The New York Times put a peculiar spin on the unprecedented relocation of key executive branch officials to a D.C.-area military installation.
The New York Times devoted all of twelve paragraphs to the revelation that Attorney General Pam Bondi has “quietly relocated” to a U.S. military base in the Washington, D.C., area in response to “threats relayed by investigators.”
Bondi made the headline of a report authored by Times journalist Glenn Thrush, but the many other administration members who have been forced to do the same didn’t make the cut. “Other officials who have relocated include Stephen Miller, the president’s top domestic policy adviser and the architect of his hard-line immigration policy; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Kristi Noem, the exiting homeland security secretary; and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth,” that report continued. They are joined by U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and Navy Secretary John Phelan.
The threat landscape that compelled these administration officials to decamp to a military installation includes the prospect of blowback from the drug cartels this administration is combating — threats that increased following the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro — but also domestic threats from, for example, Americans who have apparently been driven to violence by “the Jeffrey Epstein case.”
This unprecedented relocation of key executive branch officials is harrowing news, but the Times took a moment to consider the possibility that this action was driven not by threats but by the Trump administration’s insatiable rapacity:
But this appears to be the first administration to take such widespread advantage of taxpayer-funded military housing to accommodate political appointees who do not have a direct connection to the military, according to former officials and historians.
Given the administration’s all-out war against the drug cartels, their sponsors in positions of power in the Western hemisphere, a full-scale regime change campaign against the globe’s foremost exporter of terrorism, and the deteriorating domestic threat matrix, it does seem like this is a contingency necessitated by events.
At the very least, it is unlikely that these administration figures relish their consignment to a military base, their only comfort being the opportunity to bilk taxpayers out of their contributions to the U.S. Treasury. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anyone outside the firmament of online “resistance” enthusiasts who would jump to that conclusion. But then, maybe that is what the Times’ readership consists of now.