The Bulwark

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has admitted to an extramarital affair with a woman U.S. intelligence reportedly identified as a Chinese spy. But the story goes far beyond a sex scandal: Trump was briefed about the relationship, his administration failed to intervene, and questions are mounting about China’s access to America’s most advanced AI technology. Catherine Rampell is joined by New York Times national security reporter Julian Barnes and Wall Street Journal tech reporter Robbie Whelan to examine what Trump knew, why investigations stalled, and what this could mean for NVIDIA and the AI industry.

Leave a comment

AS AMERICANS SETTLED IN to watch the midterm results last Tuesday, neo-Nazi internet personality Christopher Pohlhaus had different plans: World of Warcraft. And perhaps something a little bit more erotic after that.

Pohlhaus, a tatted-up white supremacist influencer who goes by the name “Hammer” online, streamed the fantasy game to his fans for hours. But eventually, Pohlhaus wanted to talk to a lady outside of the fantasy land of Azeroth. And this conversation was not meant for his fans to see.

Before video-chatting with the woman, Pohlhaus turned off the recording on his streaming software. Crucially, however, Pohlhaus did not also end his broadcast on the streaming site Kick, which meant his romantic talk with a neo-Nazi hanger-on known by the screen name “Iron Maiden 14” was still broadcast online to the roughly fifteen viewers who had originally been watching the World of Warcraft stream.

As Pohlhaus dirty-talked and eventually began to masturbate with the woman, his commenters desperately tried to warn him they could see everything.

“DOES HE KNOW HE’S STILL LIVE?” asked one horrified commenter.

This was, to say the least, not a great look for a white supremacist leader hoping to embody traditional values and hypermasculine strength. After more than two-and-a-half hours of cybersex and talking (interrupted by Pohlhaus taking a break to eat some chicken he’d prepared), “Iron Maiden 14” said—again, live on the broadcast—that she had received a message from another man asking her if she was streaming with Pohlhaus.

“Oh, nooo!” Pohlhaus said, as his eyes grew wide. “I hope not!”

Then the stream went dead.

I’ll get into what transpired during those two-and-a-half hours in a moment. (Warning: Don’t read this edition of False Flag out loud to your kids.) But it’s worth stepping back first to talk about who this guy is and why we should pay attention to this far-right corner of the internet.

The Democratic midterm victory has George Conway celebrating, but he’s warning that a weakened Donald Trump could become even more dangerous, especially with Stephen Miller gaining power and revenge on the agenda. George is joined by former federal prosecutor Mark Blumberg, whose new Rule of Law Project is bringing together former DOJ lawyers, FBI agents, journalists, and whistleblowers to investigate corruption and abuses by Trump administration officials, building criminal cases that could be prosecuted down the road.

Rule of Law Project: https://ruleoflawproject.org

Leave a comment

Sam Stein and Tim Miller went live to watch Trump unravel at an impromptu press conference, where he dodges questions about a Chinese spy allegedly tied to Nvidia’s CEO, walks back any suggestion of easing his immigration crackdown, and lashes out at reporters who press him on Putin and Pete Hegseth. Plus, Trump tries to recruit UFC boss Dana White as his press secretary and gets shot down in spectacularly awkward fashion.

Leave a comment

Nearly a week after the midterms, Trump made a feeble rigged election claim. He also made a phony offer to work with Democrats on an immigration deal, hoping somehow to distract them from their oversight powers. And like a true mob boss, Trump elevated tough guy Stephen Miller to keep the administration from falling apart—and to protect the grift. But he knows he was swamped in a massive defeat and that the country now has the possibility of a very different future. Still, the ICE terror state is ongoing, and the Dems have to push for the release of nonviolent immigrants from the internment camps. Plus: Now we know Bill had just about the right amount of hopium, the polling misses continued, Trump will play game show host in choosing a successor in ’28, and he sure looks like he subverted our national security interests just for a $25 million bribe for his ballroom.

Bill Kristol (Mr. Right) joins Tim Miller.

Leave a comment

show notes:

• Sarah on how committed GOP voters are coping

• Video of Texas voters celebrating Hinojosa’s and Talarico’s wins, which Bill mentioned

• Scott Colom’s ad featuring the home of Medgar Evers

• JVL on JD’s options now

• The Bulwark store

• Closing Song: MJ Lenderman - “She’s Leaving You”

As always: Watch, listen, hit the like button or leave a comment. We want to hear from you.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Daily are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Tim Miller’s Bulwark Daily is available wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube. New shows drop each weekday afternoon. If you like the show, leave a comment and ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen. Add The Bulwark Daily to your player of choice, here.

WHEN THE HOUSE RETURNS FROM RECESS, it will almost certainly vote on impeachment articles against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In the aftermath of the midterm elections, President Trump is already reportedly canvassing allies on whether Hegseth should stay in his job. And Hegseth himself, just days after releasing a six-minute social media videoabout how he won’t back down from a fight, has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow morning. The secretary’s time in office might be coming to a close—which may not surprise many people.

There has probably never been a nominee for secretary of defense who was completely prepared for the scope, scale, and extraordinary responsibilities of the position. Even accomplished past leaders like Gen. George Marshall quickly discovered after taking up the role that the position demands knowledge, judgment, diplomatic skill, political acumen, and organizational leadership on a scale few can properly appreciate. No one arrives knowing everything required, and every secretary must be willing to learn, adapt, and grow to effectively lead one of the most demanding positions in government.

I laid out just how steep Hegseth’s learning curve would be in January 2025, shortly before his confirmation hearing. Having worked with several defense secretaries during my military career, I outlined five essential requirements of the position. My concerns were that nominee Hegseth seemed unaware of the demands of the job, what he needed to learn, and that he might not possess the humility, curiosity, and temperament necessary to grow into the job.

Now, looking back nearly two years later, I consider those concerns justified. Rather than learning and demonstrating growing mastery of the responsibilities of secretary of defense, Hegseth has devoted extraordinary attention to ideological battles, personnel purges, public confrontations, and political messaging; he has shown more interest in demonstrating loyalty to the president and attacking the administration’s perceived enemies than mastering the challenges of running the Department of Defense. His confidence has far outrun his competence, and his hubris has frequently overwhelmed the judgment the position demands.

Whether Hegseth departs his post now or later, the harm he has done to our national security and alliances are increasingly obvious to members of Congress and the American people.

We’re building a pro-democracy community to counteract the harm this administration has done to our country. Join us.

LET’S REVIEW THE FIVE REQUIREMENTS of the job I outlined in January 2025.

The first was that the secretary must have a mind that can master both details and the big picture. During my assignment on the Joint Staff, I observed Secretary Donald Rumsfeld question combatant commanders for hours about contingency plans, resources, risks, and operational assumptions. I later watched Secretary Robert Gates engage soldiers on battlefields in Iraq to get a tactical feel, then transition to discussions with political leaders about the broader strategic implications of operations. Neither man was perfect, and I disagreed with some of their decisions. But both understood that military action must serve achievable political objectives, and tactical success does not automatically produce strategic victory.

Hegseth’s conduct during the Iran war raises questions about whether he understands that crucial principle. The administration has struggled to make clear the political ends it has pursued through its military engagements, and it has offered shifting explanations of its objectives, timelines, and anticipated outcomes. Tactical achievements have repeatedly been touted as strategic successes, even as the conflict continues and costs mount. A secretary must constantly ask what comes next, how the enemy will respond, what resources are required (plus how depleted resources will affect other contingencies), and how military operations contribute to a political outcome. Those questions aren’t answered through declarations of victory.

The second requirement is that the secretary must think strategically about both the short and the long term. Military decisions made today shape national security for decades. Readiness, modernization, force structure, alliances, and personnel development demand sustained attention and difficult trade-offs.

Hegseth has instead demonstrated a preference for sweeping announcements, dramatic organizational changes, and public displays of decisiveness. His proposals on autonomous warfare, military institutions, and personnel policies may contain ideas worth considering, but announcements are not strategies. Strategies require defined objectives, resources, plans, and measures of effectiveness. His ambitious initiatives generate more questions than answers about feasibility, strategic purpose, and consequences.

The third requirement is the capability to lead an enormous, complex, and diverse organization. The Department of Defense includes millions of uniformed personnel, civilians, and reservists, serving in organizations with almost unfathomable missions and responsibilities. Leading such an institution requires more than issuing orders. It demands an ability to prioritize listening over talking, a respect for expertise, and the sort of rapport with subordinates that encourages them to offer candid advice, even (perhaps especially) when that advice challenges those in authority.

Join now

Instead, Hegseth has repeatedly removed experienced senior officers and civilians, attacked established institutional practices, and portrayed disagreement as resistance to his agenda if not disloyalty to the country. His supporters, including those secretly in his employ, celebrate these actions on social media as reform. But make no mistake: Eliminatingexperienced leaders without clear, legitimate reasons and ready replacements creates uncertainty, diminishes trust, and weakens institutional effectiveness.

There is a huge difference between confidence and competence. Confidence is essential when making difficult decisions, but confidence without competence is dangerous, and confidence without humility is just as bad. The best leaders I’ve observed understood what they did not know, and they subsequently surrounded themselves with expertise, listened to dissenting opinions, and recognized that voicing disagreement was not an act of disloyalty. Hegseth arrived with limited experience in most functions of the Department of Defense and no experience in strategic leadership. Theoretically, thatdeficiency might have been overcome through humility, hard work, and learning. Instead, his confidence appears to have hardened into hubris.

THE FOURTH REQUIREMENT, particularly relevant to the impeachment controversy, is building political support. The military is nonpartisan, and the secretary of defense must work effectively with elected representatives of both parties. That’s because Congress authorizes military programs, appropriates funds, provides oversight, and represents the American people whose sons and daughters volunteer to serve.

During my military career, I frequently met with members of Congress, both in Washington and when they visited our forces overseas. Some enthusiastically supported our missions, while others were skeptical and sometimes even openly critical. I disagreed profoundly with some members, and occasionally our interactions generated frustration or even animosity. But I never viewed engaging with Congress as optional: Every member of Congress, from either side of the aisle, represents not only members of the armed forces but also the families who entrusted us with their loved ones’ lives. Elected representatives deserved our respect, even when we disagreed or when we didn’t like their approach.

That respect is essential to maintaining the relationship between the military and the democratic institutions responsible for its oversight. A thoughtful explanation, an honest answer, and a willingness to listen could sometimes turn a skeptical legislator into an informed supporter. But Hegseth approached these relationships differently; his interactions with Democrats have been consistently combative, and his habitual rhetoric suggests an almost deliberate desire to provoke those not in his party.

That approach may generate applause among Hegseth’s limited number of cheerleaders, but it is a poor substitute for leadership. Hegseth faces skepticism from both parties just as the Pentagon needs to approach Congress to ask for lawmakers to support an enormous defense budget and continued military operations. Relationships that should have been cultivated have instead been damaged. Members who believe the secretary has treated them with contempt will likely demand greater scrutiny, oppose his policies, and constrain even good initiatives. The military could ultimately pay the price for his failure to understand the fundamentals of civilian leadership.

The fifth requirement is understanding that defense requires diplomacy, not simply the capacity to wage war. During my various tours in the army, I witnessed how relationships among military leaders, defense ministers, diplomats, and elected officials strengthened alliances and helped prevent conflict. Those relationships required patience, cultural understanding, and respect for other nations’ interests. America’s military strength has always been enhanced by partnerships that allow us to operate effectively around the world.

Join now

Hegseth’s confrontational approach, particularly toward America’s allies, has often seemed designed to demonstrate American dominance rather than strengthen collective security. There are legitimate reasons to demand greater contributions from allies, but diplomacy requires more than demands and threats. Alliances are strategic assets, and trust built over decades can be weakened by careless rhetoric and impulsive decisions.

As questions about his future intensify, Hegseth has launched a different kind of campaign: one designed to preserve his position. His recent video defending the Iran war and attacking critics was accompanied by coordinated social media messaging from civilian officials in the Pentagon and the broader administration. The campaign portrays criticism of the secretary as opposition to the president’s agenda and emphasizes ideological changes as evidence of success.

But the secretary of defense is not supposed to win a social media campaign; he is supposed to help the nation win its wars, prevent unnecessary ones, and maintain readiness for those that cannot be avoided. Political messaging doesn’t substitute for coherent strategy, and declarations of loyalty cannot replace effective leadership.

Report indicates Hegseth has acquired an influential protector in Stephen Miller, recently appointed White House chief of staff. The two certainly share an ideological approach to government, and Hegseth enthusiastically welcomed Miller’s promotion. As I wrote recently, changing an institution’s culture requires more than replacing leaders and imposing policies. Organizational culture develops through shared values, professional standards, trust, and the example of those in authority. Miller’s elevation raises the possibility that Hegseth will be reinforced rather than scrutinized and corrected.

THERE’S ANOTHER LEADER WHO SHOULDN’T be overlooked: President Donald Trump.

Leadership theory distinguishes between transactional and laissez-faire approaches. Transactional leaders emphasize rewards and punishments, frequently measuring performance through compliance. Laissez-faire leaders give subordinates considerable autonomy, but they sometimes fail to provide necessary supervision and accountability. Both approaches can become destructive when poorly applied.

The president is known for his transactional style, but he appears to have combined the worst elements of these two leadership approaches with Hegseth. He rewards public demonstrations of loyalty while seemingly allowing a secretary with limited strategic experience extraordinary latitude to run the military. Whether Trump was fully informed of every consequential Pentagon decision is unclear, but what is clear is that the president selected Hegseth, defended him, and bears ultimate responsibility for the administration’s national security decisions.

The president cannot transfer responsibility for the Iran war to his secretary of defense. Trump is commander in chief, and he made the ultimate decision to initiate the conflict; he remains accountable for its consequences. Firing Hegseth might provide a convenient scapegoat, but it would not erase the president’s failures of strategy, judgment, supervision, and leadership.

In January 2025, I argued that the secretary of defense’s job was best suited to someone willing to work hard, keep his head down, learn the intricacies of the organization, and stay out of the spotlight. I believed then, as I do now, that the position demands competence, humility, judgment, and dedication to something larger than personal ambition. Nearly two years later, my worst fears have come true.

Join now

Will Saletan is methodical, understated, and razor-sharp. He lets the evidence do the talking with analysis meant to help you understand what’s happening, not chase the next viral moment. If that’s the kind of journalism you value, become a Bulwark member and help us make more of it.

Join now

Will Saletan breaks down Donald Trump’s response to the Republican Party’s midterm wipeout, as the president scrambles to blame everyone but himself. Trump claims the Alaska election should be overturned, insists he would have won if he were on the ballot, and throws Republican candidates under the bus after previously endorsing them. He turns on Greg Abbott, attacks Fox News for reporting unfavorable polls, and blames Senate Republicans. After a historic defeat, Trump is pointing the finger at everyone but himself.

Leave a comment

Will spends an alarming amount of time in the weirdest corners of the right-wing internet—and, somewhat concerningly, seems to genuinely enjoy it. Your support helps us keep Will digging through the internet’s weirdest corners, whether that’s a good thing for him or not.

Join now

Will Sommer and Sam Stein look at the growing cracks in Trump’s MAGA coalition after the midterm losses. Trump is floating a possible immigration deal with Democrats, sending hardliners like Megyn Kelly and The Blaze into a frenzy. Trump, nearly a week after the election, is now pushing baseless claims that the midterms were stolen. Plus, Laura Loomer’s paid political posts are coming under scrutiny, Russell Brand’s prison sentence raises questions about MAGA’s embrace of accused predators, and a fight over corruption inside Trump’s White House is getting uglier.

Leave a comment

I’m going to explain how congressional Democrats can force President Trump’s hand. Then we’ll talk about why they should and what the downside risks would be.

The biggest point is that Democrats should act as though they own Congress today. Do not wait until January. The future doesn’t start in 2027. It’s already happening. Right now. Voters gave Democrats the biggest mandate any party has had in fifty years. Start driving legislation and dare Republican dead-enders to get in the way.

The second point: The best way for the Democratic Congress to impact prices and inflation is to end the Iran war.

Democrats do not have to muster public opinion on Iran. Americans did not want Trump’s war in the first place and they really don’t want it nine months in. All Democrats need to do is respond to the public’s demand that the war conclude.

To accomplish this, they have three tools available to them.

This is where the good stuff starts. We go on offense. But it requires a shift in our mental models. We’re no longer in the business of asking, “How do we protect some part of XYZ?”

It’s time to start asking, “How can we force change?”

The Bulwark exists to expose the fascists’ corruption and fight for liberalism. We’ll remain committed to reporting on all of the investigations, doing all of the accountability. We’re also committed to having some fun.

We’re celebrating sanity’s win on Tuesday with a 20% FLASH SALE on Bulwark+. This offer may end tonight but the our commitment to honest news, smart analysis and good faith will remain. Join us for what comes next. Upgrade today.

Join now

Will Sommer and Sam Stein look at the growing cracks in Trump’s MAGA coalition after the midterm losses. Trump is floating a possible immigration deal with Democrats, sending hardliners like Megyn Kelly and The Blaze into a frenzy. Trump, nearly a week after the election, is now pushing baseless claims that the midterms were stolen. Plus, Laura Loomer’s paid political posts are coming under scrutiny, Russell Brand’s prison sentence raises questions about MAGA’s embrace of accused predators, and a fight over corruption inside Trump’s White House is getting uglier.

Leave a comment