Hegseth Outlines Cooperative Agenda for Regional Stability in Asia

Oct. 28, 2026 | By Matthew Olay, Pentagon News |

During remarks at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Defense Ministers' Meeting in the Cebu province of the Philippines today, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth outlined a defense cooperation agenda focused on practical collaboration and regional stability.

Hegseth framed the agenda as one that is built on strength and on the backs of strong, self-reliant nations capable of defending their own sovereignty while contributing to a balance of power that benefits all parties involved. 

"The approach we're taking, we describe as strong, quiet and clear. Strong enough to deter coercion and aggression, quiet enough to avoid needless escalation or public theatrics to let our actions speak for themselves [and] clear enough that our friends, our partners and potential adversaries understand precisely where the United States stands, and that we will defend our interests and the interests of our allies and partners," Hegseth explained.  

He noted that the strategy is, by definition, peace through strength. 

The secretary went on to say that this approach reflects the values of pragmatism, openness to dialogue, respect for counterparts, and proud nationalism that the association has long demonstrated. 

He added that, while all nations participating in such a cooperative agenda might not always agree on everything — and nor do they need to — an agreement on the outlined fundamentals is enough to support practical cooperation where shared interests are overlapping and clear.

Furthermore, such a model of cooperation is one that the War Department will continue to pursue with its Southeast Asia partners. Hegseth said this includes strengthening maritime domain awareness, improving interoperability and advancing cooperation between U.S. and partner nation navies. 

"These are not symbolic things; they are concrete demonstrations of what serious partners do. Serious partners train together, learn together, plan together and build the confidence and competence necessary to prevent conflict," he said. 

As an example of such practical cooperation in action, Hegseth pointed to the sustained ceasefire along the border of Thailand and Cambodia, which halted a series of severe armed clashes between the two countries that began in 2025 over colonial-era border ambiguities and overlapping maritime energy claims, among other points of contention. 

"ASEAN's leadership here demonstrates what the institution can achieve when it acts with purpose and resolve. … The United States was glad to do its part and will continue to do its part on this ASEAN-led effort," Hegseth said. 

Looking toward the future and noting that next year marks the 50th anniversary of the Southeast Asia association, Hegseth said the U.S. aims to be more ambitious in securing a defense cooperation framework, which will be critically important in the years ahead.

"The United States is a proud Pacific nation, and — alongside our ASEAN partners — we are resolved to deliver peace through strength, [and] peace, prosperity and sovereignty for all member nations, based on mutual respect and strength," he concluded.  

Founded in 1967, ASEAN is a 11-member regional organization established to promote economic growth, social progress, cultural development, and geopolitical stability among its member states in Southeast Asia.

Department of War Achieves 97.5% Obligation Goal of FY 2026 OBBBA Funding

Oct. 28, 2026 |

The Department of War announced today that it successfully obligated 97.5% of the historic funds provided by President Donald J. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) prior to the close of Fiscal Year 2026. This aggressive, disciplined execution ensures that the majority of authorized resources have been rapidly deployed to support immediate combat readiness and force modernization.

"Prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2026, the Department of War successfully obligated $148.5 billion of the $152.4 billion authorized by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act," said Jules Wilson Hurst III, Under Secretary of War (Comptroller) / Chief Financial Officer. "This record-high execution rate demonstrates our unwavering commitment to rebuilding our military and delivering immediate lethality to the warfighter."

The component-by-component breakdown of the obligated OBBBA funds at the close of the fiscal year features the following figures:

• Department of the Army: Obligated $10.5 billion (98.1%) of its $10.7 billion allocation.
• Department of the Navy: Obligated $48.7 billion (99.2%) of its $49.2 billion allocation.
• Department of the Air Force: Obligated $34.0 billion (99.2%) of its $34.3 billion allocation.
• Other Department of War Components: Obligated $55.2 billion (94.9%) of its $58.1 billion allocation.

"Under President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's mandate for rigorous fiscal responsibility, the Military Departments and the Office of Secretary of War obligated 97.5% of the funds provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to the Department's top priorities. Following communications with Congress, the Department chose to reserve portions of funding provided to the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), and the Economic Defense Unit (EDU) to preserve investment options into Fiscal Year 2027 and maximize use of those dollars," Under Secretary Hurst explained.

Next Steps and Financial Reconciliation

The current data represents an early closeout estimate based on internal financial records. These figures may adjust slightly as standard end-of-year accounting reconciliation is finalized. Final data from that system is expected by the end of the year.

Brothers of Valor: Freemasons and the Medal of Honor

The question began with a number.

How many Freemasons have received the Medal of Honor?

At first, it seemed like the sort of historical question that should have a reasonably straightforward answer. The Medal of Honor is extensively documented, Freemasonry has preserved an enormous amount of its own institutional history, and lists of famous Masons have circulated for generations. Yet almost immediately, different sources produced different totals. Some lists identified approximately 100 men. Others approached 130. More recent Masonic research suggested that the number could be considerably higher. The deeper we went, the less satisfactory it became simply to repeat somebody else's number.

That turned a question into a research project.

Artificial intelligence played an important role in that project, but not in the way the phrase "AI research" is sometimes understood. AI was not treated as an authority capable of declaring someone a Freemason or a Medal of Honor recipient. Instead, it was used as a research accelerator: locating names, comparing lists, detecting duplicated identities, searching historical material, organizing evidence, and identifying contradictions requiring further investigation. Every name still had to survive a separate verification process. In effect, AI helped us ask more questions more quickly, but the sources still had to answer them.

The result is a working roster of 150 unique Medal of Honor recipients whose Masonic membership could be supported to the evidentiary standard used in this project. Two of those men received the Medal of Honor twice for separate actions, meaning that the 150 men account for 152 Medal of Honor awards. This should not be interpreted as a declaration that precisely 150 Freemasons have received the Medal of Honor. In fact, the evidence indicates that the actual number is almost certainly higher. It is better understood as a defensible historical sample large enough to reveal something significant about the intersection of American military history, extraordinary courage, and the fraternity of Freemasonry.

Building the List

The foundation of the project was a roster attributed to the Masonic Service Association of North America and reproduced by John Warren Lodge. That list contains a substantial collection of Medal of Honor recipients together with their Masonic affiliations, often identifying an individual lodge. It provided the backbone for 128 of the 150 men ultimately included in our research.

More recent evidence expanded the field. In the Summer 2026 issue of The Sojourner, National Historian Col. Edward W. Nolte reported that, among the then 3,535 Medal of Honor recipients, 164 had been confirmed as Masons, including 37 confirmed National Sojourners. That finding was especially important because it suggested that the older Masonic Service Association roster, while valuable, was not exhaustive. We therefore treated 150 not as a target to be reached by lowering standards, but as a number that could be supported while leaving additional candidates outside the list when their documentation remained uncertain.

William R. Denslow's 10,000 Famous Freemasons provided another important historical source. Denslow explained that the Missouri Lodge of Research project grew from thousands of biographical cards, material from the House of the Temple, contemporary biographical references, and an extensive review of Masonic books and periodicals. He also acknowledged the difficulty of establishing criteria for inclusion and the possibility that additional names would continue to emerge. That candor is useful because it reflects precisely the problem encountered in this project: historical membership research is rarely as tidy as modern databases make us expect.

The verification standard therefore required two different questions to be answered independently. First, was the man actually a recipient of the Medal of Honor? For that question, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society database and official military records were treated as the primary authorities. Second, was the same man actually a Freemason? That question required a Masonic source, such as the Masonic Service Association roster, National Sojourners research, Denslow, lodge or Grand Lodge material, or another sufficiently credible historical source.

This distinction eliminated several names that initially appeared promising. James C. Gillmore, for example, appeared in older material associated with the Medal of Honor, but later research and the official recipient record did not support that attribution. Melvin A. Hildreth presented a similar problem. Gen. John J. Pershing appeared within surrounding Medal of Honor material in one modern Masonic source, but Pershing himself was not a Medal of Honor recipient. Rather than rationalize these contradictions, the men were excluded.

Other problems were less dramatic but equally revealing. William Croft Barnes and Will C. Barnes were the same man and therefore could not be counted twice. A transcription rendered Frank G. Butterfield as Frank "0." Butterfield. Audie Murphy's lodge number appeared as 5421 in one transcription when independent Masonic references identify North Hollywood Lodge No. 542. Daniel A. Dorsey's lodge name remains corrupted or unclear in the transcription we located. Instead of quietly correcting uncertain historical information, those discrepancies were preserved as research notes.

That may be the most important methodological lesson of the project. A polished list can create an illusion of certainty. Good historical research occasionally has to leave something untidy.

What the Numbers Reveal

Once the 150 men were classified, the shape of the collection became clearer. The 150 recipients account for 152 medals because Frank Dwight Baldwin and Smedley Darlington Butler each received two Medals of Honor for separate acts. Across the entire history of the Medal of Honor, only 19 men have received two medals, and only 14 received them for separate actions rather than receiving Army and Navy versions for the same act. Having two such men within this Masonic group is therefore statistically and historically striking.

The collection is also heavily weighted toward the Civil War. Of the 152 awards, 86—56.6 percent—are classified as Civil War awards. World War II accounts for another 18, World War I for 12, and the Indian Campaigns for 10. Those four categories alone account for 126 of the 152 awards. The remaining 26 are distributed across the Philippine Insurrection, China Relief Expedition, Spanish-American War, Mexican Campaign at Vera Cruz, Haitian Campaign, Second Nicaraguan Campaign, Korean War, Vietnam War, Samoa Campaign, and several periods that the Medal of Honor Society classifies as interim eras. The official database itself preserves these distinctions because the history of the Medal extends beyond America's formally declared wars.

The chronology of the medals revealed something even more surprising. Of the 152 awards in our database, 145 have an exact presentation, issue, or official award date; four retain only a month and year; one only a year; and two have no presentation date yet located. Fully 80 of the 152 awards—52.6 percent—carry dates in the 1890s.

That does not mean that half of the valor represented here occurred during the 1890s. Much of it occurred during the Civil War three decades earlier. The concentration instead reflects how the Medal of Honor evolved and how many Civil War veterans received formal recognition long after the actions themselves. The difference between the date of heroism and the date of recognition became one of the most interesting discoveries of the project.

Three family relationships also appear within the roster. Arthur MacArthur Jr., a Civil War recipient, and Douglas MacArthur, a World War II recipient, were father and son. Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt Jr. became another father-and-son pair, with the younger Roosevelt receiving his Medal posthumously for D-Day. The roster also includes brothers John Charles Black and William Perkins Black. The Congressional Medal of Honor Society recognizes the MacArthurs and Roosevelts among its notable related recipients.

These patterns make the list more than a collection of names. It becomes a cross-section of American military history extending from the Civil War through Vietnam, with the ceremonial history of the awards continuing into the twenty-first century.

Two Men, Four Medals

If two men provide the natural spine for this story, they are Frank Dwight Baldwin and Smedley Darlington Butler.

Baldwin's first Medal of Honor came from the Civil War. On July 12, 1864, at Peach Tree Creek, Georgia, Baldwin was serving as a captain in the 19th Michigan Infantry. During the fighting, he moved ahead of his own men under heavy fire, entered the opposing line, and returned with two Confederate officers and a regimental guidon. The action occurred in 1864; the Medal of Honor was presented on December 3, 1891, more than twenty-seven years later.

War did not end Baldwin's encounters with danger. Ten years after Peach Tree Creek, now serving in the regular Army, he participated in the Indian Campaigns on the Southern Plains. At McClellans Creek, Texas, on November 8, 1874, Baldwin attacked a numerically superior force rather than delaying for reinforcements because two captive girls might have been killed or carried away if the enemy escaped. That action earned his second Medal of Honor, presented March 17, 1894.

Baldwin was a member of Siloam Lodge No. 35 in Constantine, Michigan, according to the Masonic Service Association roster. In a single life, he connects the Civil War with the western campaigns that followed and demonstrates the enormous distance that sometimes separated battlefield action from official recognition.

Smedley Darlington Butler carries the story into a very different period of American military history. By the early twentieth century, the United States was projecting military power beyond the continental frontier, and Butler's two medals came from that era. His first resulted from the 1914 fighting at Vera Cruz, Mexico, where he commanded Marines during the occupation of the city. His Medal of Honor citation recognized his conspicuous leadership and courage during the action of April 22.

His second came only nineteen months later. On November 17, 1915, Butler led Marines and sailors against Fort Riviere in Haiti. The attacking force closed on the old stone fort, whose only usable entrance exposed those entering it to fire from the defenders. Butler led the assault that broke the resistance inside the fort, and his second Medal of Honor was presented on June 17, 1916.

Butler belonged to Orient Lodge No. 289 in Philadelphia. Together, Baldwin and Butler account for four medals in four different Medal of Honor conflict categories: Civil War, Indian Campaigns, Mexican Campaign, and Haitian Campaign. Their careers alone move the reader across more than half a century of changing American warfare.

Yet they cannot carry the entire story. Butler's second Medal was earned in 1915, while substantial parts of the Masonic Medal of Honor record still lay ahead.

From the Trenches to the Air

World War I brought industrial warfare on a scale that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined, and it also introduced aviation as a major instrument of combat. Among the twelve World War I awards in our Masonic group, one of the most recognizable names is Edward Vernon Rickenbacker, a member of Kilwinning Lodge No. 297 in Detroit.

Before the war, Rickenbacker had already become known as an automobile racer. In France he transferred to aviation, ultimately commanding the 94th Aero Squadron and becoming America's leading flying ace. His Medal of Honor resulted from a voluntary patrol on September 25, 1918, near Billy, France. Encountering seven German aircraft, he attacked despite the disparity in numbers and shot down two. His Medal was not presented until November 6, 1930, when President Herbert Hoover presented it at Bolling Field near Washington.

Once again, the gap between act and award is important. The Medal of Honor timeline does not simply measure when men were courageous. It also measures when the government formally decided how that courage should be remembered.

Audie Murphy and the War of Millions

World War II accounts for 18 medals in our group, making it the second-largest conflict represented after the Civil War. There are many possible men through whom to tell that story: James Doolittle, Joseph Foss, Jonathan Wainwright, Douglas MacArthur, Theodore Roosevelt Jr., and others. But no name is more closely associated in the public imagination with the decorated American combat soldier than Audie Leon Murphy.

Murphy belonged to North Hollywood Lodge No. 542 in California. The historical Masonic transcription we examined contains an apparent typographical error in the lodge number, one of several small examples of why independent checking mattered.

His Medal of Honor action took place near Holtzwihr, France, on January 26, 1945. With his company under attack by German armor and infantry, Murphy ordered his men back while he remained forward directing artillery. He then climbed onto a burning tank destroyer and used its .50-caliber machine gun against advancing German troops while exposed to fire from multiple directions. Wounded, he remained in the fight, eventually returned to his company, refused immediate medical attention, and organized a counterattack. His Medal of Honor was presented on June 2, 1945, by Lt. Gen. Alexander Patch near Werfen, Austria.

Murphy's story demonstrates another caution necessary in considering this subject. The fact that a Medal of Honor recipient was a Mason does not establish that Masonic teaching caused his conduct in combat. In some cases the man became a Mason only after the action for which he was decorated. Theodore Roosevelt provides a particularly clear example: his San Juan Hill action occurred in 1898, but he did not receive his Masonic degrees in Matinecock Lodge No. 806 until 1901.

That distinction matters. History should not be bent into fraternity promotion.

Bayonets in Korea

Three men in the verified roster received Medals of Honor for actions during the Korean War. Among them was Lewis L. Millett, a member of Tyrian Lodge No. 73 in Mechanic Falls, Maine.

On February 7, 1951, near Hill 180 at Soam-Ni, Korea, Millett was commanding Company E, 27th Infantry Regiment. When part of his force became pinned down, he moved to the front, fixed bayonets, and led his soldiers uphill into enemy positions. The fighting became hand-to-hand. Millett was wounded by grenade fragments but continued until the position had been taken and secured.

President Harry S. Truman presented the Medal of Honor to him at the White House on July 5, 1951. The image of a company commander personally leading a bayonet charge in the era of jet aircraft and modern artillery seems almost anachronistic, but that is exactly what makes Millett's story powerful. The instruments of war had changed enormously since Baldwin's Civil War service, but the individual requirement to move toward danger rather than away from it had not.

Across the River in Vietnam

The verified roster contains three Vietnam War recipients. Leo K. Thorsness was an Air Force pilot. Joe M. Jackson earned his Medal by landing an aircraft under intense fire to rescue an Air Force combat control team. The third, Sammy L. Davis, was an artilleryman whose actions occurred at Firebase Cudgil west of Cai Lay on November 18, 1967.

Davis's position came under mortar fire and a ground attack by a reinforced Viet Cong force. Despite serious wounds, he crossed a river on an air mattress because he could not swim, reached three wounded Americans on the opposite bank, and protected them while helping bring them back across the water. He then returned to an artillery position and continued fighting rather than immediately accepting medical treatment. President Lyndon B. Johnson presented his Medal of Honor at the White House on November 19, 1968.

National Sojourners records Davis as a 33rd-degree Mason associated with Indiana Masonic Home Lodge No. 541, Indianapolis-Fort Harrison Chapter No. 66, and Night Stalkers Chapter No. 567. His presence in the group carries the story into the war that defined a generation of American veterans and brings the combat chronology of our 150 men close to its end.

The Campaigns Between the Great Wars

Focusing only on the major wars would overlook an important part of the Medal of Honor's history. The verified Masonic recipients also appear in the Philippine Insurrection, the China Relief Expedition, Samoa, Nicaragua, Vera Cruz, Haiti, and several interim periods in which the Medal could be awarded for extraordinary military conduct outside a large declared war. That is why figures such as Christian F. Schilt, Bruno A. Forsterer, Carl Emil Petersen, Richard E. Byrd Jr., Charles Lindbergh, and Adolphus Greely belong in the broader picture.

Some of these awards would look unusual through a modern understanding of the Medal of Honor. Standards changed over time, as did the statutory requirements and the military circumstances under which the medal could be granted. William F. Cody, better known as Buffalo Bill, appears in the roster because the Medal of Honor Society recognizes his Civilian Scout award and notes that his was one of several civilian awards later rescinded and eventually reinstated.

The diversity of these cases is another reason not to compress the entire history into a simple list of wartime heroes. The Medal itself has a history.

The First and Last Are Not What They Seem

Chronologically, the earliest medal date in our research belongs to Daniel Allen Dorsey, whose Medal of Honor was presented on September 17, 1863. Dorsey had participated in what became known as the Great Locomotive Chase. In April 1862, he was among the Union raiders who moved deep into Confederate territory, seized a locomotive at Big Shanty, Georgia, and attempted to damage the rail connection between Atlanta and Chattanooga.

The Masonic Service Association roster identifies Dorsey as a Mason, but the surviving transcription renders his lodge as "Emd Lodge No. 19, OK," a wording we have not confidently resolved. That uncertain lodge name has deliberately been preserved in the roster below. The fact that it looks untidy is preferable to turning a guess into history.

At the other end of the award chronology stands Theodore Roosevelt. His heroic action occurred during the Spanish-American War on July 1, 1898, when he led his men during the assault on San Juan Hill in Cuba. Yet the Medal of Honor was not presented until January 16, 2001, when President Bill Clinton presented it posthumously to Roosevelt's family in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

Roosevelt was a member of Matinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, New York, but he entered Freemasonry in 1901—after the act for which the Medal was eventually awarded. That fact may be one of the most useful observations in the entire project. It prevents us from making the easy but historically unsupported argument that these men behaved heroically because they were Masons.

Dorsey and Roosevelt therefore form unusual bookends. The first medal date in our database is 1863. The last presentation date is 2001. Between them lie 138 years of official recognition, even though the combat represented by Roosevelt's medal belongs to 1898.

The timeline is not merely a chronology of bravery. It is also a chronology of memory.

What Can Freemasonry Claim?

There is a temptation in writing about famous Freemasons to turn biography into institutional validation. A president was a Mason, therefore Masonry deserves some portion of his greatness. A general was a Mason, therefore his leadership somehow proves the value of the Craft. A Medal of Honor recipient was a Mason, therefore his heroism can be interpreted as an expression of Masonic teaching.

The evidence does not permit us to make that leap.

Some recipients were Masons when they performed the actions for which they were decorated. Others became Masons afterward. For still others, the surviving evidence establishes membership but not the exact date at which they entered the fraternity. The correct conclusion is consequently more restrained: Freemasonry was present within the lives of a remarkable number of men whom the United States separately recognized for extraordinary courage and service.

That remains significant.

Masonry repeatedly asks its members to think about duty, fidelity, fortitude, sacrifice, restraint, integrity, and service. Those principles do not belong exclusively to Freemasonry, nor does a Masonic apron transform an ordinary man into a hero. But when the fraternity later encounters men whose lives included extraordinary demonstrations of courage, those lives offer powerful opportunities for reflection. The question is not whether the Craft can claim their medals. It cannot. The better question is what a Mason can learn by studying the decisions they made when duty became dangerous.

The 150 Documented Freemasons in This Study

The roster below reflects the two-source standard used in this project. Of the 150 men, 128 came from the Masonic Service Association roster after identity cleanup, 11 from National Sojourners research, six from an additional Masonic Medal of Honor compilation, four from Denslow, and one from a Smithsonian historical annotation. The Masonic Service Association source itself identifies its Medal of Honor list beginning with John Gregory Bishop Adams and proceeding through more than 100 named recipients and lodge affiliations. National Sojourners' 2026 research independently reports the larger universe of 164 confirmed Masons.

Recipient	Masonic affiliation documented in this study
Adolphus Washington Greely	St. Marks Lodge, Newburyport, Massachusetts
Albert E. Fernald	Howard Lodge No. 69, Winterport, Maine
Albert Knaak	Olive Branch Lodge No. 47, South Dakota
Albert Power	Franklin Lodge No. 14, Bloomfield, Iowa
Alexander Gordon Lyle	St. Paul's Lodge No. 14, Newport, Rhode Island
Allan H. Dougall	Home Lodge No. 342, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Amasa S. Tracy	Union Lodge No. 2, Middlebury, Vermont
Arthur MacArthur Jr.	Magnolia Lodge No. 60, Little Rock, Arkansas
Audie Leon Murphy	North Hollywood Lodge No. 542, California
Augustus J. Robbins	DeWitt Clinton Lodge No. 15, Northfield, Vermont
Benjamin F. Tracy	Friendship Lodge No. 153, New York
Benjamin Kaufman	True Craftsman Lodge No. 202, Trenton, New Jersey
Bruno A. Forsterer	33rd degree; Oakland Chapter No. 108, National Sojourners
Carl Emil Petersen	Americus Lodge No. 83, Woodbridge, New Jersey
Carl H. Dodd	Kentucky Chapter No. 134, National Sojourners
Carl L. Sitter	Oasis of Mara Lodge No. 735, Twentynine Palms, California
Carle A. Woodruff	Hancock Lodge No. 331, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Carlos Carnes Ogden	Catlin Lodge No. 285, Illinois
Cassius Peck	Mystic Star Lodge No. 97, Brookfield, Vermont
Charles A. Varnum	Olive Branch Lodge No. 47, Sturgis, South Dakota
Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr.	Keystone Lodge No. 243, St. Louis, Missouri
Charles G. Gould	West River Lodge No. 57, Londonderry, Vermont
Charles H. Marsh	St. Peter's Lodge No. 21, New Milford, Connecticut
Charles Porter Mattocks	Portland Lodge No. 1, Maine
Christian F. Schilt	Olney Lodge No. 140, Illinois
Daniel A. Dorsey	"Emd Lodge No. 19, OK" — transcription remains unclear
Daniel Adams Butterfield	Metropolitan Lodge No. 273, New York, New York
Daniel D. Wheeler	Lafayette Lodge No. 3, Proctorsville, Vermont
Dennis W. Hickey	Fort Edward Lodge No. 267, New York
Donald A. Gary	Garden Grove Lodge No. 586, California
Donald E. Rudolph	Khurum Lodge No. 112, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Alt Heidelberg No. 821
Douglas MacArthur	Manila Lodge No. 1, Philippines
Edward Settle Godfrey	Freemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
Edward Vernon Rickenbacker	Kilwinning Lodge No. 297, Detroit, Michigan
Erastus W. Jewett	Washington Lodge No. 3, Burlington, Vermont
Erwin R. Bleckley	Wichita Chapter No. 24, National Sojourners
Francis E. Warren	Cheyenne Lodge No. 1, Wyoming
Francis Jay Herron	Mosaic Lodge No. 125, Dubuque, Iowa
Frank Dwight Baldwin	Siloam Lodge No. 35, Constantine, Michigan
Frank Friday Fletcher	Onyx Lodge No. 419, Sanborn, Iowa
Frank G. Butterfield	King Solomon's Temple Lodge No. 45, Vermont
George Henry Maynard	Monitor Lodge, Waltham, Massachusetts
George Newman Bliss	Union Lodge No. 10, Pawtucket, Rhode Island
George Seanor Robb	Salina Lodge No. 60, Kansas
George W. Brush	Freemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
George White Hooker	West River Lodge No. 57, Londonderry, Vermont
Harold L. Turner	Seminole City Lodge No. 476, Seminole, Oklahoma
Henry A. Barnum	Central City Lodge No. 305, Syracuse, New York
Henry C. Drexler	Doric Lodge No. 30, Millville, Delaware
Henry C. Nichols	Central Lodge No. 62, Irasburg, Vermont
Henry Capehart	Ohio City Lodge No. 486, Martins Ferry, Ohio
Henry Clay Merriam	Waterville Lodge No. 33, Maine
Henry Clay Wood	Temple Lodge No. 25, Winthrop, Maine
Henry W. Rowe	Lafayette Lodge No. 41, Manchester, New Hampshire
Henry Ware Lawton	Summit City Lodge No. 170, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Horatio Collins King	33rd-degree Mason; specific lodge not identified in the Smithsonian annotation
Hulon B. Whittington	Oak Harbor Lodge No. 495, Ohio
Jacklyn H. Lucas	Indian Lodge No. 405
Jackson Charles Pharris	William H. Upton Lodge No. 206, Washington
James Alexander Williamson	Freemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
James C. Dozier	Columbia Lodge No. 326, South Carolina
James Dunlavy	Quitman Lodge No. 217, Stiles, Iowa
James H. Doolittle	Hollenbeck Lodge No. 319, Los Angeles, California
James H. Luther	Bristol Lodge, North Attleboro, Massachusetts
James M. Drake	Orient Lodge No. 126, Elizabeth, New Jersey
James M. Drury	Olive Branch Lodge No. 64, Chester, Vermont
James Montross Burt	Evening Star Lodge, Lee, Massachusetts
James Parke Postles	Eureka Lodge No. 23, Wilmington, Delaware
James T. Clancy	Munn Lodge No. 190, New York, New York
Joe M. Jackson	Coweta Lodge No. 60, Newnan, Georgia
Joel H. Lyman	Randolph Lodge No. 359, New York
John C. Curtis	St. Johns Lodge No. 8, Stratford, Connecticut
John Charles Black	Olive Branch Lodge No. 38, Danville, Illinois
John Cleveland Robinson	Binghamton Lodge No. 177, New York
John Frederick Hartranft	Charity Lodge No. 190, Norristown, Pennsylvania
John Gregory Bishop Adams	Columbian Lodge, Boston, Massachusetts
John Hack	Trenton Lodge No. 111, Missouri
John Henry Balch	Howard Lodge No. 1134, Chicago, Illinois
John J. Clausey	San Diego Chapter No. 45, National Sojourners
John T. Kennedy	Hancock Lodge No. 311, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
John W. Clark	Aurora Lodge No. 22, Montpelier, Vermont
Jonathan M. Wainwright IV	Union Lodge No. 7, Junction City, Kansas
Joseph J. Foss	Minnehaha Lodge No. 5, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Joseph S. Smith	St. Andrew's Lodge No. 83, Bangor, Maine
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain	United Lodge No. 8, Brunswick, Maine
Josiah O. Livingston	Sherman Lodge No. 72, West Topsham, Vermont
LeRoy Williams	Cleveland Chapter No. 23, National Sojourners
Leo K. Thorsness	Unity Lodge No. 130, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Leonard Wood	Anglo Saxon Lodge No. 137, Brooklyn, New York
Lewis Addison Grant	King Solomon Temple Lodge No. 45, Vermont
Lewis L. Millett	Tyrian Lodge No. 73, Mechanic Falls, Maine
Louis J. Van Schaick	Golden Gate Chapter No. 18, National Sojourners
Lowell Mason Maxham	King David Lodge, Taunton, Massachusetts
Matthew Stanley Quay	St. James Lodge No. 457, Beaver, Pennsylvania
Merritt A. Edson	Olive Branch Lodge No. 64, Chester, Vermont
Morgan D. Lane	Washington Lodge No. 5, Atchison, Kansas
Moses Augustus Luce	San Diego Lodge No. 3, California
Nathan Green Gordon	Morrilton Lodge No. 105, Arkansas
Nathaniel M. Allen	St. John's Lodge, Newburyport, Massachusetts
Nelson Appleton Miles	California Lodge No. 278, Los Angeles, California
Newton Martin Curtis	Ogdensburg Lodge No. 128, New York
Orlando Henderson Petty	Roxborough Lodge No. 135, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Paul F. Straub	Mt. Pleasant Lodge No. 8, Iowa
Phillip Carl Katz	Argonne Lodge No. 51, San Francisco, California
Randolph C. Berkeley	Quantico Chapter No. 44, National Sojourners
Richard Evelyn Byrd Jr.	Federal Lodge No. 1, Washington, D.C.
Richard L. Tea	Aztlan Lodge No. 4, Prescott, Arizona
Richard Napoleon Batchelder	Lafayette Lodge No. 41, Manchester, New Hampshire
Robert Earl Bonney	Edmonds Lodge No. 165, Washington
Robert J. Coffey	Aurora Lodge No. 22, Montpelier, Vermont
Robert S. Robertson	Fort Edward Lodge No. 267, New York
Ruel M. Johnson	Goshen Lodge No. 12, Tennessee
Rufus Saxton Jr.	St. Johns Lodge No. 11, Washington, D.C.
Sammy L. Davis	33rd degree; Indiana Masonic Home No. 541; Indianapolis-Ft. Harrison Chapter No. 66; Night Stalkers No. 567
Samuel Benton Horne	St. Andrews Lodge No. 64, Winsted, Connecticut
Sidney W. Thaxter	St. Andrews Lodge No. 83, Bangor, Maine
Smedley Darlington Butler	Orient Lodge No. 289, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Squire E. Howard	Blazing Star Lodge No. 23, Townshend, Vermont
Stephen Thomas	Jackson Lodge No. 60, West Fairlee, Vermont
Theodore Roosevelt	Matinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, New York
Theodore Roosevelt Jr.	Matinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, New York
Theodore Safford Peck	Washington Lodge No. 3, Burlington, Vermont
Theodore W. Goldin	Janesville Lodge No. 55, Wisconsin
Thomas Cruse	Freemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
Thomas F. Ellsworth	Jordan Lodge, Peabody, Massachusetts
Thomas O. Seaver	Vermont Lodge No. 18, Windsor, Vermont
Thomas Wilson Bradley	Wallkill Lodge No. 627, New York
Voltaire P. Twombly	Home Lodge No. 370, Des Moines, Iowa
Wallace A. Beckwith	Brainard Lodge No. 102, New London, Connecticut
Wendell C. Neville	Golden Gate Chapter No. 18, National Sojourners
Wheelock G. Veazey	United Brethren Lodge No. 21, White River Junction, Vermont
William A. Shomo	Dormont Lodge No. 684, Pennsylvania
William A. Soderman	Annawon Lodge No. 115, West Haven, Connecticut
William Badders	Sibert Lodge, Gatun, Canal Zone, Massachusetts jurisdiction
William Croft Barnes	Gate City Lodge No. 11, Raton, New Mexico
William E. Hall	Carbon Lodge No. 16, Price, Utah
William F. Cody	Platte Valley Lodge No. 32, North Platte, Nebraska; Mark Master, Euphrates Chapter No. 15
William F. Hamberger	Washington Chapter No. 3, National Sojourners
William J. Sperry	Lafayette Lodge No. 53, Proctorsville, Vermont
William Marland	St. Matthews Lodge, Andover, Massachusetts
William Perkins Black	Olive Branch Lodge No. 38, Danville, Illinois
William R. D. Blackwood	Concordia Lodge No. 67, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
William R. Shafter	Prairie Lodge No. 92, Galesburg, Illinois
William Wells	Washington Lodge No. 3, Burlington, Vermont
William Wirt Henry	Burlington Lodge No. 100, Vermont
William Y. W. Ripley	Center Lodge No. 34, Rutland, Vermont
Willie Sandlin	Hyden Lodge No. 664, Kentucky
Willis Winter Bradley Jr.	Golden Fleece Lodge No. 31, Forman, North Dakota
Wilmon W. Blackmar	Winchester Hiram Lodge No. 21, Winchester, Virginia
Zenas Randall Bliss	St. John's Lodge No. 1, Providence, Rhode Island

A Representative List, Not a Closed One

The most defensible conclusion from this research is not that 150 is the final number. It is that 150 can presently be supported within the rules we established for this project. National Sojourners' figure of 164 confirmed Masons strongly suggests that additional names can be substantiated, and future lodge research may push the number higher still.

There is value in resisting the urge to make the number larger merely because a larger number sounds more impressive. Every additional name should make the list stronger rather than merely longer. Historical errors reproduce themselves easily; once an unsupported statement appears in a book or website, later authors may cite one another until repetition begins to resemble proof. The two-source method interrupts that cycle.

The same humility should shape how Masons interpret the list. These medals belong to the men who earned them and to the nation that honored them. Freemasonry does not own their courage. What the Craft possesses is the opportunity to study their lives and ask what they reveal about duty when duty becomes costly.

We began this project looking for a number. What emerged instead were 150 lives stretching across generations of American history. Some of the men were famous presidents and generals. Others are nearly forgotten outside military history. Some led charges, some flew into impossible odds, some rescued wounded men, some entered burning or sinking ships, and some were recognized only decades after the moment that defined their place in the record.

The number brought us to the men.

The men remind us that virtues such as courage, fidelity, fortitude, sacrifice, and duty remain abstractions until circumstances demand that someone actually practice them. That may be the most genuinely Masonic lesson contained in the entire list.

Reflections on the Craft: Questions for Deeper Understanding

• Courage and Masonic Identity:
o Several recipients became Freemasons only after the actions for which they received the Medal of Honor. How does that distinction shape the way we should understand the relationship between Masonic membership and the virtues demonstrated in their lives?

• Recognition and Memory:
o Many recipients waited decades before receiving the Medal of Honor, while Theodore Roosevelt's recognition came more than a century after his action. What does this delay teach us about the difference between doing one's duty and receiving recognition for it?

• From Principle to Action:
o The men in this study faced circumstances in which duty, courage, and sacrifice carried real personal consequences. How can their examples challenge a Mason to move beyond speaking about principles and toward practicing them when doing so becomes difficult?

Research Sources

The principal Medal of Honor authority used in this research was the Congressional Medal of Honor Society recipient database and its individual recipient records. Masonic affiliation research drew principally from the Masonic Service Association of North America roster reproduced by John Warren Lodge, National Sojourners historian Col. Edward W. Nolte's 2026 research, William R. Denslow's 10,000 Famous Freemasons, supplementary Masonic biographical compilations, and, in the case of Horatio Collins King, the Smithsonian Institution's William Steinway Diary annotations. The underlying research workbook preserves individual source assignments, discrepancies, exclusions, corrections, and award-date classifications for all 150 men.

Poland Selected to Host Historic PAC-3 Missile Maintenance Facility, Strengthening Allied Burden-Sharing and Transatlantic Security

Oct. 27, 2026 |

Today, on the margins of the NATO Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) meeting, the United States Government, in coordination with Lockheed Martin and European Allies, announced the selection of the Republic of Poland as the host nation for the European Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Maintenance Facility (MMF). This new facility will be underpinned by robust, transatlantic industrial cooperation, with critical supply chain integration led by Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

"Delivering for warfighters—anytime, anywhere—is how we deter our adversaries and strengthen collective defense," said Michael P. Duffey, Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment. "Today's announcement puts partnership into action. By investing national resources to establish this critical sustainment capability on NATO's Eastern Front, Allies are sending a clear message: the Alliance is united, serious about deterrence, and ready to back our words with action."

This milestone directly advances the historic defense industrial commitments made at the Ankara Summit in July 2026 under the "NATO 3.0" framework, accelerating regional resilience and further enabling European Allies to undertake primary responsibility for their own conventional defense.

By establishing regional maintenance, repair, and overhaul capabilities directly within the European theater, the MMF will dramatically shorten turnaround times and further secure critical supply lines. The regional hub will significantly enhance operational readiness across Allied air and missile defense forces, ensuring rapid surge capacity during crisis and reinforcing credible collective deterrence along NATO's Eastern Front.

At its core, this initiative delivers directly to the frontline warfighter. Fusing Allied investment with world-class American defense technology directly translates transatlantic industrial capacity into combat power — keeping launchers loaded, sustaining critical operations, and ensuring NATO Allies are prepared to fight tonight.

Transcom Commander Draws Connection Between Hope, Lethality

Oct. 27, 2026 | By Matthew Olay, Pentagon News |

During his keynote remarks at U.S. Transportation Command's fall meeting in Grapevine, Texas, yesterday, Transcom's commander discussed how the concepts of hope and lethality are tied together as they relate to the world of military logistics. 

Air Force Gen. Randall Reed explained that, as he looked at how Transcom could improve and ensure the joint force is more lethal and agile, he realized hope is extremely useful for the warfighter because it gets to the root cause of any given problem. 

"Hope is an expression of uncertainty, and that identifies a gap that needs to be filled," he said. "We, as logisticians, deal with uncertainty all the time. And we organize, train and equip ourselves to fill in that gap and replace uncertainty with certainty. And when we do that, we guarantee success." 

Reed went on to explain that hope and lethality can coexist because they both stem from the same pressure. 

"The same operational pressure that creates uncertainty, driving somebody to hope, is the same operational pressure that calls for potentially the use of lethality, or at least being ready to execute that lethality," he said. 

Reed added that, once it's understood how two concepts, such as hope and lethality, can coexist and how they can be used in a practical way, "the magic happens." 

Reed said his understanding of this was more clearly illustrated by observing the logistical efforts that went into the opening days of Operation Epic Fury. 

He noted that while many people in and around the Arabian Gulf were doing all they could to run away from the source of the conflict, the military logistics enterprise was running toward it. 

"We run to the sound of guns, and we weren't just running to the sound of guns because the joint force needed us there," Reed said. "We also had our own civilians — our own citizens — and citizens from around the world who needed help to get out." 

He added that Transcom provided life-saving care to the region quickly, along with food and other essentials, while also solidifying relationships with friends, allies and partners. 

Reed explained that, by understanding this duality of lethality and hope, Transcom and industry could plan in the days leading up to Operation Epic Fury, ensuring the combatant command could make a difference. 

"And so, it's no longer foreign to me as to how these two things can coexist, and why we as practitioners can benefit from redefining this idea of hope equating to uncertainty, and then really working hard to eliminate the uncertainty to come up with solutions," he said. 

The fall meeting is an annual four-day, cosponsored event that began in 2013 to provide the government and industry partners with the opportunity to identify and solve logistics and transportation challenges, learn about innovative technologies, develop best practices, and build professional and personal relationships.

Army Battery Sharpens Skills During Nighttime Reload Training

Oct. 27, 2026 | By Army Capt. Russell Shirley-Jones, 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade |

Soldiers assigned to Delta Battery, 1st Battalion, 62nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, conducted nighttime MIM-104 Patriot missile system reload training at Fort Hood, Texas, Oct. 23, as part of the battalion's mission readiness exercise. 
 
The training challenged crews to reload Patriot M903 launching stations at night, requiring equipment handling, clear communication and coordination between the soldiers operating the launcher and the missile transport equipment. 
 
Delta Battery's leadership emphasized placing responsibility for executing the training onto the soldiers.

"Our junior leaders know what needs to get done, and we need to allow them to lead," said Army 1st Sgt. Pattrick Harris, Delta Battery first sergeant. "We set the standard, give them the resources and let them execute. That's how they build confidence, and that's how we find out what our crews are capable of."

The soldiers operated a modified M985 heavy expanded mobility tactical truck equipped with a heavy-duty crane. The crew worked together to safely remove and replace training missile canisters on the launching station, coordinating their movements to lift, position and secure each one.

Although headlamps helped soldiers see their work areas, limited visibility still required crews to maintain communication and stay alert for personnel and equipment. 
 
Army Sgt. Kolby Bagley, who served as the signal person for the reload crew, helped coordinate equipment movements while working with his fellow soldiers. 
 
"The training went really well, and we were moving at a good pace," Bagley said. "One of the biggest things I took away from this reload [training] was learning to trust my safety more. You have to trust the people around you to do their jobs."

For Army Capt. Grace Ko, Delta Battery commander, the training was an opportunity to build confidence in the crews' abilities. 
 
"It's not enough to get a Patriot system into position. Our soldiers must be able to keep it operational," Ko said. "Training these reloads at night gives our crews experience working through challenges they could face during a real mission. We need to be ready to sustain the fight." 
 
Reload training was one of several events during the battalion's mission readiness exercise, which began Oct. 19. The exercise brings firing batteries, headquarters and supporting elements into the field to evaluate their ability to establish, operate and sustain Patriot air defense systems.

Barksdale Air Force Base Honor Guard Strives for Perfection

Oct. 26, 2026 | By Air Force Airman 1st Class Maxwell Cunningham, 2nd Bomb Wing |

Behind every military honor is a service member who has trained to carry out the duty with care, discipline and respect.

The time spent preparing for ceremonies often goes unseen, but honor guard airmen at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, work hard to ensure service members and veterans receive the recognition they deserve.

Airman 1st Class Jonathan Eakin, 96th Bomber Generation Squadron crew chief, joined the base honor guard for multiple reasons.

"For me, it was a great chance to leave my normal work environment and experience something new," he said. "I wanted an opportunity to represent Barksdale and the Air Force by paying tribute to those who served before me."

Barksdale's honor guard airmen represent the base and the Air Force during funerals, retirements, change of command ceremonies and other official events. Each one requires the airmen to maintain discipline and professionalism while carrying out their responsibilities.

Every ceremony involves hours of preparation. Members check their equipment, inspect their uniforms and practice their movements to ensure everything is ready beforehand.

"Once the ceremony begins, there's no room for errors," Eakin said. "We aim to make the ceremonies appear easy, as if we didn't invest hours of effort into them."

Senior Airman Imagio Di Dio Moncrief, a 2nd Maintenance Squadron aerospace ground equipment journeyman currently serving in the base honor guard, said the work requires teamwork and attention to detail.

"Something people may not realize is how much discipline, practice and attention to detail goes into every ceremony," Moncrief said. "Every movement matters, and we understand the importance of getting things right because it means so much to the families."

During training, honor guard members spend hours rehearsing movements until they become second nature. They focus on timing, spacing, posture and precision, so each member moves in sync.

"Even a minor detail can influence how the whole ceremony is viewed," Eakin said. "Achieving perfection is the goal."

Senior Airman Crystal Thomas, a 2nd Operational Medical Readiness Squadron mental health technician currently serving in the base honor guard, said the responsibility also requires emotional strength.

"People may not realize the emotional impact of honoring fallen service members and supporting their family members during difficult moments," Thomas said. "Serving in the honor guard is more than performing ceremonies. It's about showing respect, preserving military traditions and representing the Air Force even when the responsibility is emotionally taxing."

One accomplishment Eakin takes pride in is becoming a trainer. He now has the opportunity to help other guardsmen develop their skills and prepare for ceremonies.

"I'm not just taking part in the ceremony, but I also have the opportunity to impact the future generation of guardsmen," he said.

For Thomas, rendering military honors is also a way to recognize the sacrifices made by those who served.

"Knowing that our presence can bring comfort to grieving families and honor a lifetime of service makes this responsibility especially important to me," she said.

One of Eakin's most memorable experiences was an active-duty funeral where he led a firing party. After weeks of practice, he said seeing the team carry out the ceremony was especially meaningful, knowing their dedication helped honor the airman's service and sacrifice while providing a moment of respect and comfort to the grieving family.

His time in the base honor guard has also changed how he views military service. Participating in ceremonies and seeing their impact on families and friends has given him a greater appreciation for those who served before him.

"Our uniform represents a long history of individuals who made sacrifices before us," Eakin said. "It inspires me to maintain that standard while I'm serving, regardless of my actions."

For the airmen who serve in the base honor guard, the responsibility extends beyond completing a ceremony. Their work helps families know their loved ones are being recognized with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Joint Statement, USS Colorado (SSN 788) Announced as First Submarine for Submarine Rotational Force – West

 Oct. 26, 2026 |

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles, and UK Secretary of State for Defence Wes Streeting are pleased to announce the designation of the USS Colorado (SSN 788) as the first U.S. Navy Virginia-class fast-attack submarine assigned to Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West) beginning in late 2027.

This announcement comes ahead of the upcoming United States Submarine Maintenance Period, which begins later this week and will further demonstrate Australia's growing ability to sustain U.S. and UK nuclear-powered fast-attack submarines.
 
SRF-West is projected to host up to four U.S. fast-attack submarines and one UK fast-attack submarine on a rotational basis at HMAS Stirling, a Royal Australian Navy base in Western Australia.   

SRF-West will accelerate Australia's readiness to own, operate, maintain, and regulate a sovereign, conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability, as well as support submarine deployments by expanding maintenance options and sustainment infrastructure in the region for AUKUS partners.

SRF-West, established at Australia's invitation and as mutually determined, will operate in accordance with relevant international agreements between and among the United States, Australia, and the UK, including the United States – Australia Force Posture Agreement. AUKUS activities associated with SRF-West will be conducted  consistent with the AUKUS partners' respective international obligations, including those under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and Australia's obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga). 

As President Trump has stated, and Prime Minister Albanese and Prime Minister Burnham have reaffirmed, AUKUS is moving "full steam ahead." The selection of USS Colorado (SSN 788) as the first submarine assigned to SRF-West in 2027 marks a significant milestone for AUKUS Pillar I and is a decisive step in strengthening collective deterrence in the Pacific.

Medal of Honor Monday: Army 1st Lt. Victor Leonard Kandle

Oct. 26, 2026 | By David Vergun, Pentagon News |

Army 1st Lt. Victor Leonard Kandle was an infantryman during World War II whose bravery, leadership and complete disregard for his own personal safety led to him posthumously receiving the Medal of Honor in 1945.

Kandle was born June 13, 1921, in Roy, Washington. His father, Clyde, was an electrician at a sawmill, and his mother was Ilma May Swanson. Kandle was the middle child between older brother Gene and younger sister Shirley. 

In 1939, Kandle graduated from Puyallup High School in Puyallup, Washington, and shortly thereafter, the family moved to Redwood City, California. In September 1940, he enlisted in the Army, completed basic training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and was assigned to the 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. In January 1942, he married Marigene Lee, and their son Terry was born two years later. 

In spring 1942, his regiment moved to Fort Ord, California, for coastal defense duty and amphibious landing training, and on Oct. 24, 1942, it shipped out to Fedala in French Morocco for Operation Torch, landing there Nov. 8, 1942. It would be the first of Kandle's many combat experiences, as the landings were met with resistance from Vichy French forces.

On July 10, 1943, the regiment landed in Sicily as part of Operation Husky, and in September, it invaded the Italian mainland after landing at Salerno and pushing north. During subsequent fighting, then-Army Staff Sgt. Kandle distinguished himself with his leadership and received a battlefield commission to second lieutenant in December 1943. He was again promoted after continuing to show bravery and strong leadership, earning the silver bars of first lieutenant the following May. 

On Aug. 15, 1944, the regiment landed on the beaches of the French Riviera, as part of Operation Dragoon, and the soldiers fought their way through the Vosges Mountains in northeastern France.

At around noon Oct. 9, 1944, Kandle had already captured five enemy prisoners and was serving as a platoon leader leading a 16-man reconnaissance patrol into enemy territory over mountainous terrain near La Forge, France. 

He engaged in a duel at point-blank range with a German officer, killing him.

His Medal of Honor citation states that the battalion had been held up for two days by heavy enemy resistance. To break the stalemate, Kandle rushed forward several yards ahead of his assault elements and fought valiantly to force the Germans to surrender.  

Harassed by machine-gun fire from a position which he had bypassed in the dense fog, Kandle moved to within 15 yards of the enemy, killed a German machine gunner and led his men in the destruction of another machine-gun crew and its rifle security elements.  

Finally, he led his small force against a fortified house held by two German officers and 30 enlisted men. After establishing a base of fire, Kandle again rushed forward alone through an open clearing in full view of the enemy, smashed through a barricaded door, and forced all 32 Germans to surrender.  

His intrepidity and bold leadership resulted in the capture or killing of three enemy officers and 54 enlisted men, the destruction of three enemy strongpoints and the seizure of enemy positions, which had halted the battalion's attack. 

In the weeks that followed, the 3rd Infantry Division continued to face heavy enemy resistance in the mountainous terrain and the December subzero temperatures. While fighting in the Colmar Pocket of the Alsace region of France, Kandle was killed Dec. 31, 1944, while leading his platoon against a German attack.

Kandle is buried in Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial in Epinal, France, where thousands of his comrades are also buried. 

Army Maj. Gen. Henry C. Pratt, commander of then-Western Defense Command, presented the Medal of Honor to Marigene Kandle during a ceremony at Presidio of San Francisco, May 11, 1945. 

Kandle Pool in Tacoma, Washington, is named for him, and in 2019, Puyallup High School dedicated a memorial to the 1939 graduate; his son Terry Kandle and grandson Victor attended the ceremony. 

The Army Reserve Center in Tacoma, Washington, was named for him, and after its closure, Terry Kandle retrieved the 60-pound bronze plaque and worked with his father's hometown to find it a new home. In 2024, the lobby of Puyallup City Hall was dedicated to Kandle. 

Project Agincourt Leaders Reach Out to Industry With Path Forward

Oct. 23, 2026 | By C. Todd Lopez, Pentagon News |

In an open letter to industry partners and the joint force this week, Project Agincourt leaders set the tone for how the Autonomous Warfare Command will develop. 

Last month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth tasked the Agincourt team with two missions: first, stand up a new four-star functional combatant command. The Autonomous Warfare Command will lead the joint force in unmanned autonomous warfare.  

The second mission: continue the ongoing work of the direct reporting portfolio manager for unmanned systems. 

Owen West and Max Strasiser, the chief executive officer and chief operating officer, respectively — both appointed by Hegseth to lead Project Agincourt — discussed their vision, which includes a combat-first model that pushes procurement decisions and dollars directly to frontline warfighters. Success will be measured by how fast an operational problem receives a fielded, scalable solution on the battlefield. 

The team also noted that past tools for projecting American military power are no longer sufficient. 

"Since the Cold War, American power projection has rested on a small number of sophisticated, expensive weapons," West and Strasiser wrote. "That model has been disrupted. The U.S. can build a new generational advantage by adapting at the edge faster than adversaries by leveraging two strengths: our lead in super intelligence, and an unmatched [noncommissioned officer] corps." 

The pair also noted that low-cost drones have changed the character, speed and economics of warfare. Hegseth tasked them with ensuring the U.S. keeps pace with adversaries in developing, manufacturing and deploying low-cost autonomous systems. 

"Urgency does not excuse imprecision," they wrote. "We will work analytically with the Joint Staff, the services and, above all, the operational units that will serve as our incubators. Evidence will decide outcomes. Competitions, exercises and combat performance will determine which systems scale, and which are cut." 

West and Strasiser said the "power of the purse" demands strict stewardship, adding that, to flip the cost exchange, every auditable dollar spent should reduce cost or risk. 

Autonomous Warfare Command is expected to be operational by Oct. 1, 2027. 

"We are on the clock," West and Strasiser wrote. "In service of Autowarcom, [Project] Agincourt must quickly remove the barriers that constrain the initiative of our service members by fusing operations and development. ... If we get this right, we will do more than establish a new command. Autowarcom will institutionalize a mission-based system whose main product is adaptation, building a next-generation development model for sustained American military advantage."

Naval Unmanned Helicopters Get Second Life

Oct. 23, 2026 | By Megan Wasel, Portfolio Acquisition Executive Aviation |

In a prime demonstration of joint force agility and resource optimization, the Navy and Army partnered to rapidly repurpose divested MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopters, transforming excess inventory into dynamic test assets. 

At the direction of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy began divesting the MQ-8C Fire Scout platform in February 2024, with a final sundown scheduled by the end of fiscal year 2026. However, a rapid joint initiative has given these advanced unmanned aerial systems a second life and accelerated critical testing for the Army. 

The Multi-Mission Tactical UAS Program Office was roughly 60% complete with the overall divestment process of transferring aircraft, mobile control systems and support equipment to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group in Tucson, Arizona, when a request for information arrived from the Army to discuss a potential handover of the assets. 

In November 2024, the program office received a request to evaluate whether the MQ-8C Fire Scout, which was nearing its sundown, could serve as a captive carry testbed for the U.S. Army Redstone Test Center, a subordinate organization under the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. 

By December, cooperating teams scheduled a site visit to Point Mugu, California, to evaluate the MQ-8C and its mission control systems. 

A month later, the test center submitted a formal request to the Navy for four MQ-8C aircraft, two mobile mission control systems, spare engines and associated support equipment for site standup at Redstone Arsenal. 

The request was approved in May 2025. By July, all four aircraft, both control systems and dual site support equipment were successfully delivered to Redstone Arsenal to facilitate test center operational plans. 

The program office also collaborated with Naval Supply Systems Command to secure vital communications security assets — including radios, transponders and modems — that had already been returned to common stock earlier in the divestment process. Following a year of collaborative negotiations, the final assets arrived at Redstone Arsenal this July. 

"Considering where we started — having zero experience with these systems — it's quite remarkable what has been accomplished," said Army Chief Warrant Officer 4 Taylor Kiel, test director and experimental test pilot with the test center's Aviation Flight Test Directorate. "We are certainly thankful for the many people across various organizations that helped us along the way." 

In August, the center successfully completed ground testing and launched flight tests at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, and Redstone Arsenal, building aircrew confidence and providing hands-on maintenance experience. This collaborative effort saved the Army just over $70 million in procurement costs, with additional cost savings in research, development, test and evaluation, flight hours, data collection, contracts, asset sourcing and manpower. 

"Our priority is delivering lethal and ready capabilities to the warfighters," said Marine Corps Col. Leigh Irwin, program office manager. "Repurposing these MQ-8C assets from storage to active testing is a major acquisition win for both services, demonstrating how we can supercharge existing capabilities and increase acquisition velocity to support joint operations."  

Completing this transition and initiating flight tests within 14 months stands as a testament to the rapid acquisition timeline and the resilience of the MQ-8C platform, and it represents a remarkable joint achievement by the program office, the Navy and the Army in support of the warfighter, Irwin said.