"🚨 MILITARY ALERT: HEGSETH URGES TROOPS TO VOTE AFTER A SHOCKING 300,000 WERE UNREGISTERED!"
War Secretary Pete Hegseth sent an urgent warning to all service members ahead of what is expected to be a highly contested midterm election cycle.
Hegseth announced on Friday that he has urged all service members and their families to vote after citing a striking military registration gap.
In a Friday video, Hegseth said roughly 300,000 troops were not registered for the 2024 presidential election.
With November’s midterms approaching, he told commanders to help ensure personnel know how to cast their ballots.
Hegseth framed the appeal around a basic freedom military members serve to defend: choosing the nation’s leaders.
He stressed that commanders should encourage participation without telling anyone which candidate or party to support.
“You’re not telling them who to vote for, you’re just telling them to vote,” he said.
The message was directed at troops, military spouses and other eligible family members ahead of the congressional elections.
Hegseth said the number of unregistered troops exceeded the ballots cast in several American cities.
He named Detroit, Boston, Milwaukee and Seattle while emphasizing how much electoral participation could be lost.
WATCH:
His comparison underscored the scale of the figure, though he did not endorse candidates in the video.
The defense secretary urged military voters to take action regardless of their home state or current assignment.
He explained that a standardized federal postcard application can help service members register and request absentee ballots.
For those deployed overseas whose regular ballot arrives late, he pointed to a federal write-in absentee ballot.
Those options are designed to preserve voting access when military assignments place Americans far from their home precincts.
Hegseth described the procedures as straightforward and protected by law, encouraging personnel to use them promptly.
His video ended with a direct appeal to get registered and vote in the upcoming election.
The Pentagon chief also told commanders to promote turnout among those serving under them.
He drew an explicit line between helping troops vote and trying to influence their choices.
Service members retain the right to vote even when deployments and frequent moves complicate ordinary registration.
A missed registration deadline can prevent a soldier from voting just as surely as a missing ballot.
Hegseth’s warning focused attention on that problem before another election tests military voting systems.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program helps eligible service members and citizens overseas navigate registration and absentee voting.
Its tools include the federal postcard application Hegseth mentioned and the backup write-in ballot for eligible voters.
Those resources matter especially when troops cannot visit their home polling place on Election Day.
The secretary’s message did not say that 300,000 troops voted illegally or had ballots rejected.
His figure concerned personnel he said were unregistered during the 2024 election, an earlier and separate issue.
Likewise, his video did not establish how many of those individuals have registered since that election.
The immediate request was for eligible voters to check their status and prepare for November.
Hegseth’s intervention comes during election season in which control of Congress is at stake.
Every House seat and a portion of the Senate will be on the ballot in the midterms.
Military families often maintain voting ties to states far from where they currently live or serve.
That distance makes clear information about absentee voting particularly important for the people Hegseth addressed.
He said members should have confidence their ballots will be counted after they take the necessary steps.
His message to commanders was therefore practical: make sure personnel know they can register and request ballots.
He did not direct those commanders to identify favorable voters or advocate for any particular outcome.
Public discussion of the video quickly turned to the political implications of turnout among the armed forces.
Hegseth’s stated instruction, however, was to encourage voting while leaving the choice of candidates to each individual.
The 300,000 figure gives urgency to that appeal as the November election approaches, The New Republic reported.
If personnel miss registration or ballot deadlines, their service alone will not secure a vote in their home state.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
