Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon slammed House Republicans on Wednesday for not doing an effective job of selling the president’s “big, beautiful” law of tax and spending cuts over the summer recess.

“I haven’t seen a massive effort to sell the big beautiful bill and actually what it stands for,” Bannon said during his Wednesday “War Room” podcast. 

Bannon also criticized the lack of town halls held by Republicans to sell the bill, saying Republicans had gone home for the August recess but were not holding town hall events to sell the president’s most important legislative package.

Bannon described a “paucity of town halls,” though he acknowledged that town halls have become difficult to hold this year as a series have been interrupted by constituents loudly highlighting their complaints.

For example, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) recently heard boos and calls to tax the rich at a town hall in Lincoln, Neb., where he promoted the Trump legislation.

Bannon said he believed Democrats were behind some of these interruptions, but nonetheless suggested Republicans needed to hold the events.

He also said the GOP needed to reassess the way they talk about the legislation.

“For instance, we sell the big beautiful bill here in the supply side tax cut of it in a more sophisticated way, not just the Fox News talking points, in a more sophisticated way, with bright people than anybody,” Bannon told listeners.

The former White House strategist said big, beautiful bill talking points need to land with voters ahead of the next election cycle. He urged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to press GOP lawmakers to laud the bill in public forums. 

“Johnson and Thune should cancel all overseas junkets for members and force them to have town halls, meet and greets, editorial board meetings — anything to get the word out on the BBB. The supply-side tax cut needs to be sold, and it ain’t gonna sell itself,” Bannon told Politico. 

“The 2026 midterms have started, and the Republicans are letting down the president.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has announced plans to return the Arlington Confederate Memorial, otherwise known as the Reconciliation Memorial, to the Confederate portion of Arlington National Cemetery. This drew a rebuke from retired Army General Ty Seidule, former vice-chair of the Naming Commission, the body Congress created to review Confederate iconography within the Defense Department.

“By ordering the monument back,” Seidule wrote in The Hill recently , “Hegseth is subverting Congress and the will of the American people.”

Those are bold words from the general, who describes himself as a student of “Confederate commemoration.”  Well, I am the great-grandson of a Confederate soldier. My great-grandfather’s family included five Confederate cavalrymen and one infantryman. I’m an American person and I applaud Hegseth’s action.

Members of the Naming Commission have been misleading the American people, pretending they had a popular mandate to act that simply never existed. 

To hear them tell it — those few who are willing speak publicly, that is — Congress wholeheartedly endorses their work. But the commission’s creation was not by public acclaim or popular legislation. Rather, it was an obscure proposal, buried deep within the fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act — the behemoth bill authorizing all U.S. military operations.

On Feb. 7, 2024, commission members held a seminar at Hamilton College in New York. One declared that Congress had given the commission’s work overwhelming support. “In voting to override” President Trump’s lame-duck veto of that bill, “bipartisan supermajorities of 81 senators and 322 representatives declared it was time to try to end Confederate commemorations. Two years later, in 2022, with the midterm election in full swing, about the same number if not more welcomed the Naming Commission’s report, endorsed its recommendations and greenlit the Defense Department to move out.”

The commission’s final report proclaims: “In passing the 2021 William M. ‘Mac’ Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, the United States Congress determined that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration through Department of Defense assets.” But if Congress enthusiastically endorses the commission’s recommendations, its judgements, and its sweeping opinion of its mandate, it sure has an odd way of showing it.

In reality, the Naming Commission had already disbanded long before average people even realized what it was doing — that its recommendations went fa beyond just changing the names of a few Army bases. The email address for its press point-of-contact was dead by the beginning of January 2023, and the commission’s website had already disappeared by April.

The only commissioner who was a sitting member of Congress and the only representative of a former Confederate state — Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) — refused to answer questions about the commission’s actions. His staff told me that the commission had asked members not to comment publicly on its work.

Thousands of letters and emails, to hundreds of Congressional members and staffers, asking for explanations of the commission’s actions (and Congress’ oversight of it) have gone unanswered. In fact, it is almost impossible to find any member of Congress who wants to talk publicly about this matter. If this was Congress’s specific intention in passing that much bigger defense package, then why isn’t Capitol Hill trumpeting this rousing bipartisan success?

Many Union veterans were unhappy when the Reconciliation Memorial was erected in 1914. But other Northerners and Southerners saw the memorial as a demonstration that two dramatically different parts of a growing nation, despite holding irreconcilable opinions on what the nation’s Civil War experience meant, could reach an accommodation that both sides could live with. That would help the nation put the war’s trauma behind it and build a newly united nation.

To the allegation that the monument “clearly commemorates the Confederacy and its purpose — chattel slavery,” I would quote back the prepared remarks at the dedication ceremony by Washington Garner, Commander in Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic — the leading organization for Union Civil War veterans.

“This memorial structure speaks the language of peace and good-will,” he said. “It seems fitting that here in this place and on these grounds, once the home of Robert E. Lee, there should rest the remains of some of the gallant men who followed that great soldier even unto death. It is fitting here, in sight of the Nation’s Capital, and in this vast burial plot consecrated to American valor that some of our fellow countrymen, the representatives of once-hostile armies whose unsurpassed bravery is now a common heritage and pride, should rest in undisturbed slumber.”

One hundred years ago, veterans from opposing sides of our nation’s most divisive and traumatic war found a way to compromise, reconcile and move forward.

Two years ago, Congress’ agents determined that it was not only necessary but “the will of the American people” to undo all of that — to remove a statue from a remote part of a cemetery. Our enemies might interpret that as a sign that we are becoming an emotionally and culturally brittle people — as Osama Bin Laden once put it, “a weak horse.” 

Weak horses invite attack by predators. A strong and confident nation, on the other hand, demonstrates that it can handle the complexities of its history and does not feel compelled to judge people from the past based on present-day sensibilities. Hegseth’s decision to restore the Reconciliation Memorial to Arlington is a sign that the weak horses and “woke lemmings” are no longer in charge in Washington.

Donald Smith is a member of the Arizona Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The future is unclear for a key, 20-year-old U.S. government initiative advancing American interests around the world and blunting Chinese and Russian influence.  

The Millennium Challenge Corporation changed the way development assistance was done. It has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty since its launch by President George W. Bush in 2004. It was a year after he created the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has saved more than 26 million people over the past two decades, especially on the African continent. 

Both are perfect examples of American soft power at its best. But whereas the AIDS relief program has largely been spared recent budget cutting after some hiccups, the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s future is less clear. Its board meets this week to decide whether to terminate more than half of its portfolio of compacts and smaller threshold programs in various stages of development or implementation. These programs are in Africa and Asia, strategically important regions of the world in which China and Russia would be happy to take our place.  

The board should consider the impact of possible cuts to our country’s reputation as a reliable partner and whether such a reduction would actually benefit U.S. economic, national security and diplomatic interests.   

Although all government programs should be regularly reviewed for efficiency and effectiveness, it seems shortsighted to drastically reduce the footprint of an agency that has been successfully implementing its mandate to the benefit of U.S. interests. Congress has historically supported the Millennium Challenge Corporation as a model for development and a safeguard for our national security, and its funding level in the House fiscal 2026 appropriations bill demonstrates that support.  

The Millennium Challenge Corporation aims to reduce poverty through economic growth and exemplifies how the generosity of the American people can really make a difference overseas in ways that advance U.S. national interests while driving development.  

The program has expanded access to electricity in Benin and Georgia so that children can study after dark and hospitals can properly store vaccines. It has created the infrastructure to deliver clean water to homes and businesses in Cape Verde and Mongolia. And it has built or improved roads, airports, ports and bridges in many countries so that people can get to school or work — and efficiently deliver their goods to markets.  

In Africa, the program has educated more than 255,500 students, contributed more than 26 million megawatt-hours of electricity, guaranteed over 305,000 households and businesses have legal rights and protections over their land, and improved production for over 70,600 farmers.  

The Millennium Challenge Corporation has funded 82 agreements in 49 countries since 2004, benefiting nearly 400 million people. Twenty-five of these countries are in Africa, and these investments have benefited an estimated 154 million Africans.  

And it has done all this in financially sound ways. Moreover, this kind of assistance opens doors for the United States, including for American companies seeking to do business in and with these countries.  

The Millennium Challenge Corporation took a groundbreaking approach to foreign assistance, requiring that countries qualify based on rigorous third-party indicators measuring democratic governance, investment in health and education, and economic freedom. Countries that don’t meet these criteria aren’t eligible for compacts, which are binding agreements developed in partnership with qualifying countries with rigorous monitoring.  

As with the Bush-era AIDS program, the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s focus on Africa is well placed. By 2050, more than 25 percent of the world’s population will live there. By 2030, more than 40 percent of the world’s young people will be African. Already, more than half of the world’s 20 fastest-growing economies are in Africa, along with 65 percent of the world’s arable land and about 30 percent of the world’s mineral reserves.  

The Millennium Challenge Corporation engenders tremendous goodwill among the populations of recipient countries and helps counter efforts by Russia and China to insert themselves at the expense of U.S. interests. Whether through cultural engagement programs and educational opportunities, infrastructure investments or military interference, Beijing and Moscow seek to expand their influence in the region while at the same time spreading anti-Western propaganda and taking advantage of disenfranchised or struggling populations to export their authoritarian brand of governance. 

This is a risk for the African population, global security and American interests. Without this program, the picture would look much worse. It empowers its partners, championing country ownership of its development projects rather than holding them hostage to burdensome loan terms, like China does. It creates jobs, rather than taking them from the local population. Ut requires transparency and accountability for every dollar spent, as opposed to the shady, corrupt deals China and Russia seek.  

There must be accountability both from partner countries and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. The compact countries must maintain their performance on the indicators and implement the compact transparently. Meanwhile, they Millennium Challenge Corporation measures economic rates of return on its investments and rigorously evaluates every program for effectiveness and results. 

The Millennium Challenge Corporation demands democratic governance, investment in people, and policies supporting economic freedom from its partners so they can escape poverty and build strong economies, rather than undercutting democracy and saddling its partners with debt. At the same time, it creates opportunities for private investment and develops trade and economic partners. A drastic reduction in its work could leave unfinished projects that China would sweep in and complete — and claim credit for.  

The Millennium Challenge Corporation uses foreign assistance dollars responsibly to lift people out of poverty while strengthening U.S. diplomatic ties and economic partnerships — all while fostering a positive view of America among both citizens and governments. Its board should keep this in mind this week.  

Monica Vegas Kladakis is senior advisor for Outreach and Strategic Partnerships at the George W. Bush Institute and previously served as managing director for Threshold Programs at MCC. David J. Kramer is executive director the George W. Bush Institute. 

NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA, Va. (WAVY) – A Navy pilot is recovering after ejecting from an F/A-18E Super Hornet off the coast of Virginia.

Lt. Jackie Parashar, a public affairs officer for Naval Air Force Atlantic, confirmed to Nexstar’s WAVY that the mishap took place just before 10 a.m. EDT on Wednesday.

The pilot, assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 83, was conducting a routine training flight at the time, the Navy said. The squadron is based at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, Va. The pilot ejected and the plane crashed into the water. The Navy has not indicated yet what led to the crash.

Search and rescue crews responded and located the pilot at 11:21 a.m.

Dale Gauding, a spokesperson for Sentara, confirmed the Coast Guard brought a Navy pilot to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital Wednesday. 

The F/A-18E remained in the water as of publishing time.

The Navy said the cause of the mishap is under investigation.

This is the latest in a series of crashes involving Hampton Roads-based Navy fighter jets. In May, an F/A-18F Super Hornet was lost in the Red Sea after it went over the Norfolk, Va.-based USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier during an attempted landing and crashed into the sea. Both pilots ejected. About a week earlier, another fighter jet, an F/A-18E, also fell from the Truman into the Red Sea while sailors were towing the aircraft.

In December, another Hornet assigned to the “Red Rippers” of Strike Fighter Squadron 11 out of Naval Air Station Oceana, was shot down during an apparent “friendly fire” incident. That jet also took off from the Truman.

According to Naval Air Systems Command, the F/A-18E Super Hornet costs around $67 million.