Photo courtesy of Donald Trump for President, via Facebook
The Pentagon pulled roughly a dozen senior Defense Department officials from the Aspen Security Forum on Monday, July 14, 2025, just hours before the event was set to begin the next day. The decision marked a sharp break from decades of Pentagon participation in what was once considered one of the premier national security conferences in the United States.
The withdrawal signals a deeper realignment of American military priorities, shifting away from globalist ideology and toward America First principles. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s move underscores the administration’s commitment to refocusing the military on its core mission of national defense, rather than supporting globalist, liberal, or ideological agendas.
Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson made the administration’s position unmistakably clear. “The Department of Defense has no interest in legitimizing an organization that has invited former officials who have been the architects of chaos abroad and failure at home,” he said. Wilson described the forum as promoting “the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States,” emphasizing that such values are “antithetical to the America First values of this administration.”
Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell emphasized the military’s renewed focus on combat effectiveness, stating, “The department will remain strong in its focus to increase the lethality of our warfighters, revitalize the warrior ethos, and project peace through strength on the world stage.” This marks a decisive break from what Hegseth has called the prior administration’s “experiments” in left-wing ideology, initiatives that, in his view, distracted the military from its core mission.
At the heart of the dispute is a clash between two visions of American foreign policy. The Pentagon’s America First doctrine prioritizes warfighting capability and national defense. In contrast, the Aspen Institute promotes a liberal globalist worldview centered on multilateral engagement and global governance. A closer examination of the Institute’s major donors reveals a network of foundations committed to advancing globalist policies that often conflict with American sovereignty and conservative principles.
Among these donors, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stands out as one of the most influential globalist organizations funding liberal causes worldwide. As the second-largest contributor to the World Health Organization, providing $638.2 million, the Foundation has played a pivotal role in shaping international health policy.
Because more than 80% of WHO’s budget comes from voluntary donations, donors like Gates wield disproportionate influence over decisions that many argue should remain under the authority of sovereign governments. Critics have described this model as “global health imperialism,” claiming it imposes ideological agendas under the guise of public health and circumvents democratic accountability.
Gates has consistently opposed national control over healthcare policy. The foundation also promotes supranational digital ID systems, partnering with Mastercard and GAVI to link vaccination records to cashless payment platforms. Through initiatives like ID2020, Gates advances biometric identity programs tied to health and education, building global surveillance infrastructure that sidesteps democratic oversight.
The Carnegie Corporation of New York, another of the Forum’s donors, has long funded the liberal legal framework advancing progressive policy goals under the guise of nonpartisanship. Since 1994, Carnegie has given nearly $7 million to groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Immigration Forum, both of which support mass immigration, amnesty, and opposition to border enforcement. Carnegie also funded the now-defunct ACORN, a radical community organizing network notorious for voter registration fraud and anti-capitalist activism.
Carnegie’s current $18 million “Political Polarization Research Program” frames conservative perspectives as drivers of division while promoting liberal policy agendas as solutions to national challenges. The foundation has given over $3.65 million to the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that opposes voter ID laws, supports automatic voter registration, and challenges election integrity efforts under the banner of “voting rights.” Through its Press Forward Initiative, Carnegie also leads a $500 million coalition to fund left-leaning journalism, all while claiming to support democracy.
Other Aspen Institute donors share similar ideological goals. The Raikes Foundation, for example, focuses explicitly on “racial equity,” “democracy,” and “building a robust multiracial democracy” through its Resourcing Equity and Democracy portfolio. It funds Planned Parenthood, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and organizations that aim to fundamentally transform American institutions. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation promotes government-run healthcare, endorses COVID lockdown policies, and drives DEI initiatives throughout the medical field.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with $13.9 billion in assets, is a major funder of liberal and anti-capitalist causes. It supports climate activism, abortion which it frames as “reproductive rights”, and “democracy” initiatives that advance liberal internationalism. The now-defunct S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation directed millions to the Windward Fund, a fiscal sponsor for environmentalist projects linked to the left-leaning Arabella Advisors network, and also supported groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.
This network of liberal foundations exemplifies the globalist ideology the Pentagon rejected at Aspen. These organizations leverage private wealth to build supranational governance systems that bypass national sovereignty and democratic oversight while promoting liberal social and economic agendas worldwide.
They elevate global institutions over American security interests, concentrate power in unelected elites, and champion social engineering that undermines traditional American values. The Pentagon’s withdrawal from the Aspen Security Forum marks a decisive rejection of this globalist framework in favor of a defense posture rooted in national sovereignty and America First principles.
The post Pentagon Withdraws from Aspen Conference: Exposing the Liberal Mega-Donor Network Behind Globalist Defense Summit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
