Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists President Donald Trump ’s abrupt firing of the nation’s senior military officer amid a wave of dismissals at the Pentagon wasn’t unusual, brushing aside outcry that the new administration is openly seeking to inject politics into the military. He also suggested more firings could come.

“Nothing about this is unprecedented,” Hegseth told “Fox News Sunday” about Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr. being removed Friday night as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The president deserves to pick his key national security advisory team.”

Hegseth said “there are lots of presidents who made changes” citing former commanders in chief from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama, who the defense secretary said “fired or dismissed hundreds” of military officials.

Months into his first term, Obama relieved Army Gen. David McKiernan as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Trump, however, vowed while running for his second term to eradicate “woke” ideologies from the military and moving swiftly to dismiss so many top leaders means keeping a campaign promise.

Hegeseth and Trump have made no secret about focusing on pushing aside military officers who have supported diversity, equity and inclusion in the ranks. The administration says its is on better fortifying a lethal fighting force.

Brown was just the second Black general to serve as chairman. His 16 months in the post were consumed with the war in Ukraine and the expanded conflict in the Middle East. Trump in 2020 nominated Brown as Air Force’s chief of staff.

Trump wants to replace Brown Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, who retired in December. It is unclear what recalling Caine to active-duty service will require. The position requires Caine to be confirmed by the Senate.

Hegseth said Friday’s dismissals affected six three- and four-star generals and were “a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him to execute the national security approach we want to take.”

He called Brown “honorable” but said he is “not the right man for the moment,” without citing specific deficiencies. After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, Brown in a video spoke of his experience as a Black pilot, apparently making him fodder for the Trump administration’s wars against inclusion initiatives in the military.

Of Caine, the Defense secretary said that Trump “respects leaders who untie the hands of war fighters in a very dangerous world.”

Retired Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq from 2004 to 2007 under Republican President George W. Bush, called the firings “extremely destabilizing.” He also noted that the Trump administration can change Pentagon policy without changing personnel, but added, that what happened is “”within the president’s prerogative.”

“That’s his prerogative,” Casey told ABC’s “This Week.” “He is the commander in chief of the armed forces.”

Still, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee told ABC that the firings were “completely unjustified” and that “apparently, what Trump and Hegseth are trying to do is to politicize the Department of Defense.”

Hegseth was also asked on Fox News about officials potentially compiling lists of more defense officials they plan to fire. He said there was no list but suggested that more dismissals could indeed be coming.

Troubled electric vehicle maker Nikola has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection months after saying that it would likely run out of cash early this year.

Nikola was a hot start-up and rising star on Wall Street before becoming enmeshed in scandal and its founder was convicted in 2022 for misleading investors about the Arizona company’s technology.

At the trial of founder Trevor Milton, prosecutors say a company video of a prototype truck appearing to be driven down a desert highway was actually a video of a nonfunctioning Nikola that had been rolled down a hill.

But the hype around the company was immense. In 2020, Nikola was valued at around $30 billion, exceeding the market capitalization of Ford Motor Co.

Nikola filed for protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and said Wednesday that it has also filed a motion seeking approval to pursue an auction and sale of the business.

The company has about $47 million in cash on hand. rolled

Nikola Corp. plans to to continue limited service and support operations for vehicles on the road, including fueling operations through the end of March, subject to court approval. The company said that it will need to raise more funding to support those types of activities after that time.

“Like other companies in the electric vehicle industry, we have faced various market and macroeconomic factors that have impacted our ability to operate,” CEO Steve Girsky said in a statement.

The executive said the company has made efforts in recent months to raise funds and reduce liabilities and preserve cash, but that it hasn’t been enough.

“The Board has determined that Chapter 11 represents the best possible path forward under the circumstances,” Girsky said.

In December 2023 founder Trevor Milton was sentenced to four years in prison after being convicted of exaggerating claims about his company’s production of zero-emission 18-wheel trucks, leading to sizeable losses for investors.

Milton was convicted of fraud charges, portrayed by prosecutors as a con man six years after he had founded the company in a basement in Utah.

Prosecutors said Milton falsely claimed to have built its own revolutionary truck that was actually a General Motors product with Nikola’s logo stamped onto it.

Called as a government witness, Nikola’s CEO testified that Milton “was prone to exaggeration” when pitching his venture to investors.

Milton resigned in 2020 amid reports of fraud that sent Nikola’s stock prices into a tailspin. Investors suffered heavy losses as reports questioned Milton’s claims that the company had already produced zero-emission 18-wheel trucks.

The company paid $125 million in 2021 to settle a civil case against it by the SEC. Nikola didn’t admit any wrongdoing.

Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a civil lawsuit accusing the privacy-minded company of deploying its virtual assistant Siri to eavesdrop on people using its iPhone and other trendy devices.

The proposed settlement filed Tuesday in an Oakland, California, federal court would resolve a 5-year-old lawsuit revolving around allegations that Apple surreptitiously activated Siri to record conversations through iPhones and other devices equipped with the virtual assistant for more than a decade.

The alleged recordings occurred even when people didn't seek to activate the virtual assistant with the trigger words, "Hey, Siri." Some of the recorded conversations were then shared with advertisers in an attempt to sell their products to consumers more likely to be interested in the goods and services, the lawsuit asserted.

The allegations about a snoopy Siri contradicted Apple's long-running commitment to protect the privacy of its customers — a crusade that CEO Tim Cook has often framed as a fight to preserve "a fundamental human right."

Apple isn't acknowledging any wrongdoing in the settlement, which still must be approved by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. Lawyers in the case have proposed scheduling a Feb. 14 court hearing in Oakland to review the terms.

If the settlement is approved, tens of millions of consumers who owned iPhones and other Apple devices from Sept. 17, 2014, through the end of last year could file claims. Each consumer could receive up to $20 per Siri-equipped device covered by the settlement, although the payment could be reduced or increased, depending on the volume of claims. Only 3% to 5% of eligible consumers are expected to file claims, according to estimates in court documents.

The settlement represents a sliver of the $705 billion in profits that Apple has pocketed since September 2014. It's also a fraction of the roughly $1.5 billion that the lawyers representing consumers had estimated Apple could been required to pay if the company had been found of violating wiretapping and other privacy laws had the case gone to a trial.

The attorneys who filed the lawsuit may seek up to $29.6 million from the settlement fund to cover their fees and other expenses, according to court documents.

Montana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a landmark climate ruling that said the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.

The justices, in a 6-1 ruling, rejected the state’s argument that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change, likening it to asking: “If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

The plaintiffs can enforce their environmental rights “without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire,” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. “Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”

Only a few other states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions.  The lawsuit filed in 2020 by 16 Montanans —who are now ages 7 to 23 — was considered a breakthrough in attempts by young environmentalists and their attorneys to use the courts to leverage action on climate change.

“This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change,” lead plaintiff Rikki Held said in a statement Wednesday.

During the 2023 trial in state District Court, the young plaintiffs described how climate change profoundly affects their lives: worsening wildfires foul the air they breathe, while drought and decreased snowpack deplete rivers that sustain farming, fish, wildlife and recreation and affect Native traditions.

Going forward, Montana must “carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits,” said Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs.

Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte said the state was still reviewing the decision, but warned of “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.”

“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy,” he said, which promotes using both fossil fuels and renewables.

A day earlier, Gianforte held meetings on how the state can increase energy production, which involved energy suppliers, large energy consumers, public utility companies, transmission stakeholders and legislators.

Incoming Senate President Matt Regier and House Speaker Brandon Ler, both Republicans, joined Gianforte in alleging the justices were overstepping their authority and had strayed into making policy.

“Judicial reform was already a top priority for Republican lawmakers,” Regier and Ler said, warning the justices to “buckle up.”

Montana courts have blocked or overturned numerous laws passed by Republicans in the 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions as being unconstitutional, including laws to limit access to abortion.

In seeking to overturn the District Court ruling, the state had argued the plaintiffs should be required to challenge individual fossil fuel development permits as they’re issued — which would have involved trying to challenge even smaller amounts of emissions.

Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate. June brought record warm global temperatures for the 13th straight month, according to European climate service Copernicus. The streak ended in July.

Montana’s Constitution requires agencies to “maintain and improve” a clean environment. A law signed by Gianforte last year said environmental reviews may not consider climate impacts unless the federal government makes carbon dioxide a regulated pollutant. The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling found that law to be unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that Border Patrol agents cannot cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border in the town of Eagle Pass, which has become the center of the state’s aggressive measures to curb migrant crossings.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for Texas in a long-running rift over immigration policy with the Biden administration, which has also sought to remove floating barriers installed on the Rio Grande.

Texas has continued to install razor wire along its roughly 1,200-mile (1,900 kilometers) border with Mexico over the past year. In a 2-1 ruling, the court issued an injunction blocking Border Patrol agents from damaging the wire in Eagle Pass.

“We continue adding more razor wire border barrier,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott posted on the social platform X in response to the ruling. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Wednesday.

Some migrants have been injured by the sharp wire, and the Justice Department has argued the barrier impedes the U.S. government’s ability to patrol the border, including coming to the aid of migrants in need of help. Texas contended in the lawsuit originally filed last year that federal government was “undermining” the state’s border security efforts by cutting the razor wire.

The ruling comes ahead of President-elect Donald Trump returning to office and pledging a crackdown on immigration. Earlier this month, a Texas official offered a parcel of rural ranchland along the U.S.-Mexico border to use as a staging area for potential mass deportations.

Arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped 40% from an all-time high in December. U.S. officials mostly credit Mexican vigilance around rail yards and highway checkpoint.