine.

Trump will also meet with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former insurgent who led the offensive that unseated autocrat Bashar Assad in December 2024. Despite having once been an al-Qaida fighter, al-Sharaa has won Trump’s backing as he seeks to rebuild Syria and restore its shattered ties with the West.

Cook, Kim and Fraser write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Collin Binkley and Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.

In another indication of the growing military and economic importance of the Arctic, Russia and NATO are increasing their buildup of forces and facilities in the region. Recent media investigations found that Russia is constructing new bases near Finland to eventually house tens of thousands of troops while NATO on Saturday stood up a long-planned new battalion battlegroup. It is a force that will operate in Finland and Sweden as a deterrent against Russia.

TWZ has frequently reported how Russia, and to a lesser extent China, have moved aggressively to assert their presence in the High North, leaving the U.S. and its NATO allies looking to bolster their defenses.

While Russia remains totally bogged down and suffering high attrition in Ukraine with little chance of moving masses of troops to the Arctic at the moment, concern over the future has spurred NATO to bolster its presence along the Finnish border. Having moved to a wartime economy during the full-on conflict with Ukraine, Russia could leverage that in a post-Ukraine war future to threaten NATO’s borders.

A NATO official told us Friday morning that while the alliance assesses that the chances of a near-term conflict are low given the war in Ukraine, “Moscow could seek to expand westward into the Nordic and Baltic nations after a ceasefire with Ukraine.”

Russia appears to be investing in infrastructure in preparation of such a contingency. A joint report by several Nordic and Baltic media outlets published earlier this week has found that Russia is expanding military facilities along its borders with Norway and Finland to accommodate tens of thousands of new troops.

“New satellite images show that Russia is increasing its armament in [the] vicinity,” the report stated. “SVT, together with media partners in several countries, has examined how Russia is preparing for 80,000 soldiers… It is a threat that we should take seriously, says Thomas Nilsson, head of Sweden’s military intelligence service (MUST).”

The images “show new barracks for thousands of soldiers, long lines of military vehicles and ammunition storage,” the report further noted. “All winter, Russia has been building new military structures in several places on the other side of the Finnish border.”

“We expect to have 80,000 soldiers on our border and that can be compared to the fact that we previously had 20,000,” Finnish Army Chief Pasi Välimäki told the joint investigation.

A separate report by the Finnish Yle media outlet found that the Russians are expanding a base in the town of Novaya Vilga to hold as many as 6,000 Russian troops. It is located about 100 miles east of the Finnish border.

“NATO has monitored a buildup of military infrastructure in Russia along NATO’s Eastern Flank, particularly along Finland’s border,” the NATO official told us earlier this week. “The real question is what becomes of the infrastructure? Will, for example, Russian troops now in Ukraine be relocated there after the war? It’s something we certainly need to consider, and we do.”

“That’s why NATO and nations are working to deliver real military capabilities to the alliance now, not five to ten years from now, which is so very, very important,” the official added.

One of those efforts, as we noted earlier in this story, was stood up on Saturday, involving NATO’s two newest members.

NATO’s Forward Land Forces (FLF) Finland began operations in Finland and Sweden, according to the alliance. The FLF will include NATO’s newest multinational battlegroup, led by Sweden, “to support the defense of NATO’s northeastern flank.”

The establishment of FLF Finland places a Swedish battlegroup based in Boden, Sweden, and a Multinational Staff Element in Rovaniemi, Finland, under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and NATO.

“Sweden is contributing a battalion battlegroup that, together with a Multinational Staff Element in Rovaniemi, will form the core of FLF Finland,” NATO added. “The Swedish battalion battlegroup is prepositioned in Boden, with capacity to operate in the North Calotte and, where necessary, rapidly reinforce the presence in northern Finland. In 2026, Sweden’s contribution to FLF Finland will total around 600 personnel, with the option to expand to 1,200 personnel if needed.”

“This region is one of the most strategically significant and environmentally challenging areas in the world,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. and SACEUR Alexus G. Grynkewich. “FLF Finland, just like Arctic Sentry, will leverage NATO’s strength to defend our territory and ensure the Arctic and High North remains secure, especially considering Russia’s military activity and China’s growing interest there.”

Activated: NATO Multinational Battlegroup (FLF Finland)

The U.S. too is working to improve its presence and operations in the region. During last month’s SOF Week symposium in Tampa, Florida, the head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) announced the formation of Nordic Bridge to “tie together” the work of U.S. European Command, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and SACEUR.

Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot provided no real details about Nordic Bridge at the time, so we reached out to NORTHCOM for additional details.

“The Nordic Bridge concept seeks to enhance Arctic integration between U.S. Northern Command and U.S. European Command and enhance cooperation between NORAD and NATO in order to expand domain awareness, strengthen deterrence, and improve interoperability,” a NORTHCOM spokesperson told us last month. “It envisions increased participation in each other’s training and exercises, increased data sharing (such as air pictures), deconflicting conferences to maximize personnel availability and participation, etc.”

Last month, Guillot visited Grynkewich “to discuss opportunities under this concept,” the NORTHCOM spokesperson told us.

All this is taking place, of course, against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s frequent insistence that the U.S. subsume Greenland to provide better Arctic protection for the U.S. homeland. The issue reached a fever pitch earlier this year, causing a serious rift with NATO after the president threatened to invade the world’s largest island. You can read more about that in our story about the crisis here.

While there are no indications that the Arctic region is about to break out into open conflict, there are several indications that Russia, NATO and the U.S. are increasing preparations for such an eventuality.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com