The Power of Truth® has been released for sale and assignment to a conservative pro-American news outlet, cable network, or other media outlet that wants to define and brand its operation as the bearer of the truth, and set itself above the competition.

In every news story the audience hears of censorship, speech, and the truth. The Power of Truth® has significant value to define an outlet, and expand its audience. A growing media outlet may decide to rebrand their operation The Power of Truth®. An established outlet may choose to make it the slogan distinguishing their operation from the competition. You want people to think of your outlet when they hear it, and think of the slogan when they see your company name. It is the thing which answers the consumer's questions: Why should I choose you? Why should I listen to you? Think:

  • What’s in your wallet -- Capital One
  • The most trusted name in news – CNN
  • Fair and balanced - Fox News
  • Where’s the beef -- Wendy’s
  • You’re in good hands -- Allstate
  • The ultimate driving machine -- BMW

The Power of Truth® is registered at the federal trademark level in all applicable trademark classes, and the sale and assignment includes the applicable domain names. The buyer will have both the trademark and the domains so that it will control its business landscape without downrange interference.

Contact: Truth@ThePowerOfTruth.com

Just as former president Donald Trump told Fox News [1] last week that he wanted to use the U.S. military to "handle" what he called the "enemy from within" on Election Day, an obscure military policy was beginning to make the rounds on social media platforms favored by the far right. 

The focus? Department of Defense Directive 5240.01[2]

The 22-page document governs military intelligence activities and is among more than a thousand different policies that outline Defense Department procedures.

The Pentagon updated it at the end of September. Although military policies are routinely updated and reissued, the timing of this one -- just six weeks before the election and the same day Hurricane Helene slammed into the Southeast -- struck right-wing misinformation merchants as suspicious.

They latched onto a new reference in the updated directive -- "lethal force" -- and soon were falsely claiming that the change means Kamala Harris had authorized the military to kill civilians if there is unrest after the election.

That's flat-out not true, the Pentagon and experts on military policy told The War Horse.

"The provisions in [the directive] are not new, and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media," Sue Gough, a Department of Defense spokesperson, said Wednesday night.

But as Trump doubles down on his "enemy from within" rhetoric[3], DOD Directive 5240.01 continues to gain traction among his supporters as ostensible proof that Harris, not Trump, wants to use the military against American citizens.

The Conspiracy Theories

By early last week, "5240.01" began to spike on alt-tech platforms such as Rumble, 4chan, and Telegram, as well as on more mainstream platforms like X, according to an analysis by The War Horse and UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center. 

On Ron Paul’s Liberty Report, a YouTube show, the former Texas congressman told viewers that the policy meant that the country is now a "police state." Republican Maryland congressman Andy Harris told Newsmax host Chris Salcedo last Wednesday that he was concerned the Defense Department was pushing through policies without congressional oversight.

"This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they’re doing it," he said. "This means that after an election, they could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States."

Former Trump national security adviser and retired Army Lieutenant Gen. Michael Flynn tweeted the policy update out to his 1.7 million followers, just as he shared the week before a video suggesting the military had manipulated the weather to focus Hurricane Helene’s deadly fury on Republican voters in the South.[4]

This Wednesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. got into the act in a tweet criticizing Kamala Harris’ response to a story that Trump wanted "the kind of generals that Hitler had"[5]:

"It’s particularly ironic since Biden/Harris have just pushed through DoD Directive 5240.01 giving the Pentagon power -- for the first time in history -- to use lethal force to kill Americans on U.S. soil who protest government policies."

By Wednesday evening, his post on X[6] had 5.6 million views.

Joseph Nunn, a lawyer with the Liberty & National Security program at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, and a leading expert on domestic uses of the military, had a clear response to the social media storm.

"There’s nothing here," he said. "People like Michael Flynn should know how to read a DOD directive."

What ‘5240.01’ Changed

Contrary to claims online, DOD Directive 5240.01[7], which had last been updated in 2020, does not grant any new powers to the military. That’s not how military directives work. Like them or not, all military policies are subject to U.S. law; they do not create new legal authorities. 

Directive 5240.01 has a narrow focus: It only addresses military intelligence, and the section that has circulated online specifically deals with intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement. 

The paragraph that contains the term "lethal force" refers to a requirement that the Secretary of Defense -- the highest level of the Defense Department -- must now authorize military intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement when lethal force might be involved.

"This is not an independent source of authority," Nunn said. "We really should look at this as an administrative safeguard that is being put in place." 

Military intelligence has long been authorized to provide assistance to federal law enforcement agencies, as well as state and local law enforcement when lives are endangered, under limited circumstances. That could include providing technical expertise or helping with international anti-terrorism or counter-narcotics operations, for instance.

"A reference to lethal force in a directive like this doesn’t mean they’re planning to have snipers on rooftops in covert ops," said Nunn, who has written on limiting the role of the military in law enforcement[8]. "The nature of law enforcement will sometimes involve the use of lethal force." 

A video on Rumble falsely declares that DoD Directive 5240.01 has authorized the military to use lethal force on American citizens.

Why the Change Six Weeks Before Election?

In its response to The War Horse, the Pentagon said the directive’s update was "in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event." 

"Reissuing 5240.01 was part of normal business of the Department to periodically update guidance and policy," the DOD’s Gough said.

The Defense Department has issued or revised 10 other directives and instructions since it updated "5240.01" at the end of September, ranging from a policy on space-related military activities to guidance on public affairs’ officers use of military vehicles.

"It’s not unusual to update DOD regulations," says Risa Brooks, a political science professor at Marquette University and a former senior fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute. "It doesn’t signal some nefarious agenda."

The update to "5240.01" brings the policy in line with other Defense Department directives. One of those is known as DOD Directive 5210.56 -- an entirely different Defense Department directive[9] than the one updated last month. It lays out rules when troops across the military can use lethal force outside of military operations. 

Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act

Posts online, including the one that Flynn shared, claim that Directive 5240.01 runs afoul of a legal statute known as posse comitatus[10]. The Posse Comitatus Act, which dates back to Reconstruction, generally forbids military troops from acting as domestic police. Civil liberty experts consider it an important civil rights protection against possible military overreach. 

Despite the conspiracy claims spreading online, the directive clearly states that military intelligence units assisting civilian police must consider the Posse Comitatus Act.

"The updated issuance remains consistent with DoD’s adherence to the Posse Comitatus Act, commitment to civil rights, and support of other safeguards in place for the protection of the American people," Gough said.

Spreading misinformation about the military can be particularly damaging "to the relationship between the military and the public," Brooks told The War Horse.

"This sort of politicization, this idea of sowing mistrust in the military in order to gain partisan advantage, is really corrosive," Brooks said. "There’s a motive. There’s something to be gained by spreading these rumors."

Ironically, however, Rep. Harris, the Republican congressman, was right about one thing when he claimed that if Kamala Harris wins, she "could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States." That’s because any president, regardless of party, has the power to mobilize military troops against American citizens in certain circumstances. Only one candidate -- Trump -- in this year’s presidential election has outright suggested it. 

But that presidential power isn’t granted by a random military policy. It’s granted by the Insurrection Act.

A law nearly as old as the country itself, the act gives a president essentially unilateral authority to temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act and call on military troops to suppress domestic rebellions. The law effectively leaves it up to the president to decide what constitutes a rebellion.

"There are essentially zero procedural safeguards in the Insurrection Act," Nunn says.

President Trump speaks to service members and their families in Italy in 2017. (Marine Corps photo by U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Samuel Guerra)

During his first administration, Trump and his allies reportedly[11] considered[12] invoking the Insurrection Act both during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and again after he lost his re-election bid. And legal experts say that any follow through on Trump’s increasingly frequent threats to use the military domestically[13], including against "radical left lunatics," would likely come through an invocation of the Insurrection Act.

Republicans are saying that the real misinformation is being peddled by Democrats. They claim the Harris-Walz campaign is taking out of context Trump’s comments from his Oct. 13 interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, with some suggesting he was referring to undocumented migrants or to only deploying the military in a national security crisis.

Here is the full quote from Trump when Bartiromo asked if he "expected chaos on election day" from "outside agitators," including "Chinese nationals," "people on terrorist watch lists," "murderers," and "rapists":

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people who have come in, destroying our country -- and by the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they're being inundated.

"But I don't think they’re the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics.

"And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen."


This War Horse investigation was reported by Sonner Kehrt and edited by Mike Frankel. 

This story is part of an ongoing investigation into disinformation in collaboration with The War Horse, the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones[14] and Reveal.[15]

Editors Note: This article[16] first appeared on The War Horse,[17] an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter[18]image

© Copyright 2024 The War Horse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

A sailor stands in front of a docked battleship.On Oct. 22, 1983, Navy Chief Petty Officer Michael W. Gorchinski volunteered to go ashore from the battleship USS New Jersey to assist Marines in Beirut with a radar installation problem at the Marine barracks. 

The New Jersey was in the eastern

Read more

A U.S. special forces soldier sets off a traditional explosive charge that's noticeably larger than recently-developed breaching charges

WASHINGTON — The blast shook the ground and its red flash of fire covered the doorway as U.S. special operations forces blew open a door during a recent training exercise.

Moments later, in their next attempt, the boom was noticeably suppressed and the blaze a bit smaller, testament to just one of the new technologies that U.S. Special Operations Command is using to limit the brain injuries that have become a growing problem for the military.

From new required testing and blast monitors to reshaping an explosive charge that reduces its blowback on troops, the command is developing new ways to better protect warfighters from such blast overpressure and to evaluate their health risks, particularly during training.

“We have guys lining up to volunteer for these studies,” said retired Sgt. Maj. F. Bowling, a former special operations medic who now works as a contractor at the command. “This is extremely important to the community. They’re very concerned about it.”

The Defense Department does not have good data on the number of troops with blast overpressure problems, which are much harder to detect than a traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injuries are better known and have been a persistent problem among combat forces, including those subjected to missile strikes and explosions that hit nearby.

According to the department's Traumatic Brain Injury Center of Excellence[1], more than 20,000 service members were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries last year. More than 500,000 have been diagnosed since 2000.

Josh Wick, a Pentagon spokesperson, said emerging information from evaluations of both acute blasts and repetitive low-level exposures shows links to adverse effects, such as the inability to sleep, degraded cognitive performance, headaches and dizziness.

“Our top priority remains our forces’ long-term cognitive well-being and operational effectiveness as warfighters,” said Gen. Bryan Fenton, head of U.S. Special Operations Command. “We are committed to understanding and identifying the impacts of blast overpressure on our personnel’s brain health.”

Fenton said research with academics and medical and industry experts is helping find ways to mitigate and treat overpressure. He said cutting-edge technologies are key to reducing the effects of repeated exposures, such as those many of his troops experience.

Out in a remote training area for Army special forces at Fort Liberty in North Carolina, commandos used what they call a Muchete breaching charge, specifically formed into a shape that more precisely directs the blasts and limits the harmful waves coming from an explosion. A small number of journalists were allowed to watch the training.

“The reduction on the blast overpressure coming back on the operator on average is generally between 40 and 60%,” said Chris Wilson, who leads the team at the command that oversees clinical research and other performance-related initiatives. “It really also depends on where somebody is standing. But it’s certainly a pretty dramatic reduction in the exposure. So I think that’s a win.”

Wilson said development and testing of the refined charge is ongoing but that units are using this one now in training until one gets final approval and can be more widely distributed.

Because of the extensive amount of training for special operations forces — both to hone their skills and to prepare for specific operations — troops may practice breaching a door dozens or hundreds of times. As a result, training is where they are most likely to have such repeated exposures. The command wants a better sense of how each person is affected.

During the demonstration, a number of the Army special forces soldiers were wearing small monitors or sensors to help leaders better understand the level of blast pressure that troops are absorbing. The sensors allow officials to compare readings based on where troops were standing and how close they were to the blast.

The command is evaluating a number of blast sensors on the market, and some higher risk troops are already using them. Testing and other studies are continuing with the goal of getting them out across the force in the next couple of years.

According to Wilson and Col. Amanda Robbins, the command's psychologist, there are distinct differences between acute traumatic brain injuries and what is called long-term blast exposure or blast overpressure.

Traumatic brain injuries, they said, are acute injuries that are relatively well documented and diagnosed. They said repetitive blast exposure needs more attention because there are lots of questions about the impact on the human brain. The damage is far more complex to diagnose and requires more study to establish links between the repetitive blasts and any damage or symptoms.

To aid the research, Special Operations Command is looking at doing more routine testing throughout service members' careers. One test is a neurocognitive assessment that the command does every three years. Officials also want warfighters to be assessed if they have had a concussion or similar event.

The Defense Department more broadly will require cognitive assessments for all new recruits as part of an effort to protect troops from brain injuries resulting from blast exposures. New guidance released in August requires greater use of protective equipment, minimum “stand-off distances” during certain types of training, and a reduction in the number of people in proximity to blasts.

The other test being done by Special Operations Command is a more subjective comprehensive assessment that catalogs each person's history of injuries or falls, even as a child. It's done early to get a baseline.

Robbins said what they have seen is that new, younger operators and those with 20 or more years of experience are more amenable to doing the testing.

“The challenge is going to be in the midcareer operators who may be more concerned about self-reporting potentially having a perceived negative impact,” she said.

She added that the assessment is a way to take into account incidents that may not be in their medical records, so that problems can be identified early on and people can get treatment.

© Copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

More Articles …