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 signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending