Connect with us

World

With brain injuries a growing problem, the US military tests how to protect troops from blasts

Published

on

With brain injuries a growing problem, the US military tests how to protect troops from blasts

WASHINGTON (AP) — The blast shook the ground and its red flash of fire covered the doorway as U.S. special operations forces blew open a door during a recent training exercise.

Moments later, in their next attempt, the boom was noticeably suppressed and the blaze a bit smaller, testament to just one of the new technologies that U.S. Special Operations Command is using to limit the brain injuries that have become a growing problem for the military.

From new required testing and blast monitors to reshaping an explosive charge that reduces its blowback on troops, the command is developing new ways to better protect warfighters from such blast overpressure and to evaluate their health risks, particularly during training.

“We have guys lining up to volunteer for these studies,” said retired Sgt. Maj. F. Bowling, a former special operations medic who now works as a contractor at the command. “This is extremely important to the community. They’re very concerned about it.”

The Defense Department does not have good data on the number of troops with blast overpressure problems, which are much harder to detect than a traumatic brain injury.

Advertisement

Traumatic brain injuries are better known and have been a persistent problem among combat forces, including those subjected to missile strikes and explosions that hit nearby.

According to the department’s Traumatic Brain Injury Center of Excellence, more than 20,000 service members were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries last year. More than 500,000 have been diagnosed since 2000.

Josh Wick, a Pentagon spokesperson, said emerging information from evaluations of both acute blasts and repetitive low-level exposures shows links to adverse effects, such as the inability to sleep, degraded cognitive performance, headaches and dizziness.

“Our top priority remains our forces’ long-term cognitive well-being and operational effectiveness as warfighters,” said Gen. Bryan Fenton, head of U.S. Special Operations Command. “We are committed to understanding and identifying the impacts of blast overpressure on our personnel’s brain health.”

Fenton said research with academics and medical and industry experts is helping find ways to mitigate and treat overpressure. He said cutting-edge technologies are key to reducing the effects of repeated exposures, such as those many of his troops experience.

Advertisement

Out in a remote training area for Army special forces at Fort Liberty in North Carolina, commandos used what they call a Muchete breaching charge, specifically formed into a shape that more precisely directs the blasts and limits the harmful waves coming from an explosion. A small number of journalists were allowed to watch the training.

“The reduction on the blast overpressure coming back on the operator on average is generally between 40 and 60%,” said Chris Wilson, who leads the team at the command that oversees clinical research and other performance-related initiatives. “It really also depends on where somebody is standing. But it’s certainly a pretty dramatic reduction in the exposure. So I think that’s a win.”

Wilson said development and testing of the refined charge is ongoing but that units are using this one now in training until one gets final approval and can be more widely distributed.

Because of the extensive amount of training for special operations forces — both to hone their skills and to prepare for specific operations — troops may practice breaching a door dozens or hundreds of times. As a result, training is where they are most likely to have such repeated exposures. The command wants a better sense of how each person is affected.

During the demonstration, a number of the Army special forces soldiers were wearing small monitors or sensors to help leaders better understand the level of blast pressure that troops are absorbing. The sensors allow officials to compare readings based on where troops were standing and how close they were to the blast.

Advertisement

The command is evaluating a number of blast sensors on the market, and some higher risk troops are already using them. Testing and other studies are continuing with the goal of getting them out across the force in the next couple of years.

According to Wilson and Col. Amanda Robbins, the command’s psychologist, there are distinct differences between acute traumatic brain injuries and what is called long-term blast exposure or blast overpressure.

Traumatic brain injuries, they said, are acute injuries that are relatively well documented and diagnosed. They said repetitive blast exposure needs more attention because there are lots of questions about the impact on the human brain. The damage is far more complex to diagnose and requires more study to establish links between the repetitive blasts and any damage or symptoms.

To aid the research, Special Operations Command is looking at doing more routine testing throughout service members’ careers. One test is a neurocognitive assessment that the command does every three years. Officials also want warfighters to be assessed if they have had a concussion or similar event.

The Defense Department more broadly will require cognitive assessments for all new recruits as part of an effort to protect troops from brain injuries resulting from blast exposures. New guidance released in August requires greater use of protective equipment, minimum “stand-off distances” during certain types of training, and a reduction in the number of people in proximity to blasts.

Advertisement

The other test being done by Special Operations Command is a more subjective comprehensive assessment that catalogs each person’s history of injuries or falls, even as a child. It’s done early to get a baseline.

Robbins said what they have seen is that new, younger operators and those with 20 or more years of experience are more amenable to doing the testing.

“The challenge is going to be in the midcareer operators who may be more concerned about self-reporting potentially having a perceived negative impact,” she said.

She added that the assessment is a way to take into account incidents that may not be in their medical records, so that problems can be identified early on and people can get treatment.

Advertisement

World

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

Published

on

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he was directing every federal agency to immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, adding there would be a six-month phase out for agencies such as the Defense Department who use the company’s products.
Continue Reading

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

on

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Advertisement

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese  (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Advertisement

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

Advertisement

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

Advertisement

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Advertisement

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely. 

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Advertisement

Related Article

UN chief blasted as ‘abjectly tone-deaf’ over message to Iran marking revolution anniversary
Continue Reading

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

on

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

Advertisement

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Advertisement

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Advertisement

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending