Friday, October 30, 2026

Department of War Releases Fiscal Year 2026 Military Intelligence Program Budget

Today, the Department of War released the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) appropriated top line budget for fiscal year 2026. The total was $30.9 billion and is aligned to the National Defense Strategy.

The Department determined that releasing this top line figure does not jeopardize any classified activities within the MIP.  No other MIP budget figures or program details will be released, as they remain classified for national security reasons.

Thursday, October 29, 2026

Army Mountain Division Takes on Panamanian Jungle

A man in a camouflage military uniform and tactical gear kneels in a jungle clearing and speaks to five people in similar attire gathered around him.

"Through the heat or cold of snow," the words of the 10th Mountain Division song reflect a legacy of perseverance through tough and demanding conditions. Earlier this month, the legacy took on a new environment as soldiers entered the jungles of Panama.

For the first time in decades, Black Hawk Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Mobile Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, attended the 12-day Jungle Operations Training Course – Panama as a unit. This opportunity allowed soldiers to develop leadership throughout the course while receiving instruction from experienced instructors, transforming the course into a collective training environment.

"You're attending the same classes, wearing the same uniform [and] eating the same chow," said Army 1st Sgt. Geoffrey Tate, company senior enlisted advisor. "Training together as an organic unit — it's beneficial to units because it gives leaders the chance to see their subordinate leaders and soldiers within their unit work in real time."

This experience offered opportunities for units to train together as a cohesive force, building lethality by teaching soldiers to adapt under pressure, rely on one another and work together to overcome challenges.

"One thing I've learned out here in the jungle that will stick with me is that it's an unforgiving terrain in an unforgiving environment," Tate said. "It really is a bonding experience, and maybe a little trauma bonding, but bonding nonetheless."

As soldiers faced the demanding course, leaders observed how they made decisions and communicated under pressure.

"The biggest lessons that I hope these soldiers learn is that they synthesize all of the tactics and techniques that they learn here," said Army Sgt. 1st Class Ero Wainio, jungle course senior survival instructor. "And that they're able to develop courses of action and standard operating procedures, which will enable them on their mission."

While combat training centers such as the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, and the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana, provide demanding field training environments, the jungle course gives units opportunities to train in an unknown environment not found in the United States.

"This environment is nothing like you'll encounter at JRTC, NTC or any training center that we currently have," Tate said.

For most units, training stays within their home station, leaving soldiers lacking experience in unfamiliar terrains.

"The course offers a lot of opportunities to identify strengths and improvements," Wainio said. "Because the environment is challenging, they get to see their organic leaders and their soldiers operating in an environment that they're unfamiliar with."

Moving through the jungle presents challenges that go beyond navigating through heavy vegetation and difficult terrain.

"The biggest difference that I've noticed, with training out in the jungle versus training at my home station, is that technology is not reliable in this environment," Tate said. "Communications aren't reliable in this environment."

A ground-level view of a military helicopter flying overhead.

These new challenges required soldiers to adapt in new ways. This experience gave Black Hawk Company the opportunity to identify areas for improvement, strengthen communication and build confidence in one another.

"The skills that they learn here, once jungle tested, help them understand that they can survive anywhere," Wainio said.

For Tate, seeing members of his unit endure the course firsthand was the most rewarding aspect of the experience.

"Coming out to Panama to train with my company has been a valuable experience," he said. "Watching them grow in the face of adversity and dealing with the stress of negotiating obstacles has been absolutely rewarding for me as a first sergeant."

Assistant Secretary Says New Infrastructure Initiatives Are a 'National Calling'

The War Department embarked this year on new initiatives to strengthen the infrastructure of military installations and to build a new prototype American base, said Dale Marks, assistant secretary of war for energy, installations and environment, earlier this week at a convention in Tampa, Florida. 

"The visions for Fortress America and the Next Great American Base are not business-as-usual bureaucratic programs," he said. "They are a national calling." 

A person in business attire talks to an person wearing a camouflage uniform while standing near a window.

Getting where the department wants to go with its installation footprint will mean overcoming a variety of hurdles, the biggest of which are time and bureaucratic inertia, Marks told attendees of the Association of Defense Communities convention.  

"We must discard the comfortable complacency of a peacetime mindset and execute at a wartime tempo," he said. 

Stressing the need for a rapid operations tempo, Marks said those industry partners who move the fastest and have the boldest vision will earn the right to build America's premier military community. 

"Let us build installations worthy of the warriors who call them home," he said. "Let us forge the partnerships required to secure our homeland. And let us ensure that whenever the call comes, the United States of America possesses the unshakeable power to prevail." 

Three warning signs indicate the importance of succeeding with both Fortress America and the Next Great American Base, Marks said, "flashing red across every dashboard in our national security apparatus." 

Those include: 

  • Hostile actors in the homeland. Marks said these actors have prepositioned malicious access within American energy, water and communications grids, adding that an adversary no longer needs to run an air blockade. They simply need to flip a breaker switch inside the country's domestic infrastructure. 
  • Modern warfare eliminating the safe rear echelon. Precision cruise missiles and one-way attack drones mean "geography no longer guarantees survival," he said.  
  • America losing the race for operational speed. In modern conflicts, combatants are writing code, retraining machine-learning target models and deploying modified autonomous systems "in matters of weeks," he said. "Yet inside our defense establishment, algorithm updates take months or years to crawl through red tape and antiquated [information technology] networks. We cannot win the technology race from a starting position 80 years in the past."

A man in business attire stands in a dormitory room with mold on one wall and peeling paint on another.

American power, Marks said, must emanate from a strong base at home. That's the aim of initiatives related to Fortress America and the Next Great American Base. 

"You cannot project decisive power abroad from a brittle foundation at home," he said. "That's why piecemeal adjustments will not suffice." 

Fortress America, which along with the Next Great American Base, is one of six emphases Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced in recent months.  

These are "our national insurance policy," Marks said. "It's the unbreakable promise that the American home front can never be starved out, shut down, or cut off from the fight." 

That promise relies on five core pillars — sovereign energy independence, domestic supply chain resilience, installation hardening and cyber resilience, strategic defense reserves, and space and spectrum resilience.   

"Fortress America is the shield that ensures our homeland can never be held hostage," Marks said. "But to deter conflict and guarantee victory, a nation cannot rely on a shield alone. You must also forge the sword." 

A man in a camouflage military uniform, safety vest and hard hat talks to another man in a camouflage military uniform outside as they look at an architectural rendering on an easel.

The Next Great American Base is how Fortress America manifests itself, he said. 

"We are no longer building real estate," he said. "We are building sovereign combat weapons systems." 

And the benchmark is to "build it once, build it beautifully and build it to endure," he added. 

The prototype base translates the pillars of Fortress America into a self-reliant combat installation designed to operate without civilian lifelines. Among other things, the base will generate its own power with microgrids and a small nuclear reactor, operate "air-gapped" computer networks, and secure and recycle closed-loop water supplies.

While Fortress America installations will use a public-private economic model, they will be designed to rely on their own infrastructure for 30 days, completely detached from external utilities in case the surrounding civilian grid collapses. 

"The question is no longer 'what mission will this base host?'" he said. "The question is 'what new dimensions of American deterrence and lethal power are now possible because this platform exists?'"

Marks said pragmatists will ask why a clean-sheet proposal is better than retrofitting existing installations, but an upgraded base is "the modern equivalent of riding a horse into a drone storm. You cannot win a software-defined war from an industrial-age saddle." 

Once the prototype base is proven, its systems and lessons will be exported to legacy installations, he said. "It gives them the armored chassis they need to survive." 

As the two initiatives develop, the human element must not be forgotten, Marks said. That's why living conditions for service members must be improved.  

"Our most decisive weapon system has always been, and will always be, the individual American warfighter," he said. "The finest technology in the world is useless if our most gifted minds and dedicated warriors refuse to stay in uniform." 

The nation shouldn't expect warfighters to focus on high stakes, multidomain operations when they come home to base housing with black mold, failing plumbing and leaky roofs, he said. 

"Substandard living conditions are not minor inconveniences," Marks said. "They are an active drain on morale, combat readiness and our retention of top-tier talent." 

The Next Great American Base will include a compact, walkable concept with premier schools, advanced healthcare and town centers that foster community.  

Marine Corps Base Hawaii Barracks Project Crosses Halfway Mark

A rendering shows a five-story brick and concrete barracks with a central courtyard, lawns, a parking lot and people walking along the sidewalk.

Construction of two new barracks at Marine Corps Base Hawaii has passed the halfway mark, with structural work complete and crews installing building systems and finishing the interior.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Hawaii's $174.6 million project was about 53% complete as of Oct. 1. The two connected, five-story buildings will provide 190 rooms for up to 380 military personnel, replacing quarters that have reached the end of their usable life. 

"These new quarters are an investment in our Marines and their readiness," said Navy Capt. Andrew Hunt, NAVFAC Hawaii executive officer. "Providing modern, comfortable places to live helps Marines rest, recharge and stay focused on their mission. We're proud to work alongside our installation and construction partners to deliver these facilities." 

Dave Robbins, NAVFAC Hawaii construction manager at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, said the field workforce is central to the project.  

Crews have installed windows and railings throughout both buildings. Installation of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems has progressed through the first three floors. A mockup room helps the team evaluate finishes, coordinate building systems and establish workmanship standards. The team has also completed more than 170,000 work hours without lost time due to injury. 

The barracks will include elevators, duty offices, laundry rooms, vending areas and multipurpose spaces with kitchens and restrooms. Additional amenities include gear wash and drying areas, bicycle storage and recreational pavilions. 

The project also includes roadway and parking improvements, sidewalks, landscaping, supporting utilities, a central plant and an emergency generator. 

The project is scheduled for completion in June 2029.

Marines, Japanese Forces Sharpen Explosive Disposal Skills During Keen Sword 2027

U.S. Marines assigned to the 3rd Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company, 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, trained alongside Japan Ground Self-Defense Force members during bilateral live-fire ground response training in Okinawa, Japan, Oct. 23.

Silhouettes of six people crouch beneath a large military helicopter as it takes off on a gravel terrain.

Marines and Japanese military personnel practiced range safety procedures, equipment preparation and ground response techniques in a controlled environment. The training allowed both forces to observe each other's explosive ordnance disposal procedures and exchange knowledge.

Technical demonstrations involved thermite grenades, M112 demolition blocks, detonating cord, water charges and drones. U.S. and Japanese EOD personnel conducted the demonstrations before moving to safe distances for controlled detonations.

"By training together, we develop a better understanding of how we each operate and identify the differences and challenges between our procedures," said Marine Corps Warrant Officer Logan Maar, an EOD officer assigned to 3rd EOD Company.

Maar added that discussing procedures in a classroom is one thing but executing them together in a live training environment is another.

"This training is important because not only does it build cohesion with our partner force but it also allows them to see what tools we have and how we employ them," said Marine Corps Sgt. Daniel Arroyo, an EOD technician assigned to 3rd EOD Company.

Arroyo noted that using thermite and selecting appropriate methods reduces the amount of explosive material needed and alleviates potential damage to surrounding areas during detonation.

Japanese personnel learned how their U.S. counterparts approach operational decisions.

"The first time we figure out how to work together should not be during a real-world crisis, so training together like this is important," Maar said. "I've learned the Japanese have a lot of similar capabilities that we have, and a lot of their training is done the same way."

Wednesday, October 28, 2026

Hegseth Outlines Cooperative Agenda for Regional Stability in Asia

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.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sits with other officials in a blue-accented room.

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. 

A man in business attire walks down the stairway of a large passenger jet on a flight line while three people on the ground wait to meet him.

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

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.

Tuesday, October 27, 2026

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.

RecipientMasonic affiliation documented in this study
Adolphus Washington GreelySt. Marks Lodge, Newburyport, Massachusetts
Albert E. FernaldHoward Lodge No. 69, Winterport, Maine
Albert KnaakOlive Branch Lodge No. 47, South Dakota
Albert PowerFranklin Lodge No. 14, Bloomfield, Iowa
Alexander Gordon LyleSt. Paul's Lodge No. 14, Newport, Rhode Island
Allan H. DougallHome Lodge No. 342, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Amasa S. TracyUnion Lodge No. 2, Middlebury, Vermont
Arthur MacArthur Jr.Magnolia Lodge No. 60, Little Rock, Arkansas
Audie Leon MurphyNorth Hollywood Lodge No. 542, California
Augustus J. RobbinsDeWitt Clinton Lodge No. 15, Northfield, Vermont
Benjamin F. TracyFriendship Lodge No. 153, New York
Benjamin KaufmanTrue Craftsman Lodge No. 202, Trenton, New Jersey
Bruno A. Forsterer33rd degree; Oakland Chapter No. 108, National Sojourners
Carl Emil PetersenAmericus Lodge No. 83, Woodbridge, New Jersey
Carl H. DoddKentucky Chapter No. 134, National Sojourners
Carl L. SitterOasis of Mara Lodge No. 735, Twentynine Palms, California
Carle A. WoodruffHancock Lodge No. 331, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Carlos Carnes OgdenCatlin Lodge No. 285, Illinois
Cassius PeckMystic Star Lodge No. 97, Brookfield, Vermont
Charles A. VarnumOlive Branch Lodge No. 47, Sturgis, South Dakota
Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr.Keystone Lodge No. 243, St. Louis, Missouri
Charles G. GouldWest River Lodge No. 57, Londonderry, Vermont
Charles H. MarshSt. Peter's Lodge No. 21, New Milford, Connecticut
Charles Porter MattocksPortland Lodge No. 1, Maine
Christian F. SchiltOlney Lodge No. 140, Illinois
Daniel A. Dorsey"Emd Lodge No. 19, OK" — transcription remains unclear
Daniel Adams ButterfieldMetropolitan Lodge No. 273, New York, New York
Daniel D. WheelerLafayette Lodge No. 3, Proctorsville, Vermont
Dennis W. HickeyFort Edward Lodge No. 267, New York
Donald A. GaryGarden Grove Lodge No. 586, California
Donald E. RudolphKhurum Lodge No. 112, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Alt Heidelberg No. 821
Douglas MacArthurManila Lodge No. 1, Philippines
Edward Settle GodfreyFreemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
Edward Vernon RickenbackerKilwinning Lodge No. 297, Detroit, Michigan
Erastus W. JewettWashington Lodge No. 3, Burlington, Vermont
Erwin R. BleckleyWichita Chapter No. 24, National Sojourners
Francis E. WarrenCheyenne Lodge No. 1, Wyoming
Francis Jay HerronMosaic Lodge No. 125, Dubuque, Iowa
Frank Dwight BaldwinSiloam Lodge No. 35, Constantine, Michigan
Frank Friday FletcherOnyx Lodge No. 419, Sanborn, Iowa
Frank G. ButterfieldKing Solomon's Temple Lodge No. 45, Vermont
George Henry MaynardMonitor Lodge, Waltham, Massachusetts
George Newman BlissUnion Lodge No. 10, Pawtucket, Rhode Island
George Seanor RobbSalina Lodge No. 60, Kansas
George W. BrushFreemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
George White HookerWest River Lodge No. 57, Londonderry, Vermont
Harold L. TurnerSeminole City Lodge No. 476, Seminole, Oklahoma
Henry A. BarnumCentral City Lodge No. 305, Syracuse, New York
Henry C. DrexlerDoric Lodge No. 30, Millville, Delaware
Henry C. NicholsCentral Lodge No. 62, Irasburg, Vermont
Henry CapehartOhio City Lodge No. 486, Martins Ferry, Ohio
Henry Clay MerriamWaterville Lodge No. 33, Maine
Henry Clay WoodTemple Lodge No. 25, Winthrop, Maine
Henry W. RoweLafayette Lodge No. 41, Manchester, New Hampshire
Henry Ware LawtonSummit City Lodge No. 170, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Horatio Collins King33rd-degree Mason; specific lodge not identified in the Smithsonian annotation
Hulon B. WhittingtonOak Harbor Lodge No. 495, Ohio
Jacklyn H. LucasIndian Lodge No. 405
Jackson Charles PharrisWilliam H. Upton Lodge No. 206, Washington
James Alexander WilliamsonFreemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
James C. DozierColumbia Lodge No. 326, South Carolina
James DunlavyQuitman Lodge No. 217, Stiles, Iowa
James H. DoolittleHollenbeck Lodge No. 319, Los Angeles, California
James H. LutherBristol Lodge, North Attleboro, Massachusetts
James M. DrakeOrient Lodge No. 126, Elizabeth, New Jersey
James M. DruryOlive Branch Lodge No. 64, Chester, Vermont
James Montross BurtEvening Star Lodge, Lee, Massachusetts
James Parke PostlesEureka Lodge No. 23, Wilmington, Delaware
James T. ClancyMunn Lodge No. 190, New York, New York
Joe M. JacksonCoweta Lodge No. 60, Newnan, Georgia
Joel H. LymanRandolph Lodge No. 359, New York
John C. CurtisSt. Johns Lodge No. 8, Stratford, Connecticut
John Charles BlackOlive Branch Lodge No. 38, Danville, Illinois
John Cleveland RobinsonBinghamton Lodge No. 177, New York
John Frederick HartranftCharity Lodge No. 190, Norristown, Pennsylvania
John Gregory Bishop AdamsColumbian Lodge, Boston, Massachusetts
John HackTrenton Lodge No. 111, Missouri
John Henry BalchHoward Lodge No. 1134, Chicago, Illinois
John J. ClauseySan Diego Chapter No. 45, National Sojourners
John T. KennedyHancock Lodge No. 311, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
John W. ClarkAurora Lodge No. 22, Montpelier, Vermont
Jonathan M. Wainwright IVUnion Lodge No. 7, Junction City, Kansas
Joseph J. FossMinnehaha Lodge No. 5, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Joseph S. SmithSt. Andrew's Lodge No. 83, Bangor, Maine
Joshua Lawrence ChamberlainUnited Lodge No. 8, Brunswick, Maine
Josiah O. LivingstonSherman Lodge No. 72, West Topsham, Vermont
LeRoy WilliamsCleveland Chapter No. 23, National Sojourners
Leo K. ThorsnessUnity Lodge No. 130, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Leonard WoodAnglo Saxon Lodge No. 137, Brooklyn, New York
Lewis Addison GrantKing Solomon Temple Lodge No. 45, Vermont
Lewis L. MillettTyrian Lodge No. 73, Mechanic Falls, Maine
Louis J. Van SchaickGolden Gate Chapter No. 18, National Sojourners
Lowell Mason MaxhamKing David Lodge, Taunton, Massachusetts
Matthew Stanley QuaySt. James Lodge No. 457, Beaver, Pennsylvania
Merritt A. EdsonOlive Branch Lodge No. 64, Chester, Vermont
Morgan D. LaneWashington Lodge No. 5, Atchison, Kansas
Moses Augustus LuceSan Diego Lodge No. 3, California
Nathan Green GordonMorrilton Lodge No. 105, Arkansas
Nathaniel M. AllenSt. John's Lodge, Newburyport, Massachusetts
Nelson Appleton MilesCalifornia Lodge No. 278, Los Angeles, California
Newton Martin CurtisOgdensburg Lodge No. 128, New York
Orlando Henderson PettyRoxborough Lodge No. 135, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Paul F. StraubMt. Pleasant Lodge No. 8, Iowa
Phillip Carl KatzArgonne Lodge No. 51, San Francisco, California
Randolph C. BerkeleyQuantico Chapter No. 44, National Sojourners
Richard Evelyn Byrd Jr.Federal Lodge No. 1, Washington, D.C.
Richard L. TeaAztlan Lodge No. 4, Prescott, Arizona
Richard Napoleon BatchelderLafayette Lodge No. 41, Manchester, New Hampshire
Robert Earl BonneyEdmonds Lodge No. 165, Washington
Robert J. CoffeyAurora Lodge No. 22, Montpelier, Vermont
Robert S. RobertsonFort Edward Lodge No. 267, New York
Ruel M. JohnsonGoshen Lodge No. 12, Tennessee
Rufus Saxton Jr.St. Johns Lodge No. 11, Washington, D.C.
Sammy L. Davis33rd degree; Indiana Masonic Home No. 541; Indianapolis-Ft. Harrison Chapter No. 66; Night Stalkers No. 567
Samuel Benton HorneSt. Andrews Lodge No. 64, Winsted, Connecticut
Sidney W. ThaxterSt. Andrews Lodge No. 83, Bangor, Maine
Smedley Darlington ButlerOrient Lodge No. 289, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Squire E. HowardBlazing Star Lodge No. 23, Townshend, Vermont
Stephen ThomasJackson Lodge No. 60, West Fairlee, Vermont
Theodore RooseveltMatinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, New York
Theodore Roosevelt Jr.Matinecock Lodge No. 806, Oyster Bay, New York
Theodore Safford PeckWashington Lodge No. 3, Burlington, Vermont
Theodore W. GoldinJanesville Lodge No. 55, Wisconsin
Thomas CruseFreemason; specific lodge not identified in Denslow entry
Thomas F. EllsworthJordan Lodge, Peabody, Massachusetts
Thomas O. SeaverVermont Lodge No. 18, Windsor, Vermont
Thomas Wilson BradleyWallkill Lodge No. 627, New York
Voltaire P. TwomblyHome Lodge No. 370, Des Moines, Iowa
Wallace A. BeckwithBrainard Lodge No. 102, New London, Connecticut
Wendell C. NevilleGolden Gate Chapter No. 18, National Sojourners
Wheelock G. VeazeyUnited Brethren Lodge No. 21, White River Junction, Vermont
William A. ShomoDormont Lodge No. 684, Pennsylvania
William A. SodermanAnnawon Lodge No. 115, West Haven, Connecticut
William BaddersSibert Lodge, Gatun, Canal Zone, Massachusetts jurisdiction
William Croft BarnesGate City Lodge No. 11, Raton, New Mexico
William E. HallCarbon Lodge No. 16, Price, Utah
William F. CodyPlatte Valley Lodge No. 32, North Platte, Nebraska; Mark Master, Euphrates Chapter No. 15
William F. HambergerWashington Chapter No. 3, National Sojourners
William J. SperryLafayette Lodge No. 53, Proctorsville, Vermont
William MarlandSt. Matthews Lodge, Andover, Massachusetts
William Perkins BlackOlive Branch Lodge No. 38, Danville, Illinois
William R. D. BlackwoodConcordia Lodge No. 67, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
William R. ShafterPrairie Lodge No. 92, Galesburg, Illinois
William WellsWashington Lodge No. 3, Burlington, Vermont
William Wirt HenryBurlington Lodge No. 100, Vermont
William Y. W. RipleyCenter Lodge No. 34, Rutland, Vermont
Willie SandlinHyden Lodge No. 664, Kentucky
Willis Winter Bradley Jr.Golden Fleece Lodge No. 31, Forman, North Dakota
Wilmon W. BlackmarWinchester Hiram Lodge No. 21, Winchester, Virginia
Zenas Randall BlissSt. 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

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

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. 

A man in a formal military uniform stands on a stage, holding a notecard while speaking to an audience.

"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. 

A man in a formal military uniform stands on a stage, holding a notecard while speaking to an audience.

"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

A person in a camouflage military uniform guides a missile canister hanging from a crane onto a launching station at night as another person in similar attire observes.

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."

A person in a camouflage military uniform works on a missile launching station in a field at night.

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.

Monday, October 26, 2026

Barksdale Air Force Base Honor Guard Strives for Perfection

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

Six people in formal military uniforms march in formation inside a large room with flags hanging from the walls.

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."

A person in a formal military uniform salutes a folded American flag on top of a casket.

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.