Connect with us

Politics

Should women serve in combat? Military experts weigh in

Published

on

Should women serve in combat? Military experts weigh in

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth, is facing a firestorm of backlash for voicing his belief that women should not serve in military combat roles. Although the media is largely united against him, opinions among combat veterans and military experts are more split. 

Will Thibeau, a former Army Ranger with multiple combat deployments, told Fox News Digital that he agrees with Hegseth wholeheartedly.

“I think soon-to-be Secretary Hegseth stated simple truths that 12 years ago were commonly understood and affirmed by the senior-most leaders in the Pentagon, the rank and file of the military and the culture at large, that war and in particular units that are made and forged to fight in war with no other purpose are units meant for men and men only,” he said.

“Biological sex and relationships between men and women is a reality that you can’t avoid,” he added. “And when you induce stress, physical uncertainty, physical proximity and unique scenarios to that biological reality, you get a fracture of what would have been a typical military team, or a military unit forged for warfighting.”

ARE PETE HEGSETH’S TATTOOS SYMBOLS OF ‘CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM’?

Advertisement

FILE – This Sept. 18, 2012 file photo shows female soldiers training on a firing range while wearing new body armor in Fort Campbell, Ky. Only a small fraction of Army women say theyd like to move into one of the newly opening combat jobs, but those few who do, say they want a job that takes them right into the heart of battle, according to preliminary results from a survey of the services nearly 170,000 women. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File)

Hegseth, 44, is a former Fox News host and Army infantry officer who served two combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional deployment to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Trump tapped Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, one of the most influential positions in his cabinet, on Nov. 13, just over a week after he won the election. The president-elect said of Hegseth that “nobody fights harder for the Troops” and “with Pete at the helm, America’s enemies are on notice.”

However, Hegseth is facing a great deal of pushback from Democrats and the media, most especially for his comments on a Nov. 7 episode of the “Shawn Ryan Show” podcast in which he said, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.”

Hegseth asserted that women serving in combat roles “hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal” and “has made fighting more complicated.”

Advertisement

PENTAGON BRACING FOR SWEEPING CHANGES AFTER TRUMP NOMINATES PETE HEGSETH FOR SECRETARY

Host Pete Hegseth during “FOX & Friends” at Fox News Channel Studios on May 27, 2022 in New York City.  (Roy Rochlin/Getty Images)

He did not argue against women serving in the military or even in non-ground combat roles such as in the Air Force. Rather, he made the point that the U.S. military has been lowering its physical standards to allow more women to be eligible to serve in combat roles, something that he said increases the risk of combat complications and fatalities.

He said, “I love women service members who contribute amazingly,” but asserted that “everything about women serving together makes the situation more complicated and complication in combat means casualties are worse.”

He also criticized the upper echelons of military leadership for changing standards and prioritizing filling diversity quotas above combat effectiveness. He pointed to a 2015 study by the Marine Corps that found that integrated male-female units did “drastically worse” in terms of combat effectiveness than all-male units.

Advertisement

“Between bone density and lung capacity and muscle strength, men and women are just different,” he said. “So, I’m ok with if you maintain the standards just where they are for everybody, and if there’s some, you know, hard-charging female that meets that standard, great, cool, join the infantry battalion. But that is not what’s happened. What has happened is the standards have lowered.”

Pete Hegseth and Kayleigh McEnany will be part of Fox News’ Independence Day programming.  (Fox News)

Hegseth noted that he was not necessarily advocating for making the change right now, commenting; “Imagine the demagoguery in Washington, D.C., if you were actually making the case for, you know, ‘We should scale back women in combat.’”

“As the disclaimer for everybody out there,” he added, “we’ve all served with women and they’re great, it’s just our institutions don’t have to incentivize that in places where … over human history, men are more capable.”

Despite this, Ellen Haring, a retired Army colonel, told Fox News Digital that many women and men in the military are concerned about Hegseth becoming secretary and instituting these changes.

Advertisement

“Women who are in these combat jobs and many of them have been there for six, eight years now, are very energized and concerned about the idea that they might lose their jobs,” she said.

According to Haring, there are 2,500 women currently serving in ground combat roles in Army infantry, armor, field artillery branches as well as special forces. She also said that 152 women have earned Army Ranger tabs and there are currently ten women in the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment.

She said that despite women making up only a quarter of all West Point Academy graduates they accounted for a third of all lieutenants slotted to armor combat units.

MILITARY SUICIDES WERE ON THE RISE LAST YEAR, DESPITE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN PREVENTION PROGRAMS

U.S. Army Fort Leonard Wood  (U.S. Army Fort Leonard Wood)

Advertisement

“There’s no indication that any of those units have been harmed by their presence,” she said. “So, Hegseth claims that adding women to these units is going to create a degree of complication and is somehow or another puts people at risk. That hasn’t happened at any unit that we’ve seen so far. So, I don’t know where he’s coming up with these notions.”

Beyond not harming units, Haring went on to say that women have helped to improve the professionalism of units, especially infantry units.

“Infantry units had a culture of hazing and kind of abuse of each other,” she said. “Their presence there has turned a spotlight on that kind of behavior and has actually eliminated a lot of it across the force. So, this kind of brutal behavior that infantry units engaged in amongst themselves is slowly being eradicated by the women’s presence.”

Similarly, Captain Micah Ables, an Army Infantry company commander, told Fox News Digital that women in his unit have improved the “team player” attitude of the company as well as broadened its capabilities when deployed.

U.S. Army Major General Laura J. Richardson, the first woman to serve as a deputy commander of a combat division, listens while seated behind Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley (L) during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the implementation of the decision to open all ground combat units to women on Capitol Hill in Washington, February 2, 2016.  (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Advertisement

Ables’ first deployment to Afghanistan was with an all-male unit, however, he later deployed with one of the first integrated companies in the infantry. He said that though there was some initial pushback and tension, the female soldiers in his unit quickly proved themselves as capable and the company adapted without too much issue.

He said that many of the women in his unit have proved to be some of the most physically and tactically capable leaders and soldiers under his command.

“Once I did take over the mixed-gender company, I didn’t really know what to expect,” he said. “But they dug in, and they did what they needed to do to be experts.”

X Soldiers giving feedback on autonomous equipment decontamination system  (U.S. Army)

On the other hand, Jessie Jane Duff, a retired female gunnery sergeant in the Marines, told Fox News Digital that allowing women to fill combat roles is a “lethal mistake.”

Advertisement

She also cited the study by the Marines that she said found that integrated units were only 60 percent as effective as all-male units and women were between 20 and 30 percent more prone to injury.

“From a biological level. We’re not equal,” she said. “With the lack of testosterone, women take a longer time to recover and rebuild muscle because they lack that testosterone. Whereas men who also get severely injured based upon the training have a higher rate of being able to come back into the combat unit and perform.”

“Why would you water down the effectiveness of our infantry units? You’re watering it down because you’re trying to reach a goal of equality,” she went on. “You can have the opportunity to pass, but you should not be accommodated because of your gender when a more qualified man could take that slot.”

US Marine Corps recruits take part in the traditional Eagle, Globe and Anchor medal ceremony. (Photo by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images) (Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Finally, Anna Simons, a retired professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, told Fox News Digital that it comes down to diversity versus similarity.

“Women have been in combat from the beginning of time,” she said. “They’ve defended their children, they’ve defended their property, they’ve defended husbands, they’ve fought valiantly, that’s absolutely true. But the issue isn’t women in combat. The issue is women in combat units, small groups of individuals where everybody needs to be essentially interchangeable and equally proficient at certain combat skills.”

“The whole point of combat is to wield violence and to be able to absorb violence,” she said. “So there has to be a sameness or similarity to people so that they become easily interchangeable when it comes to fundamental skills, shoot, move and communicate skills.”

“Everybody needs a baseline of that, and you want the baseline to be as high as possible,” she concluded. “That means that people need to be less similar rather than more diverse in their capabilities.”

Advertisement

Politics

Trump vows US ‘in charge’ of Venezuela as he reveals if he’s spoken to Delcy Rodríguez

Published

on

Trump vows US ‘in charge’ of Venezuela as he reveals if he’s spoken to Delcy Rodríguez

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said the U.S. is now in control of Venezuela following the arrest of longtime leader Nicolás Maduro, outlining a plan to run the country, rebuild its economy and delay elections until what he described as a recovery is underway.

Trump made the remarks during a gaggle with reporters as questions mounted about who is governing Venezuela after a U.S. military operation led to Maduro’s arrest early Saturday.

“Don’t ask me who’s in charge because I’ll give you an answer, and it’ll be very controversial,” Trump told a reporter.

He was then asked to clarify, to which Trump replied, “It means we’re in charge.”

Advertisement

US CAPTURE OF MADURO CHAMPIONED, CONDEMNED ACROSS WORLD STAGE AFTER SURGICAL VENEZUELA STRIKES

Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez addresses the media in Caracas, Venezuela, on March 10, 2025.  (Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters)

Trump was also asked whether he had spoken directly with Venezuela’s newly sworn-in Vice President Delcy Rodríguez amid uncertainty about how the new government is functioning and what role the U.S. is playing.

While Trump said he has not personally spoken with Rodríguez, he suggested coordination is already underway between U.S. officials and the new leadership.

During the gaggle, Trump repeatedly portrayed Venezuela as a failed state that cannot immediately transition to democratic rule, arguing the country’s infrastructure and economy had been devastated by years of mismanagement.

Advertisement

TRUMP ISSUES DIRECT WARNING TO VENEZUELA’S NEW LEADER DELCY RODRÍGUEZ FOLLOWING MADURO CAPTURE

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro greets his supporters during a rally in Caracas on Dec. 1, 2025.  (Pedro Mattey/Anadolu via Getty Images)

He compared Venezuela’s collapse to what he claimed would have happened to the U.S. had he lost the election, using the comparison to underscore his argument for intervention.

“We have to do one thing in Venezuela. Bring it back. It’s a dead country right now,” Trump said. “It’s a country that, frankly, we would have been if I had lost the election. We would have been Venezuela on steroids.”

Trump said rebuilding Venezuela will center on restoring its oil industry, which he said had been stripped from the U.S. under previous governments, leaving infrastructure decayed and production crippled.

Advertisement

UN AMBASSADOR WALTZ DEFENDS US CAPTURE OF MADURO AHEAD OF SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING

A coast guard boat of the Venezuelan Navy operates off the Caribbean coast on Sept. 11, 2025.  (Juan Carlos Hernandez/Reuters)

He stressed that American oil companies – not U.S. taxpayers – will finance the reconstruction, while the U.S. oversees the broader recovery.

“The oil companies are going to go in and rebuild this system. They’re going to spend billions of dollars, and they’re going to take the oil out of the ground, and we’re taking back what they sell,” Trump said. “Remember, they stole our property. It was the greatest theft in the history of America. Nobody has ever stolen our property like they have. They took our oil away from us. They took the infrastructure away. And all that infrastructure is rotted and decayed.”

Trump said elections will not take place until the country is stabilized, arguing that rushing a vote in a collapsed state would repeat past failures.

Advertisement

TRUMP REVEALS VENEZUELA’S MADURO WAS CAPTURED IN ‘FORTRESS’-LIKE HOUSE: ‘HE GOT BUM RUSHED SO FAST’

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One while traveling from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Tokyo, Japan, Monday, Oct. 27, 2025.  (Mark Schiefelbein/AP)

He said the U.S. will manage Venezuela’s recovery process, including addressing inflation, revenue loss and infrastructure collapse.

“We’re going to run everything,” Trump said. “We’re going to run it, fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time.”

When asked whether the operation in Venezuela was motivated by oil interests or amounted to regime change, Trump rejected both characterizations and instead cast the effort as part of a broader security doctrine.

Advertisement

VENEZUELAN LEADER MADURO LANDS IN NEW YORK AFTER BEING CAPTURED BY US FORCES ON DRUG CONSPIRACY CHARGES

President Donald Trump shared a photo of captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima after strikes on Venezuela, on Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026.  (Donald Trump via Truth Social)

He tied the intervention to long-standing U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere, invoking historical precedent.

“It’s about peace on Earth,” Trump said. “You gotta have peace, it’s our hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine was very important when it was done.”

Trump went on to criticize past presidents for failing to enforce that doctrine, arguing his administration has restored it as a guiding principle.

Advertisement

RUBIO DEFENDS VENEZUELA OPERATION AFTER NBC QUESTIONS LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR MADURO CAPTURE

“And other presidents, a lot of them, they lost sight of it,” Trump added. “I didn’t. I didn’t lose sight. But it really is. It’s peace on Earth.”

Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration arrived at the West 30th Street Heliport for the arrival of captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in New York.  (Stefan Jeremiah/AP Photo)

Trump said the U.S. role in Venezuela will ultimately focus on rebuilding the country while caring for Venezuelans displaced by years of economic collapse.

He said that includes Venezuelans currently living in the U.S., many of whom he said were forced to flee.

Advertisement

“We’re gonna cherish a country,” Trump said. “We’re going to take care of, more importantly, of the people, including Venezuelans that are living in our country that were forced to leave their country, and they’re going to be taken very good care of.”

Trump made clear the comments on Venezuela were part of a broader foreign policy outlook, using the gaggle to issue warnings about instability elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere and overseas. He suggested the U.S. is prepared to respond forcefully to threats he said could endanger American security interests.

Trump singled out Colombia, describing the country as a growing security concern and accusing its leadership of enabling large-scale drug trafficking into the U.S.

“Colombia’s very sick too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long,” Trump said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

When asked whether that meant U.S. action, Trump replied, “It sounds good to me.”

Trump also addressed ongoing protests in Iran, warning that the U.S. is closely monitoring the situation and would respond if the Iranian government uses violence against demonstrators.

“We’re watching it very closely,” he said. “If they start killing people like they have in the past, I think they’re going to get hit very hard by the United States.”

Continue Reading

Politics

To ‘run’ Venezuela, Trump presses existing regime to kneel

Published

on

To ‘run’ Venezuela, Trump presses existing regime to kneel

Top officials in the Trump administration clarified their position on “running” Venezuela after seizing its president, Nicolás Maduro, over the weekend, pressuring the government that remains in power there Sunday to acquiesce to U.S. demands on oil access and drug enforcement, or else face further military action.

Their goal appears to be the establishment of a pliant vassal state in Caracas that keeps the current government — led by Maduro for more than a decade — largely in place, but finally defers to the whims of Washington after turning away from the United States for a quarter-century.

It leaves little room for the ascendance of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, which won the country’s last national election, according to the State Department, European capitals and international monitoring bodies.

President Trump and his top aides said they would try to work with Maduro’s handpicked vice president and current interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, to run the country and its oil sector “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” offering no time frame for proposed elections.

Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem underscored the strategy in a series of interviews Sunday morning.

Advertisement

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told the Atlantic magazine, referring to Rodríguez. “Rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”

Rubio said that a U.S. naval quarantine of Venezuelan oil tankers would continue unless and until Rodríguez begins cooperating with the U.S. administration, referring to the blockade — and the lingering threat of additional military action from the fleet off Venezuela’s coast — as “leverage” over the remnants of Maduro’s government.

“That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to when he says that,” Rubio told CBS News. “We continue with that quarantine, and we expect to see that there will be changes — not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN that he had been in touch with the administration since the Saturday night operation that snatched Maduro and his wife from their bedroom, whisking them away to New York to face criminal charges.

Trump’s vow to “run” the country, Cotton said, “means the new leaders of Venezuela need to meet our demands.”

Advertisement

“Delcy Rodríguez, and the other ministers in Venezuela, understand now what the U.S. military is capable of,” Cotton said, adding: “It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned individuals are in Venezuela. They have control of the military and security forces. We have to deal with that fact. But that does not make them the legitimate leaders.”

“What we want is a future Venezuelan government that will be pro-American, that will contribute to stability, order and prosperity, not only in Venezuela but in our own backyard. That probably needs to include new elections,” Cotton said.

Whether Rodríguez will cooperate with the administration is an open question.

Trump said Saturday that she seemed amenable to making “Venezuela great again” in a conversation with Rubio. But the interim president delivered a speech hours later demanding Maduro’s return, and vowing that Venezuela would “never again be a colony of any empire.”

The developments have concerned senior figures in Venezuela’s democratic opposition, led by Maria Corina Machado, last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was ultimately stolen by Maduro.

Advertisement

In his Saturday news conference, Trump dismissed Machado, saying that the revered opposition leader was “a very nice woman,” but “doesn’t have the respect within the country” to lead.

Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela in his first term, said he was skeptical that Rodríguez — an acolyte of Hugo Chávez and avowed supporter of Chavismo throughout the Maduro era — would betray the cause.

“The insult to Machado was bizarre, unfair — and simply ignorant,” Abrams told The Times. “Who told him that there was no respect for her?”

Maduro was booked in New York and flown at night over the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he is in federal custody at a facility that has housed inmates including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried.

He is expected to be arraigned on federal charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices as soon as Monday.

Advertisement

Although few in Washington lamented Maduro’s removal, Democratic lawmakers criticized the operation as another act of ousting a foreign government by a Republican president that could have violated international law.

“The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American security. Venezuela is not a security threat to the U.S.,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut. “This is about making Trump’s oil industry and Wall Street friends rich. Trump’s foreign policy — the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela — is fundamentally corrupt.”

In their Saturday news conference, and in subsequent interviews, Trump and Rubio said that targeting Venezuela was in part about reestablishing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reasserting the philosophy of President Monroe as China and Russia work to enhance their presence in the region. The Trump administration’s national security strategy, published last month, previewed a renewed focus on Latin America after the region faced neglect from Washington over decades.

Trump left unclear whether his military actions in the region would end in Caracas, a long-standing U.S. adversary, or whether he is willing to turn the U.S. armed forces on America’s allies.

In his interview with the Atlantic, Trump suggested that “individual countries” would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. On Saturday, he reiterated a threat to the president of Colombia, a major non-NATO ally, to “watch his ass,” over an ongoing dispute about Bogota’s cooperation on drug enforcement.

Advertisement

On Sunday morning, the United Nations Security Council held an urgent meeting to discuss the legality of the U.S. operation in Venezuela.

It was not Russia or China — permanent members of the council and long-standing competitors — who called the session, nor France, whose government has questioned whether the operation violated international law, but Colombia, a nonpermanent member who joined the council less than a week ago.

Continue Reading

Politics

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

Published

on

Dan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.

Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to “civilian life.”

“It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,” he wrote.

The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.

Advertisement

BONDI, PATEL TAP MISSOURI AG AS ADDITIONAL FBI CO-DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALONGSIDE BONGINO

Dan Bongino speaks with FBI Director Kash Patel as they attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York City on Sept. 11, 2025. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.

“Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,” Trump told reporters.

FBI DIRECTOR, TOP DOJ OFFICIAL RESPOND TO ‘FAILING’ NY TIMES ARTICLE CLAIMING ‘DISDAIN’ FOR EACH OTHER

Advertisement

“After his swearing-in ceremony as FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino paid his respects at the Wall of Honor, honoring the brave members of the #FBI who made the ultimate sacrifice and reflecting on the legacy of those who paved the way in the pursuit of justice and security,” the FBI said in a post on X. (@FBI on X)

Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on “Fox & Friends,” saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.

“I gave up everything for this,” he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.

“I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,” he added.

The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover headquarters building in Washington on Nov. 2, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending