Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Washington Post Renée Good Murder Coverage Lacks Any Mention of ICE Agents Standing Around Watching Her Die While Blocking a Physician from Treating Her

Washington Post   21 January 2036

Politics

Democrats seek to block Homeland Security funding over ICE concerns

The spending bill is set for a vote Thursday, and it’s not clear if it will have enough support to pass.


By Riley Beggin and Marianna Sotomayor


Democrats plan to vote against a negotiated funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s aggressive actions against U.S. citizens in Minneapolis and other cities.
Thousands of ICE agents have been sent to Minnesota since December as part of a crackdown that DHS has described as the largest immigration enforcement effort in the agency’s history. An ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renée Good this month, prompting mass demonstrations in the Twin Cities. A week later, another ICE officer shot an undocumented Venezuelan man in the leg during an arrest. ICE also began an operation in Maine on Wednesday.

This article goes on for 20 Paragraphs but here is the sum total of WaPo coverage of the Good murder in this article: "An ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renée Good this month .... But Good’s death incensed many Democrats."  Here is a link to the entire article inedible so you can see for yourself:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/21/democrats-try-block-ice-funding/


What is really disgusting is there has been a Ton of WaPo coverage about the Good execution ibut Not a peep has mentioned the fact that following the shooting the ICE agents stood around watching her die while denying her medical attention by a physician passing by that had volunteer to treat her.

While I totally support ICE Agents expelling Illegal Aliens not authorized to be here, I believe the ICE shooting of Ms Good was nothing short of an execution. The first shot was bad enough but the two point blank follow up shots through the driver's side window were unconscionable. As bad as the murder was, what was even more egregious was the ICE agents’ actions after they shot her. There is a very disturbing video of them taken by a witness on the scene that was published by the Huffington Post. The video picks up after the woman's SUV crashed into a parked car after she was shot by the ICE agent. A doctor on scene asked a “Caring” ICE Agent "Can I go check a pulse?" and the "compassionate" ICE agent tells him, "No," and ordered him to "back up." The doctor replied "I'm a physician" and the ICE agent angrily responded "I don't care" while another agent lied to him that they had their own medics on scene. Over the entire course of the video NO ONE is seen treating the shot woman. ICE agents standing around watching an American citizen die while denying her medical assistance is criminal and those agents should be prosecuted. I’m surprised this has NOT been even mentioned in any of the WaPo coverage of the incident.

To see for yourself exactly how “caring and compassionate” these Federal Agents were, here is a link to the Huffington Post video: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ice-video-shooting-doctor-aid-minneapolis_l_695ffb6fe4b088e2524d9155?origin=home-latest-news-unit

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Venezuelan Opposition Leader Machado Gives Her Nobel to Trump Prompting Him to Replace “Hail to the Chief” with “Oh Lord It’s Hard to Be Humble”

 Washington Post

15 January 2026

Machado’s Nobel gamble: A peace offering to win over a wary Trump


The Venezuelan opposition leader said she handed her 2025 award to the president, an extraordinary move to regain his favor as he warms to the remnants of the Maduro regime.


By Michael Birnbaum and María Luisa Paúl


President Donald Trump on Thursday accepted a Nobel Peace Prize medal from Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, a striking bid by the current laureate to sway a U.S. president who recently declined to support her challenge to Venezuela’s ruling regime.


The article goes on for many more paragraphs and you can read the entire Washington Post article at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/15/machado-trump-nobel-prize/


Remember, President Donald Trump famously said: "I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Nobody deserves it more than me!"

Somehow the WaPo failed to include in this article that now that Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado handed over her 2025 Nobel Prize award to the president at her meeting with him today, “The Donald” has directed that instead of playing “Hail to the Chief” upon his arrival at events, the Marine Corps Band will play his new more appropriate anthem: Mac Davis’ - “Oh Lord It's Hard To Be Humble When You’re Perfect in Every Way.”

Friday, November 21, 2025

The Old Colonel’s Opinion about the Six Democrat Members of Congress Counselling Military Service Members to Disobey Orders

This incident involving 6 Democrat Members of Congress has garnered extensive press coverage over the past few days but unsurprisingly, this is the first Washington Post (WaPo) mention of it. Below I have posted The Old Colonel’s take on the subject and why the Dem-6’s comments could be characterized, in Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) terms, as “conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline” but I seriously it would ever lead to a Court Martial because everything they said is technically correct and they directly quoted words contained in the UCMJ.



Trump: Democrats ‘traitors’ for telling military not to follow unlawful orders

The president said lawmakers who appeared in a video committed “seditious behavior” and should be arrested and put on trial for treason.

By Maegan Vazquez and Dan Lamothe    20 November 2025

President Donald Trump accused a group of Democratic lawmakers on Thursday of “seditious behavior” and called for their arrest for appearing in a video in which they reminded members of the U.S. military and intelligence community that they are obligated to refuse illegal orders.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand.”

The video released Tuesday features a group of six Democrats who served in the military and intelligence community. Addressing active service members, they caution that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

The article goes on for quite some time but this is the essence of it and here is the Link to the entire WaPo Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/20/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior/

The Old Colonel’s sage take on the subject

This incident involving 6 Democrat Members of Congress has garnered extensive press coverage over the past few days but unsurprisingly, this is the first Washington Post (WaPo) mention of it. Although 5 of the 6 have served in the Military, I did an extensive look at their service records and noticed NONE have ever served in a command position so have NEVER exercised UCMJ authority. Hence, they are ALL giving some poor advice.  As for my knowledge of the Military judicial system, I am a Retired 30 year Army Colonel that as a young officer pre-1969 Manual for Court-Martial (MCM) so before lawyers were involved in Special Court Martials, I served as both a prosecution and defense counsel in several Special Courts. Then as a four time Company Commander, Battalion XO/Acting Commander, Battalion Commander, and Brigade level Commander I have administered Non-Judicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the MCM/UCMJ hundreds of times. I have been the President/Member of many General Court Martials and have conducted a Ton of Article 32 (the UCMJ version of a Grand Jury) and AR 15-6 investigations. Finally, in preparation for Brigade level command where I would be a Special Court Martial Convening Authority, I attended the Senior Officers’ Convening Authority Course at the Army JAG School on campus at the University of Virginia Law School. I seriously doubt many Officers have anywhere near my knowledge or experience in Military Justice or dealing with JAGs.

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) which contains the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as an appendix states Service Members have a duty to disobey an order that “a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal.” Hence, a Service Member might have a duty to refuse to obey orders that are manifestly illegal but in the military justice system there is a presumption that orders are lawful unless proven otherwise so disobedience is done at one's own peril. There are plenty of stupid ill advised orders given that are still lawful orders that must be obeyed. It is easy for a Member of Congress to counsel a gullible young Service Member to disobey orders "they think may be illegal" but in 99 out of a 100 cases a General Court Martial will find the order lawful and rule against that young inexperienced Service Member defendant that was foolish enough to listen to a Member of Congress.  The result for the poor badly advised Service Member is a Federal conviction on their record that will follow the offender for the rest of their life.

Of course, The Dem-6 attempts to put “the fear of God” in young Service Members by telling them that in the rare instance where they do obey orders that are subsequently found to be unlawful, they are subject to discipline under the UCMJ for obeying the order.  This may be technically true but almost unheard of.  Even in the case of the infamous My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, 26 Soldiers were charged with criminal offenses but ONLY Lieutenant William Calley, the Platoon Leader who issued the unlawful order, was convicted. Bottom line is the Members of Congress advising young Service Members to disobey orders suffer no adverse consequences while Service Members foolish enough to listen to them have successfully sabotaged their futures with a Federal conviction.

Here are the six Members of Congress advising Service Members to disobey orders they “deem” illegal:

Senator Elissa Slotkin: Democrat from Michigan, Never served in the Military so was NEVER even subject to the Code let alone exercised Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authority.

Congressman Jason Crow: (D CO-6) Spent 4 years as an Army Ranger Officer completed three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and left the Army as a Captain but NEVER served in a command position where he exercised UCMJ authority.

Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan: (D PA-6) Served 3 years on Air Force active duty as a project manager working on air and space defense technologies and left active duty in 1991 finally separating from the Reserves as a Captain. She NEVER even served in a supervisory position let alone in command where she would have exercised UCMJ authority.

Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander: (D NH-1) Like Hunter Biden, she got one of those political Naval Reserve Direct Commissions because it looked good on a resume. Although she served as a Navy Reserve Intel Officer for 11 years, she had no appreciable active duty time and never held a command nor exercised UCMJ authority. Unlike Hunter Biden, she was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant instead of being cashiered out with "Bad Paper" for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline."

Congressman Chris Deluzio: (D PA-17) Graduated from the Naval Academy and served as a naval officer from 2006 to 2012, where he was a surface warfare officer. For a short time served as the executive officer of an Army Civil Affairs company in Iraq while assigned to the USS Higgins (DDG-76) but he NEVER held a command position nor exercised UCMJ authority.

Senator Mark Kelly: Democrat from Arizona is a retired Navy Captain having served 24 years as an astronaut and Naval Aviator including flying 39 combat missions during the Gulf War. He became an astronaut detached from the Navy early in his career so he NEVER held a command position where he exercised UCMJ authority.

 

Disobeying a lawful order in the military is a serious offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and can result in severe penalties, including non-judicial punishment (Article 15), court-martial, a punitive discharge (Bad Conduct or Dishonorable), forfeiture of pay and allowances, and confinement.

The specific charges and maximum punishments depend on the nature of the order, the rank of the person who issued it, and the potential outcomes of the disobedience.

Potential Legal Consequences

Consequences for failure to obey a lawful order vary based on the specific UCMJ article violated:

Article 90: Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer. This is considered one of the most severe offenses due to its direct challenge to the chain of command.

Maximum Punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and up to 5 years of confinement. In times of war, the penalty can even be death, though this is rare.

Article 92: Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation. This article covers a broader range of offenses, including violating general orders, other specific orders, or being derelict in duty.

Violating a Lawful General Order or Regulation:

Maximum Punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and up to 2 years of confinement.

Failure to Obey Other Lawful Orders:

Maximum Punishment: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and up to 6 months of confinement.

Other Potential Actions

In addition to court-martial, other actions may be taken:

Non-judicial punishment (Article 15): Less severe violations may be handled at the unit level, resulting in reprimands, extra duty, or loss of pay/rank, without a full court-martial.

Administrative Separation: A service member may be referred for administrative separation from the military, potentially resulting in a less-than-honorable discharge and loss of veteran benefits.

SOME OLD COLONEL FINAL THOUGHTS

The military justice system is built on discipline and adherence to the chain of command, so all violations are taken very seriously. Only blatant and flagrantly illegal orders should be disobeyed but even then, remember orders from a superior officer are presumed lawful so a Service Member must be prepared for the consequences if the order is later deemed lawful.

This is reminiscent of what happened during Vietnam. A collection of disgruntled Military officers, many even service academy graduates, founded an anti-Vietnam War organization called the Concerned Officers Movement (COM). One of their most despicable activities occurred in 1971 when the aircraft carrier USS Constellation was ordered to sail for Vietnam. A group of COM members met with and encouraged crew members to desert so the ship couldn’t deploy. Although a few crew members did miss movement in violation of The UCMJ Article 87, the ship departed on schedule. What made this despicable was these COM members were already discharged so were in no jeopardy of any punishment but the junior enlisted members that they convinced to miss movement were in jeopardy of having a Federal felony conviction on their record for the rest of their lives. These COM Clowns neglected to mention to them this “little” detail and its adverse effect on the rest of their lives.

One other Federal Statute to consider:

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 46, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, § 515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236.)

Saturday, November 15, 2025

Do President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth Really Not Know that the Department of Defense Was NEVER the Department of War or Do They Just Believe Most Americans Are Too Ignorant to Know it?

The Old Colonel has previously posted on this issue (https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2025/09/once-again-washington-post-demonstrates.html) but on 11 November 2025 I watched on CSPAN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS0nTgU5TP0) President Trump’s Veterans Day remarks at Arlington National Cemetery and once again he needs to either stop with his revisionist history or somebody needs to give him a history lesson because he repeated his misinformation that he changed the name of the Department of Defense back to the Department of War. The Department of Defense has  NEVER been named the Department of War, NEVER! Here are the FACTS:

Shortly after the establishment of a government under President George Washington in 1789, Congress established the War Department as a civilian agency to administer the field army under the president (as commander-in-chief) and the Secretary of War as a member of the Cabinet. The Department of War also had responsibility for naval affairs from 1794 until the establishment of the Department of the Navy in 1798.

By the National Security Act of 1947, the Department of the Navy and the Department of War had a new single Secretary imposed over the top of their two previously independent Cabinet secretaries. THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY and split off the Department of the Air Force. The new Cabinet-level department was initially designated the National Military Establishment (NME). In 1949, the NME was renamed the Department of Defense.

On 5 September 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order authorizing "Department of War" and "Secretary of War" as SECONDARY titles to the main titles of "Department of Defense" and "Secretary of Defense." The terms must be accommodated by federal agencies and are ONLY permitted in executive branch communications, ceremonial settings, and non-statutory documents. ONLY an act of Congress can legally and formally change the department's name and secretary's title, so "Department of Defense" and "Secretary of Defense" remain the ONLY legally official names and titles.

Trump Administration Sending Ukrainian Draft Eligible Draft Dodgers in the US Back Home to Face Conscription

This Article appeared in the Washington Post just after Veterans Day and highlighted the number of Draft eligible Ukrainian Draft Dodgers that have escaped to the United States and the Trump Administration's efforts to "repatriate" them back to their home country so they can have the privilege and honor of participating in their country's struggle against evil Russian invaders.  Contrary to how Canada harbored American Deserters and Draft Dodgers during the Vietnam War, this administration is doing the right thing sending these guys home to do their duty.  What is surprising is the number of commenters in the article's comment section that seem to condone these shirkers conduct and criticized the administration for sending them home to face conscription.

Below are some selected passages from the article that provides the essence of the issues but I have included a link to the article for those that wish to read the entire article.  Also, below that I have posted the Old Colonel's comment so you can see my sentiments on the issue.  Enjoy! 





Trump officials preparing to deport some Ukrainians despite conscription fears Deportations to Ukraine have declined in recent years. An adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky said, “We’ll find good use for them.”

By Maria Sacchetti, Marianne LeVine, Siobhán O'Grady and John Hudson 
Washington Post 14 November 2025

Here are some selected paragraphs from the article but you can read the entire article at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/11/14/ukraine-deportations-trump-zelensky/

The Trump administration is preparing to deport some Ukrainians with final orders of removal back to their war-ravaged homeland as the government seeks to ramp up deportations and Ukraine moves to tighten its relationship with Washington.

Ukraine has a history of not fully cooperating with U.S. efforts to remove certain immigrants .... But that may be changing as Ukraine strains to fend off Russian attacks, recruit soldiers and retain support from the U.S. government.

“The U.S. can deport as many as they want,” said an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a policy matter. “We’ll find good use for them.”

"Ukraine is a war zone, is currently under martial law, and it is likely that any deportees will be forcibly drafted into the army and sent to the front where they face a high likelihood of death.”

"Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 are required to register with military recruitment offices. Men older than 22 are not allowed to leave the country except under extenuating circumstances."

 The Old Soldiers Washington Post comments section comment on this article:

The US should deport any legal citizen of any foreign country who is in the US for the purpose of avoiding Military conscription. The United States should have levied sanctions on Canada for not extraditing but instead granting asylum to US Draft Dodgers and Deserters fleeing from the possibility of having to fight for this Country in Vietnam.

I remember in 1968 I was a young Army 2LT at home on leave en route to Vietnam and my father was just retiring after 30 years in the Military. The family was relocating from Northern Virginia for my father’s new civilian job and they had put their house up for rent. While I was there in Civies a Vietnamese family with their two draft age kids came to look at the house and had the chutzpah to mention they had come to the United States so their kids could avoid ARVN conscription. I’ve never seen my father so mad or rude in all my life. Here his kid was heading off to Vietnam as an Infantry Lieutenant to fight for their country while their kids were Draft Dodging to shirk their responsibility to fight for their own country. To say my Dad unceremoniously threw them out would be putting it too mildly.

Saturday, October 11, 2025

Surprise! Surprise! Trump Didn't Win the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize But Should He Really Care - After Obama Winning It, It’s "No Big Deal!"




A 9 October 2025 Washington Post (WaPo) article had this headline: “Trump wants a Nobel Prize. He’ll learn Friday if his campaign paid off” (https://www.washingtonpost.com//politics/2025/10/09/trump-nobel-prize-friday/) and stated: “President Donald Trump’s long quest for a Nobel Peace Prize has sparked an unusual global scramble.… Of all the golden glories that Donald Trump has accumulated — the statues, sneakers, even a golden pager — one gleaming medallion has eluded the 79-year-old president: the Nobel Peace Prize.“ 

This piece was followed by this WaPo article “Donald Trump and peace in the Mideast” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/09/gaza-israel-hamas-peace-plan-trump/) containing this passage: “if the deal holds, Trump can legitimately bolster his claim to be a peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.” 

Finally, the suspense was broken on 10 October when the WaPo published this article “María Corina Machado, Venezuelan opposition leader, wins Nobel Peace Prize” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/10/10/maria-machado-nobel-peace-prize-venezuela/) revealing that Trump didn’t win and said: “The prize honored Machado, who is in hiding, for keeping ‘the flame of democracy burning,’ but the White House accused the Nobel jury of “placing politics over peace.” The article went on to say: “… the Venezuelan opposition leader has become a symbol of democratic resistance against an increasingly authoritarian regime, even as she has been forced into hiding and barred from holding public office.”

Regardless, what I still don’t understand is why anyone, especially President Donald J. Trump, would even want the Peace Prize after the way the Norwegian Nobel Committee cheapened it by turning it into a “participation trophy” with their 2009 award.

On 9 October 2009 after a mere 263 days in office, the Nobel Committee announced the award of their “prestigious” Peace Prize to President Obama, citing his promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a "new climate" in international relations especially in reaching out to the Muslim world. In a USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted 16-19 October, 61% of American adults polled responded that they thought Obama did not deserve to win the prize. 

WaPo columnist Michael Gerson wrote at the time that the committee members "have forfeited any claim to seriousness. Peace—the kind of peace that keeps people from being killed and oppressed—is an achievement, not a sentiment. ... Intending to honor Obama, the committee has actually embarrassed him."

The WaPo news analyst Dan Balz wrote: "Even among his supporters there was a sense of surprise and even shock on Friday [the day of the announcement], a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."

A WaPo editorial began, "’It's an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree’, and compared the Nobel Committee's statement that Obama had "created a new climate in international politics" to a recent satirical skit on television.”

Finally, this 11 October WaPo article after the winner was announced:

For U.S. presidents, Nobel Peace Prize long fraught with politics“
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/11/trump-nobel-peace-prize-presidents/) Said: “Trump and his allies campaigned for an award that has frequently been used to send a message as well as bestow an honor.” and included this “In 2009, Barack Obama won it only months into his presidency, but the prize — which cited his ‘vision’ and ‘extraordinary efforts’ — was more a mark of aspiration than achievement by the first Black president in U.S. history. When late-night host Stephen Colbert asked Obama what he had actually done at that point to earn it, and the president deadpanned: ‘To be honest, I still don’t know.’”

When the WaPo is speaking this disparagingly about an award, even one like the ONCE prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, then it really has become “No Big Deal” except for maybe the $1.2 Million and trophy/paperweight that goes with winning.


Friday, September 5, 2025

Once Again the Washington Post Demonstrates Their Complete Ignorance of ALL Things Military by Claiming the Department of War Became the Department of Defense in 1949

 

On 26 August 2025 the Washington Post (WaPo) ran this article erroneously claiming that the Department of War became the Department of Defense in 1949:



Trump wants a ‘Department of War.’ Here’s why it’s not called that anymore

By Andrew Jeong August 26, 2025

“The Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense under President Harry S. Truman …. After World War II ended in 1945, Truman orchestrated a broad reorganization of the old War Department — which became the Defense Department in 1949.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2025/08/26/trump-war-department-defense-rename/


Then On 4 September the WaPo doubled down on its error with this article containing the same misinformation although worded a little differently:




Trump to rebrand Defense Department as War Department

By Tara Copp and Natalie Allison, 4 September 2025 7:48 p.m. ET

“…. Following World War II, the War Department was temporarily renamed the National Military Establishment. A 1949 amendment renamed the agency once again to its current name, the Department of Defense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/09/04/trump-war-department/


With this amount of misinformation in these articles, the WaPo clearly demonstrates that they are as totally ignorant about ALL thing Military as Trump and Hegseth appear to be. I have included the links to each of these articles so skeptics of The Old Colonel can see for themselves that he is not exaggerating. Now the inconvenient FACTS:

The Department of War was what is now the Department of the Army from 1798 to 1947. During that time both the Department of War and the Department of the Navy were full members of the President’s Cabinet.

On 26 July 1947, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, which established the National Military Establishment (NME) and created the National Security Council, National Security Resources Board, United States Air Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The NME was placed under the control of the new post of secretary of defense. The National Military Establishment became operational on 18 September 1947 and was renamed the "Department of Defense” on 10 August 1949, when it absorbed the formerly cabinet-level military departments. Now the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (containing the Navy and Marine Corps) and the Department of the Air Force (containing the Air Force and Space Force) are subordinate to the Secretary of Defense who is the only one in the President’s Cabinet.

If Trump really wants to recreate the Department of War, he should eliminate the entire Department of Defense and elevate the Departments of War, Navy and Air Force back to being Members of his Cabinet.