Good morning,

This is the Thursday morning edition of The Intel Brief. Here are some updates from the week so far.

Reporting Period: 29 September - 2 October 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

Secretary Hegseth Addresses U.S. Military Generals, Flag Officers On Warrior Ethos, Standards

Summary
On 30 September, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth addressed the U.S. military chief of staff, generals, commanders, and senior enlisted personnel. In the speech, Hegseth reoriented the nation’s military leaders on their warfighting mission, and the standards the department expects of them. Hegseth’s speech suggested that there will be follow on memoranda to guide reform, and that next month he will announce plans for strategic innovation and acquisitions.

Findings

• Department of War’s Mission: In his speech, Hegseth described the sole mission of the department of war to be warfighting (Department of War). Hegseth stated that the warfighting mission must be carried out in accordance to President Trump’s “Peace through Strength” foreign policy concept (Department of War).

• Restoring the Warrior Ethos: Hegseth also stated that under his leadership, the War Department is prioritizing the restoration of the Warrior Ethos; a culture of lethality, innovation, risk-taking, and high-standards that consider the brutal nature of war and strategic competition (Department of War). Hegseth states that all combat military occupation specialities (MOS) must reflect the highest male standard, and that military personnel must adhere to body weight, physical fitness, and grooming standards (Department of War). Hegseth also states that the U.S. military has suffered from a peacetime culture in which leaders are risk-averse, and focused on safe and simple decision making to protect bureaucratic career rising (Department of War).

• Standards Review: As his second directive, Hegseth initiated all command’s, schools, and training centers to conduct an immediate review of their standards so that personnel instructing and being instructed join their unit at peak competency (Department of War).

• Eggshells Policy: The third directive Hegseth gave was related to what he calls the “no more walking on eggshells policy.” Hegseth promises to overhaul the decision making process and authorities for commanders and senior personnel in decision making billets, suggesting that bureaucratic red tape will be cut. Hegseth also stated that there will be changes to the reporting and legal framework, which he claims has been abused to jeopardize careers, slow promotions and decisions, and deter retention (Department of War).

• Promotions: Hegseth states that the promotion progress will continue to be reviewed to reflect a merit-based system, one that is unrelated to race and gender (Department of War).

Why This Matters
Hegseth’s address is a deliberate ideological and operational pivot inside the Pentagon; a hard turn away from peacetime bureaucracy and back toward wartime preparation. If implemented, his directives could reshape U.S. force structure, recruitment pipelines, and promotion dynamics across the services. Reinstating single-standard combat requirements and dismantling what he called DEI-era processes has already drawn criticism domestically.

Government Shutdown Looms After Congress Fails To Pass Continuing Resolution

Summary
On 30 September 2025, Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution (CR) or full-year appropriations ahead of the Fiscal Year 2026 deadline. This lapse in funding triggers an automatic shutdown of non-essential federal government functions. Essential services will continue under contingency authorities beginning 1 October 2025, but many personnel will be required to work without pay. Negotiations between congressional leaders stalled in the final week of September over disputes involving overall spending caps, supplemental security aid for Ukraine and the southern border, and policy riders tied to immigration and social programs. If funding is not restored within the first week of October 2025, projected economic and security impacts are expected to escalate rapidly.

Findings

• Federal Workforce and Agency Operations: On 1 October 2025, federal agencies began implementing contingency plans filed with the Office of Management and Budget in late September 2025, with details hosted on their sites (OPM, Federal News Network). More than two million civilian federal employees were categorized as either “excepted” or “non-excepted.” The Department of Defense issued guidance on 27 September 2025 directing uniformed personnel to continue work while pausing training and administrative functions (Department of War). DHS notified personnel on 28 September 2025 that CBP and TSA jobs would continue unpaid while USCIS and FEMA would suspend non-emergency services (Department of Homeland Security). Intelligence Community leadership communicated that collection and monitoring missions would continue, but interagency planning sessions scheduled for early October 2025 were postponed.

• Economic and Infrastructure Impact: One estimate states that the shutdown could cost the U.S, $4 billion, citing previous shutdowns as precedent (CFRB). Defense contractors operating under expiring task orders on 1–7 October 2025 may experience immediate invoice freezes due to contracting officer furloughs. The Small Business Administration confirmed on 30 September 2025that federal-backed small business loans would halt until funding resumed (HK Law). The Federal Aviation Administration warned that routine inspections scheduled for 5–9 October 2025 could be delayed, potentially disrupting commercial aviation.

• National Security and Foreign Policy Effects: Military operations will continue globally, but training exercises scheduled for October 2025 may be delayed or cancelled. Russian and Chinese state media began circulating narratives on 30 September 2025 portraying the shutdown as evidence of U.S. decline, mirroring propaganda patterns from the 2018–2019 shutdown (see RT and Xinhua).

Why This Matters
A prolonged shutdown, in addition to frequent shutdowns, increase strategic risk: mission support functions erode, readiness is strained, and perception among allies and rivals shifts. Essential personnel forced to work without pay exacerbate morale and retention challenges. At the same time, adversaries gain rhetorical and operational opportunities: narrative exploitation, questioning U.S. reliability, and probing seams in U.S. command and control.

From a political and power perspective, if shutdowns become expected rather than exceptional, they weaken the very foundations of U.S. governance which, ultimately, diminishes our deterrence. If anything, the continued government shutdowns show the perpetual political divide in the United States, and the shameful decision by U.S. officials to avert compromise and choose politicking and reelection over the good of the nation. An equally abhorrent trend is the massive continuing resolutions that, adding significant expenditures to our national debt, are a result of budgets being put off—itself and effect of members of Congress failing to do their jobs.

Pro-EU Party Wins Elections In Moldova

Summary
On 28 September 2025, Moldova held parliamentary elections in which the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), led by President Maia Sandu, won 50.2% of the vote. PAS secured 55 out of 101 seats in parliament. This victory consolidates Moldova’s commitment to EU integration, including reforms required for future EU membership, and represents a setback for pro-Russian actors. The outcome suggests that Moldova’s electorate prioritizes European alignment and democratic governance despite internal economic and energy challenges.

Findings

• Electoral Outcome and Political Implications: PAS’s decisive majority provides President Sandu with a strong mandate to advance judicial reform, anti-corruption initiatives, and EU-aligned policies (Le Monde). Opposition parties, particularly the pro-Russian Patriotic Bloc led by former President Igor Dodon, won 24.2% of the vote and have questioned the results, though no substantive evidence of electoral fraud has emerged (Washington Post).

  • Note that Moldova formally banned parties that are considered pro-Russian or anti-EU before the election, with critics claiming a George Soros and Brussels-funded election campaign were major factors in the PAS victory.

• Russian Interference and Regional Ambitions: Russian influence campaigns—including disinformation, cyberattacks, and attempted vote manipulation—were detected prior to the elections, reflecting Moscow’s strategic interest in maintaining sway over Moldova (TLDR News). PAS’s victory demonstrates Moldova’s resilience to these pressures and reinforces the country’s trajectory toward European integration, undermining Russia’s regional strategic ambitions.

  • In addition to evidence that Russia interfered in Moldova’s elections, Telegram’s founder took to X to state that French Intelligence officials reached out to him to censor content in Moldova leading up to the election.

• EU and International Reactions: The European Union, Ukraine, and allied Western partners publicly hailed the election outcome as a victory for democratic values and European alignment (The Guardian). Analysts caution that Moldova must maintain progress on governance, judicial reform, and anti-corruption measures to sustain momentum toward EU accession and prevent potential domestic or external destabilization.

Why This Matters
Moldova’s pro-European electoral outcome represents a geopolitical setback for Russia in Eastern Europe, a regional historically considered Russia’s periphery and sphere of influence. Now, with the pro-EU government set to continue its rule, it offers a strategic opportunity for the EU to pursue membership expansion and influence eastward. By securing a parliamentary majority, PAS can implement reforms necessary for European integration, counter Russian influence operations, and strengthen regional stability.

For the EU, Moldova’s trajectory reinforces its broader efforts to promote democratic governance and economic resilience in its eastern neighborhood. However, the suggestion that Brussels, like Russia, conducted influence operations in Moldova risks damaging the institution’s reputation long-term, and could harden the resolve of center-right, far-right, and nationalist parties across Europe.

When considering this, Moldova’s liberal/democratic victory could be considered a short-term victory should the fallout continue to disenchant Europe’s growing conservative/right bloc.

End Brief

That concludes this brief. Thank you for reading!
— Nick