Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Pete Hegseth’s disparagement of women soldiers factor into new test requirements

Published

on

Pete Hegseth’s disparagement of women soldiers factor into new test requirements

Last week, the U.S. Army announced new fitness standards in line with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s orders to make the standards for women and men in combat roles the same. Like much of Hegseth’s past decision-making, the new standards show a lack of forethought.

In previous interviews and in his most recent book, Hegseth has suggested that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles and that military standards were lowered in order for women to get into these jobs. He walked back some of those comments during his confirmation hearing. “Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, given the standards remain high. And we will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded,” he said in January. Given the underlying assumption that women are in those roles because of lower standards, it’s reasonable to question whether the new Army combat fitness standards are designed to limit women’s participation.

Like much of Hegseth’s past decision-making, the new standards show a lack of forethought.

To understand the potential impacts of the new policy, it’s important to consider the new physical fitness test requirements. The test now consists of five consecutive events: deadlift, hand-release push-ups, sprint-drag-carry, plank and a 2-mile run. Most soldiers pass the physical fitness test. But combat standards are tougher; to pass, soldiers have to get a higher score in each event. Each event is scored up to 100, with 60 being the lowest possible passing score. For example, soldiers will need to run 2 miles in 22 minutes to get a score of 60 on that event. Yet, combat troops need a minimum overall score of 350, which they could hit by doing exceedingly well at one or two events or by scoring 70 points on each test.

Despite early testing of gender-neutral combat fitness standards showing lower pass rates for women than men, more women are likely to pass the test with training. Will Hegseth accept that these women are fit for duty?

The Army has branded the new fitness test as an effort to “strengthen readiness and lethality.” But that denies the success women have achieved since the ground combat exclusion policy was lifted more than a decade ago, which allowed women to serve in ground combat units. Women have already proven themselves in combat roles under the existing standards. Even before they were allowed into direct ground combat roles, women served in combat and earned awards for valor.

Since the ground combat exclusion policy was lifted, more than 150 women have graduated from Army Ranger School. Female officers in the Army and the Marine Corps have completed infantry officer courses and gone on to lead combat platoons. And thousands of women have served or are serving in combat roles that were previously male-only roles.

If the goal is really military readiness, then this new physical fitness test ain’t it. Peer reviewed research has found scant evidence that traditional military physical training — aimed at improving performance on the physical fitness test — improves combat readiness. The current fitness testing is focused on brute strength and misses key elements that could contribute to job performance and lower the risk of injury, such as flexibility and endurance, according to a 2022 study published in Military Medicine. The assumption that the new fitness test will improve readiness is not supported by the research.

The new standards fail to recognize that women would likely perform better than men in events aimed at gauging flexibility and endurance.

The new standards fail to recognize that women would likely perform better than men in events aimed at gauging flexibility and endurance, both identified as ways to contribute to combat readiness. Some studies have found women have more slow-twitch muscles, which use energy more slowly and are more resistant to fatigue. You can see this play out in more endurance-based athletic events. As running distances increase, for example, the gender gap shrinks. In fact, female runners are faster at distances of more than 195 miles. The current Army fitness testing is biased to men, to the detriment of all genders.

If the new standards are truly about accountability and performance, then they should apply evenly. But that’s not what we’re seeing — not in the test and not in the leadership behind it.

While women are being forced to “prove” their place in combat, the man pushing for stricter standards has himself evaded consequences for actions that would land a service member in jail. For example, if a female soldier (or a male soldier for that matter) leaked classified information in a Signal chat, then she’d be court-martialed. But when Hegseth did it, the system looked the other way.

The real double standard isn’t in who can run 2 miles the fastest — it’s in whom the system chooses to hold accountable.

Sara Sneath

Sara Sneath is a climate reporter investigating the fossil fuel industry’s influence on universities, public narratives and policies as a journalist-in-residence with the University of Miami’s Climate Accountability Lab.  She served in the U.S. Marine Corps and used her post-9/11 GI Bill to pay for college, where she earned a B.S. in journalism and a B.A. in sociology. She writes about communities on the frontlines of climate change, offshore drilling and oil and gas industry disinformation.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Iran negotiator or private investor? Raskin launches investigation into Jared Kushner.

Published

on

House Judiciary Democrats are launching a new investigation into President Donald Trump’s son-in-law — and Iran ceasefire negotiator — Jared Kushner, citing his “glaring and incurable conflict of interest.”

In a letter obtained first by MS NOW, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., writes that Kushner’s dual roles as Trump administration peace envoy and leader of a private equity firm have “been haunting American foreign policy since President Trump returned to Washington in 2025,” with the Iran war only compounding concerns that Kushner’s financial work could distort his priorities.

“Your client Saudi Arabia,” Raskin writes, “wants to see a continuation and escalation of President Trump’s Iran war, but the American people have an interest in minimizing the loss of American lives and treasure in this conflict.”

“To whom do your professional obligations and fiduciary duties belong?” Raskin asks in the letter, which was sent to Kushner, his firm, and the State Department on Thursday.

Kushner, who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka, founded the investment firm Affinity Partners in 2021 after serving as a senior adviser during Trump’s first administration.

Affinity’s largest and earliest investor, according to The New York Timesis Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The fund invested roughly $2 billion after the first Trump White House ended. Sovereign wealth funds tied to other Gulf nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have also invested.

Affinity has earned a 25% rate of return since 2021, according to a person familiar with the firm’s internal dynamics.

Since Trump returned to the White House, Kushner has taken on the role of peace envoy, working on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas and, most recently, the U.S. and Iran. The latter two, critics note, are in the region that is the source of sizable investments in Kushner’s firm.

“​​You cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn of the Saudi monarchy at the same time,” Raskin writes in the letter. “You cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own.”

In a statement shared with MS NOW, Ian Brekke, chief legal officer for Affinity, said Kushner “​has complied with ​all applicable laws and ​requirements and has ​always operated ​in the best interests ​of ​the United States.”

“Jared is not raising funds and has not done business in Gaza, Ukraine or Iran and has no intention to do so,” Brekke said.

In response to a March report in The New York Times that Kushner had taken recent steps to raise money for his firm from governments in the Middle East, Brekke wrote, “Affinity had early conversations with its anchor investor and does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government.”

And in a statement to MS NOW, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Kushner had “sacrificed time with his family and livelihood” to work on the Trump administration’s initiatives overseas. She called Raskin “an attention-seeking loser who has saved zero lives and hasn’t accomplished anything.”

As part of the new House Judiciary investigation that Democrats are unilaterally launching, Raskin is asking Kushner to hand over a trove of materials tied to his work for Affinity and with the government.

The documents Raskin wants include: records of his communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, and Israeli officials and their state-linked investment funds dating back to 2022; the financial records detailing all investors in his Affinity investment fund; records of meetings with investors dating back to July2024; and all communications relating to financial investments in Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and other areas where Kushner has played a role as a negotiator.

Raskin is also requesting Kushner’s communications with the White House and the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, dating back to July 2024 regarding his role in the new administration.

While Kushner is unlikely to play ball with Democrats — and as long as Republicans don’t side with Democrats, Raskin doesn’t have the unilateral ability to subpoena Kushner — the inquiry is a bit of a preview of the investigations Democrats will launch should their party win control of the House.

As the midterms approach, Democrats are pledging to make rooting out corruption in the Trump administration a central focus. And while Kushner could ignore Raskin now, that would be much more difficult next year if Democrats take back the committee gavels.

For Raskin, this is the latest step in a yearslong effort to review Kushner’s activities.

In 2023, while serving as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin wrote to Kushner questioning whether his business interests may have influenced his work during the first Trump administration.

In 2024, Raskin and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called on the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to review possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan

Published

on

House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House early Friday approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance programused by U.S. spy agencies in a post-midnight vote after Republicans revolted and refused President Donald Trump’s push for a longer extension.

GOP leaders rushed lawmakers back into session to late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.

First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.

Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.

“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.

But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.

At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.

U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.

Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security

Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.

Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.

Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.

A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”

“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”

The result of days of negotiations

Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.

Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.

Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.

But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.

With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.

“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns

Published

on

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns

Todd Lyons, the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is resigning from the agency later this spring, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to MS NOW.

He will remain in his role until May 31. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not immediately clear, and officials have not publicly identified his replacement.

“Director Lyons has been a great leader of ICE and key player in helping the Trump administration remove murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and gang members from American communities,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement.

“He jumpstarted an agency that had not been allowed to do its job for four years. Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer.”

Lyons, a longtime immigration enforcement official who assumed the acting directorship in 2025, has overseen ICE during a period of expanded deportation operations under President Donald Trump. His tenure has coincided with a sharp increase in enforcement tactics under the administration, including the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prettiby immigration officers in Minnesota in January.

ICE has cycled through multiple acting leaders in recent years and has lacked a Senate-confirmed director. Lyons’ departure comes at a pivotal moment for the agency as it navigates ongoing legal challenges and political divisions tied to the administration’s hardline immigration crackdown agenda. In recent months, Lyons has faced growing scrutiny, including a court order requiring him to appear before a federal judge over concerns that the agency failed to comply with directives related to detainees’ rights.

Earlier Thursday, Lyons testified before a House Appropriations subcommitteewhere he faced questions from lawmakers over ICE’s budget, enforcement priorities and compliance with court orders.

During the hearing, Lyons defended the agency’s recent surge in operations, arguing that increased resources were necessary to carry out its mission, while acknowledging ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny surrounding detainee treatment and due process protections.

Before assuming the top post, Lyons previously held senior roles within ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division, where he helped oversee deportation efforts nationwide.

Following the announcement of his resignation, White House border czar Tom Homan said Lyons “served selflessly as a highly respected and effective” as the acting ICE chief.

“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan said in a statement.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller praised Lyons as a “phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader.”

Didi Martinez is a freelance field producer for MS NOW.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending