The Dictatorship
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.
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?




