Tag Archive for: The Military

Trump Response to L.A. Riots Applies Lessons Learned in 2020

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Los Angeles riots have driven California progressives back to a familiar strategy: blame Trump. For instance, after days of dallying, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) on Tuesday finally declared an overnight curfew in Downtown Los Angeles “to stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the President’s chaotic escalation.” But Trump has “been here before,” and he knows how events play out.

“You have to remember, I’ve been here before,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “I went right by every rule, and I waited for governors to say, ‘Send in the National Guard.’ They wouldn’t do it, and they just wouldn’t do it. It kept going on and on [and] got worse and worse.”

Trump was recalling the fiery protests in the summer of 2020, for which a mainstream media outlet devised the anti-description, “mostly peaceful.” After seven days of rioting in Minneapolis, Trump continued, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) “wouldn’t call the National Guard, and we ultimately just sent in the National Guard. We stopped it, but that was after seven days.”

“And I said to myself, ‘If that stuff happens again, we’ve got to make faster decisions because they don’t want to do it,’” Trump added. “If we didn’t send in the National Guard quickly, right now, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground.”

Some politicians disagree — or at least claim to. “You all don’t think that somehow, because they called out the National Guard, there was violence?” queried Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). “There was no violence. I was on the street. I know.” The curfew imposed by Mayor Bass would beg to differ.

But the mainstream media is all too happy to back up the argument that Trump’s handling of the crisis has been heavy-handed. “Trump is acting like an authoritarian,” complained CNN. “This Is What Autocracy Looks Like” agreed The New York Times. “Sending the National Guard into LA is the administration’s clearest step yet towards authoritarianism,” echoed the Financial Times.

When the left-biased media calls a Republican president’s actions “authoritarianism,” it says less about the action itself than about the commentators’ dislike of authority wielded by their political opponents.

“What’s happened so far is that Trump has acted within the law … to use the National Guard (and now a contingent of Marines) to protect federal personnel and property in L.A.,” argued Rich Lowry. “Most people don’t feel threatened or provoked by guys in camo standing impassively in front of a federal building.”

At least at first glance, a federal judge agrees. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a judge on senior status in the Northern District of California, denied Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) emergency request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Trump from federalizing the California National Guard. Judge Breyer is a former Watergate prosecutor and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court’s liberals.

Breyer scheduled a hearing on the motion for Thursday. He gave the federal government until 2 p.m. EST on Wednesday to file arguments, then California has until 9 a.m. on Thursday to respond.

The more time that passes, the more evidence suggests that Trump was right to categorize the L.A. riots as a re-run of 2020. Despite the intervening Biden administration, the players and politics remain fundamentally identical, except that Trump enjoys a stronger position. Even the cause — opposition to law enforcement — is nearly the same, although that is certainly no requirement to draw out leftist activists. Already, anti-ICE protests have spread across the country, including New York, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta. NBC News “counted at least 25 rallies and demonstrations coast to coast” on Monday and Tuesday.

Trump provided further explanation for his actions while speaking at Fort Bragg, days before the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday. The point of defending American property in American streets is the same as defending it abroad, he said. “Generations of Army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness here at home — like is happening in California,” Trump urged. “As commander-in-chief, I will not let that happen.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Analysis: Trump’s Deployment of Federal Troops Is Not Unprecedented

Murderers, rapists, gang members: ICE busts 12 of LA’s ‘worst’ illegal alien criminals amid riots | Blaze Media

Officer slams door in Rep. Maxine Waters’ face when she tries to check in on union president arrested in ICE rioting | Blaze Media

RELATED VIDEOS:

Tyler O’Neil Lays Out How Organizations Like the SPLC, CHIRLA, and Antifa Fuel Violence and Riots

Markwayne Mullin: Gavin Newsom needs to be fired

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Warrior Spirit Being Restored’: Retired General Weighs In on Renaming USNS Harvey Milk

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a U.S. Navy vessel to be stripped of its name. The USNS Harvey Milk is an oiler named after a San Francisco gay rights activist. In November 2021, the ship was “formally christened and launched” into service after plans were made to name a ship after Milk as early as 2016.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the oiler was named after Milk to recognize his “legacy and dedication to gay rights.” Milk acted as an activist for LGBT causes, openly advocating for those who identify as homosexual while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and giving speeches where he insisted, “Every gay person must come out.” Many criticized the ship’s namesake, questioning whether Milk deserved such an honor.

According to Military.com, the memo ordering the name change labeled the action as a realignment to the “priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture” within the military. Reportedly, making the announcement in June, dubbed Pride Month by LGBT activists, is also intentional.

Some Democrats have expressed their disapproval over the decision. California Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi (D) called the move “spiteful,” adding it is a “shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) rebuked Hegseth, calling it a “complete and total disgrace” and an “abomination.” Jeffries also referred to Hegseth as “the least qualified secretary of Defense in American history.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blasted Hegseth, saying, “Erasing Harvey Milk’s name is disgusting, blatant discrimination — and during Pride Month to boot. He served the U.S. Navy and his country honorably, and he was assassinated while serving the public and fighting for LGBTQ+ rights. Hegseth should be ashamed of himself and reverse this immediately.”

In a statement made to USA Today, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell defended the decision, saying Hegseth “is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos.”

Other ships’ names may be on the chopping block as well. The USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg and USNS Cesar Chavez, among others, are reportedly being considered for rechristening. Parnell noted, “Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete.”

As far as the USNS Harvey Milk goes, many are praising the decision, including Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. Boykin, executive vice president of Family Research Council. “Secretary Hegseth is sending a message to the entire military establishment that specific value is being put on the warrior ethos,” told the Washington Stand.

Boykin recalled his military experience, saying, “I have stood on east and west coast docks watching the christening of ships for two of my men who died in combat and had ships named for them. That is something that America can be proud of.”

Boykin expressed his gratitude at the changes being made under President Trump and Hegseth. “Our military under the last administration was headed over the cliff at a rapid pace with all of the DEI activities that were taking up time that should have been used to prepare for war. The warrior spirit is being restored by the secretary of Defense and the quality leaders in our military today. We must recognize that the world we live in has become so complex and dangerous that we must use our time wisely to ensure that our men and women of the armed services are ready when the call comes.”

“Ships and other memorials should be reserved for those who have either proven themselves in a courageous way or they have died in combat,” Boykin concluded. “[There are] no exceptions.”

AUTHOR

Zachary Gohl

Zachary Gohl serves as an intern at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLE: ROOKE: Pentagon Melts Left’s Golden Calf During Their Holy Month

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

DOD Announces Investigation of Biden Admin.’s Deadly Afghanistan Withdrawal

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Nearly four years ago, then-President Joe Biden withdrew U.S. military forces from Afghanistan in a disastrous, ill-planned maneuver that cost the lives of 13 U.S. servicemembers and 170 civilians. Now, President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are launching an investigation to determine how the withdrawal was botched.

In a Monday Department of Defense (DOD) memo shared with The Washington Stand, Hegseth wrote, “President Trump and I have formally pledged full transparency for what transpired during our military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Department of Defense has an obligation, both to the American people and to the warfighters who sacrificed their youth in Afghanistan, to get to the facts.”

“This remains an important step toward regaining faith and trust with the American people and all those who wear the uniform and is prudent based on the number of casualties and equipment lost during the execution of this withdrawal operation,” Hegseth continued. He noted that the DOD has been conducting a months-long review of “this catastrophic event in our military’s history,” beginning shortly after Trump’s return to the White House. However, in order “to ensure that accountability for this event is met and that the complete picture is provided to the American people,” the DOD will establish a “Special Review Panel” to examine previous reviews, sources, witnesses, transcripts, and factual findings and “analyze the decision making that led to one of America’s darkest and deadliest international moments.” Hegseth pledged, “This team will ensure ACCOUNTABILITY to the American people and the warfighters of our great Nation.”

The DOD informed The Washington Stand that the panel will be led by Afghanistan War military veteran and senior DOD official and advisor Sean Parnell, along with Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, an outspoken critic of the Biden administration’s management of the withdrawal, and investigative reporter and author Jerry Dunleavy. Previously, Dunleavy played a key role in helping the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee conduct its own investigation and compile its own report on the withdrawal.

In comments to TWS, former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who oversaw the compilation and publication of the report, recounted, “The Biden administration’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan ceded the country to the Taliban, abandoned our allies, and resulted in the deaths of 13 brave American servicemembers.” He stated, “This was a failure of epic proportions, yet President Biden and his Democratic allies in Congress tried to sweep it all under the rug.” The congressman continued, “I’m glad to see the Trump administration putting rightful focus on the impacts of this debacle — as the Foreign Affairs Committee did under my chairmanship — and working to improve accountability, transparency, and procedures to ensure this never happens again. The American people, our Afghan allies, and our Gold Star families deserve nothing less.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, published in September, was the result of months of extensive investigations and hearings. The report concluded that the Biden administration “was determined to withdraw from Afghanistan … no matter the cost.” The administration therefore “ignored” the provisions of the Doha Agreement, a 2020 treaty between the U.S. and the Taliban establishing the terms for a phased U.S. withdrawal, as well as the “pleas of the Afghan government, and the objections by our NATO allies, deciding to unilaterally withdraw from the country.”

The Biden administration also “prioritized the optics of the withdrawal over the security of U.S. personnel on the ground,” subsequently failing “to plan for all contingencies, including a noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) and refused to order a NEO until after the Taliban had already entered Kabul.” That failure to initiate an NEO in time resulted in jeopardizing the lives of numerous DOD and State Department personnel in Kabul and the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers, as well as at least 45 others who were wounded.

According to the report, Biden administration personnel and officials, especially members of the National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor (NSA) Jake Sullivan, actively lied to the American public about the withdrawal and the circumstances surrounding it. In some cases, DOD personnel under the Biden administration’s command also destroyed hard drives and laptops, an act the report referred to as “inexcusable errors.” The report added, “As evidenced by this investigation, record collection and preservation are key to ensuring another such catastrophe does not occur again and preventing the loss of American life.”

“In the aftermath of the withdrawal, U.S. national security was degraded as Afghanistan once again became a haven for terrorists, including al Qaeda and ISISK,” the report stated. It continued, “America’s credibility on the world stage was severely damaged after we abandoned Afghan allies to Taliban reprisal killings — the people of Afghanistan we had promised to protect. And the moral injury to America’s veterans and those still serving remains a stain on this administration’s legacy.”

“Beyond the impact the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and abandon our allies for 20 years,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Bill Roggio tells The Washington Stand, “the Department of Defense should investigate what its prior leadership knew about the security situation at the time, Al Qaeda’s presence in the country, and how terror groups would thrive after the inevitable collapse of the Afghan government.

“Al Qaeda was closely allied with the Taliban at the time of the withdrawal,” he continued, “and fought alongside the Taliban to conquer the country. Today, Al Qaeda has significant infrastructure in the country, including terror training camps in 13 provinces, safe houses, religious schools, and a weapons storage depot. The infrastructure didn’t materialize out of thin air; it was the result of years of a close alliance forged in blood and sacrifice. The Taliban has paid its debt to Al Qaeda, and the world is far less safe today because of it.”

Trump has repeatedly and openly castigated the Biden administration’s handling of the withdrawal. When Kabul was taken by the Taliban in August 2021, Trump called on Biden to “resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan,” adding that the botched withdrawal “will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!”

On the three-year anniversary of the Abbey Gate bombing in Kabul that claimed the lives of the 13 U.S. servicemembers, Trump referred to the withdrawal as “the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country…” While Biden and his deputy, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, criticized Trump for appearing at an Arlington National Cemetery event commemorating the fallen soldiers, the families of those soldiers defended Trump’s presence and lambasted Biden and Harris for their mismanagement of the troop withdrawal.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: He’s the right man, in the right place, right time and just in the nick of time

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Pete Hegseth Sparks Criticism for Prayer to ‘King Jesus’ at Pentagon Event

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth led a prayer during a voluntary event at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, on Wednesday that addressed Jesus as king and invoked His wisdom for guidance, prompting critics to accuse him of violating the U.S. Constitution.

“King Jesus, we come humbly before you, seeking your face, seeking your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to your word,” Hegseth prayed. “We come as sinners saved only by that grace, seeking your providence in our lives and in our nation. Lord God, we ask for the wisdom to see what is right and in each and every day, in each and every circumstance, the courage to do what is right in obedience to your will. It is in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we pray. And all God’s people say amen,” Hegseth added, to which some in the audience replied, “Amen.”

Hegseth noted that the voluntary 30-minute prayer event, which was called the “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service,” might become a monthly occurrence, according to The New York Times.

Hegseth appeared to mock The New York Times for its story on the service, noting how the left-leaning outlet was effectively forced to print a prayer to Jesus in its entirety. The New York Times has been critical of Hegseth, publishing stories implying he wants to start a new Crusade while highlighting his Latin “Deus Vult” tattoo, which drew scrutiny as the rallying cry of the First Crusade in 1095.

In January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a 33-page letter to Hegseth complaining about his tattoo, which she claimed indicated he is an “insider threat.”

Hegseth’s prayer this week has prompted pushback from some critics who claim it was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former Pentagon lawyer and now a law professor at Southwestern Law School, called the service “incredibly problematic,” according to CNN.

VanLandingham said the “core of the Establishment Clause is the state not endorsing a particular religion, but having a broadcast event is obviously an endorsement even if they don’t officially say, ‘this is a Pentagon event.’”

“I think it’s sponsorship in the true sense of the word, outside of funding — he’s advocating for this, he is putting his weight of the official Office of the Secretary of Defense behind a particular religious event and inviting someone to the Pentagon to conduct it,” she added. “That’s wrong.”

Military Religious Freedom Foundation founder Mikey Weinstein, whose nonprofit has endeavored to remove overtly religious symbols from the military for 20 years, invoked the Holocaust to criticize the prayer service, according to a Wednesday video he posted to his website.

“I’ve been asked by the media what I think this means and what the impact is, and my response is simple: it’s a holocaust, and I speak to you as somebody who suffered the fact that members of my family were actually slaughtered in the Nazi Holocaust,” he said. “It’s beyond description. It rips us under our Constitution [sic], and it’s something we can’t let happen.”

Erin Smith, who serves as associate counsel at First Liberty Institute, expressed support for Hegseth in a statement provided to The Christian Post.

Smith likened Hegseth’s religious exercise to that of the 26 U.S. Navy SEALs who sued the U.S. Department of Defense after being relieved of duty for refusing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds after being denied a religious exemption.

“Secretary Hegseth’s exercise of his religious faith is protected just like it was for the Navy SEALs we represented against the prior administration when it tried to kick them out for their faith objection to Covid requirements,” Smith said. “We commend Secretary Hegseth for standing up for the Constitution and against censorship.”

Phil Mendes, one of the SEALs in the lawsuit, was featured as a witness during Attorney General Pam Bondi’s first meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government last month.

Also speaking at the Pentagon event with Hegseth was Brooks Potteiger, pastor of Hegseth’s home church Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, which was established 2021 in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, near Nashville.

Potteiger delivered a prayer that suggested President Donald Trump and other leaders were appointed to their offices according to God’s sovereignty, and asked God to provide the president with wisdom and protection.

“We pray for our leaders who you have sovereignly appointed — for President Trump, thank you for the way that you have used him to bring stability and moral clarity to our land. And we pray that you would continue to protect him, bless him, give him great wisdom,” he said. “We pray that you would surround him with faithful counselors who fear your name and love your precepts.”

Potteiger’s church is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which was cofounded by Douglas Wilson in 1998 and formerly called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches until its name was changed in 2011 to avoid association with the Confederacy.

This article was originally published in The Christian Post.

AUTHOR

Jon Brown

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post.

RELATED VIDEO: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Appealing to Heaven, to God, is a long-standing tradition in our military.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

IG Reports Give Fuller Accounting of Biden Military Lowlights

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

“The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later” (1 Timothy 5:24). This principle of biblical wisdom is just as valid in politics. Not every fault is instantly known and judged; others only “appear later” — but, rest assured, they “cannot remain hidden” (1 Timothy 5:25). In November 2024, voters knew enough about President Biden’s failure to reject his party’s successor, but the full accounting of Biden’s blunders will only come to light with time.

That accounting has now begun. Congressional committees and inspectors general had already begun investigations into the most egregious failings of the previous administration, but stonewalling tactics threw sand in the gears. As the Trump administration feels no compunction about exposing the missteps of its predecessor, those investigations will now move forward much more smoothly.

Gaza Pier

One such accounting concerns the infamous floating pier that Biden ordered the U.S. military to assemble along the coast of Gaza. The whole exercise was political — a subtle dig at Israel for insisting on screening aid that entered Gaza overland, a transparent concession to the pro-Hamas rabble that Biden sought to placate, and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that Hamas would promptly loot aid humanitarian aid that arrived in Gaza (even off the pier!)

Operation Neptune Solace, as the pier project was dubbed, required the labor of 1,000 U.S. servicemembers over several months, as well as $320 million in equipment, yet it disintegrated almost instantly. As it turns out the pier was not designed to withstand even a “gentle breeze,” which is average weather on the Gaza coast. After only 20 days of partial operation, including multiple repairs, the pier operation was abandoned.

Of course, the Biden administration tried to spin this not as a total failure, but as a partial success. The pier did deliver some aid — about a third of the aid it hoped to land — and the operation’s total casualties amounted to three soldiers with non-combat injuries, the Pentagon said.

According a new report released this month by the DOD Inspector General (IG), this casualty estimate was just plain wrong. “In response to our request and a review of records, USCENTCOM reported that 62 U.S. personnel suffered injuries during Operation Neptune Solace,” the report stated. “Based on the information provided, we were not able to determine which of these 62 injuries occurred during the performance of duties or resulted off duty or from pre-existing medical conditions.” One soldier, who was medevacked from the pier in May with critical injuries, died in October.

The loss in material was also substantial. “The Navy reported damage to 27 watercraft and INLS equipment pieces totaling approximately $31 million,” the IG recorded, while the Army’s total damage report was classified. Much of the damage was due to equipment that was punctured or bent after colliding in the rolling seas; the Army and Navy’s separate equipment was never designed to be used together. But what do 60 soldiers and $30 million matter in pursuit of political brownie points?

The Biden Pentagon could keep the Gaza pier’s devastating toll under wraps for a while, but the true impact did “appear later.”

Afghanistan Equipment

Only days earlier, another inspector general report slammed another critical failure of the Biden administration. In an ill-advised decision to withdraw from Afghanistan by a pre-determined, arbitrary deadline, President Biden ordered American forces to evacuate the country in haste, leaving behind equipment, allies, and even American citizens. More specifically, the U.S. left behind 78 aircraft, 40,000 military vehicles, and over 300,000 weapons.

Even worse, Biden’s hasty retreat kneecapped the friendly, democratic government of Afghanistan, causing it to collapse rapidly before an advancing Taliban, the very group America defenestrated from power more than two decades earlier. Even worse, it now appears that the Taliban has reverted to its old ways, allowing more than two dozen terrorist organizations to train on its soil, including at least four offshoots of al-Qaeda.

In an April 30 report, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) succinctly compiled this information as follows:

“A February UN sanctions monitoring team report said that al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan … ‘continued to have access to weapons seized from the former Afghan National Army, transferred to them by the de facto authorities/Taliban or purchased from the black market.’ The Taliban army chief of staff said the regime planned to provide the army with more advanced weapons and equipment, but did not specify from where or whom it could come. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) reported that out of $18.6 billion worth of equipment that was transferred to the ANDSF between 2005 and August 2021, $7.12 billion remained in Afghanistan.”

From this summary, it’s not hard to infer that Biden’s disastrous withdrawal left high-tech American military equipment to the very terrorist organizations that we entered Afghanistan to destroy more than two decades ago.

Some of this came to light during the Biden administration — but it only came to light piecemeal and gradually, despite the administration’s refusal to accept (or assign) responsibility.

Conclusion

These are not the first reports exposing previous governmental misdeeds, nor will they be last. Congress this week also exposed the FBI’s deceptive mishandling of the 2017 assassination attempt of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other Republican lawmakers. Last month, the DOJ “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias” assembled the first tranche of grievances to be redressed.

The point is, grievous mistakes have a way of becoming known eventually. Sin can only hide in the shadows for so long. It is therefore wise to take the advice of Proverbs, “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy” (Proverbs 28:13).

American governments would be well served to frankly own up to their own shortcomings. Attempts to cover up the truth only lead to more political fallout in the long run. As Moses once warned a faction of Israelites who sought to avoid accountability, “be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Trans Is Out’: DOD Begins Removing Trans-Identifying Military Members

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump’s Military Beefs Up Physical Standards to Build Back Elite Fighting Force

/in , , , , , , , /by

Under Joe Biden, nothing was a greater threat to our military than the administration in charge of it. With a brief respite during Donald Trump’s first term, America’s fighting force has spent the better part of the last 15 years as a minefield of social experimentation — with little to show for it but low morale, retention and recruitment woes, and a global reputation of weakness and wokeness. In the name of “equity,” the Biden and Obama administrations made a mockery of the military’s high standards. According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, that ends now.

Say what you will about Hegseth’s personal life, his choice of tattoos, or his inadvisable group chats, but when it comes to making our men and women in uniform respectable, this veteran is on a one-man mission to turn our troops back into an elite warrior class. After years of relaxing standards, the Pentagon announced it was returning the military to the high physical benchmarks that made our men and women the most lethal fighting force in the world.

“For far too long,” Hegseth insisted on X, “we have allowed standards to slip. We’ve had different standards for men/women serving in combat arms [military occupational specialty’s] and jobs. … That’s not acceptable, and it changes right now!” The time has come to ditch the Left’s DEI approach to national security. “We need to have the same standards — male or female — in our combat roles to ensure our men and women who are under our leaders and in those formations have the best possible leaders and the highest possible standards that are not based at all on your sex.”

As part of a memo released Monday, the DOD secretary directed the secretaries of America’s military departments to “develop comprehensive plans to distinguish combat arms occupations from non-combat arms occupations. This effort will ensure that our standards are clear, mission-focused, and reflective of the unique physical demands placed on our Service members in various roles.” For certain combat roles, Hegseth continued, “it is essential to identify which positions require heightened entry-level and sustained physical fitness. These roles, which are critical to our military’s mission success, demand exceptional physical capabilities, and the standards for them must reflect that rigor.”

From now on, the secretary declared, “All entry-level and sustained physical fitness requirements within combat arms positions must be sex-neutral, based solely on the operational demands of the occupation and the readiness needed to confront any adversary.” Those standards, he directed, must be implemented by October.

As Hegseth himself explained, this isn’t meant to denigrate or shame female recruits. But the reality is, men and women are physiologically different, and females should never be allowed in combat units if they aren’t physically up to the task. And according to a study by the left-leaning RAND in 2022, the Army’s women were not — failing even the easier fitness tests at significantly higher rates than men. That was the same year the Biden administration decided to loosen certain requirements for women against the advice of experts, who warned that it would only create a more dangerous environment for everyone.

Hegseth took a lot of flak in the days leading up to his confirmation hearing for suggesting that women shouldn’t be in combat roles at all — a position that he’s modified with this caveat: “If we have the right standard and women meet that standard, roger, let’s go.”

When the last two Democratic presidents decided to dilute fitness tests for females, Family Research Council’s Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin was adamantly opposed — not just to their DEI approach to our national defense but to mixing the genders to begin with. Boykin, who’s commanded Special Forces in battle, was clear about the consequences of this kind of social experimentation. “Some units, like infantry, Special Forces, SEALs, and others, are not suitable for combining men and women. It has nothing to do with the courage or even capabilities of women. It is all about two things: the burden on small unit leaders and the lack of privacy in these units,” he explained.

“Leaders of these units must be focused like a laser on keeping their soldiers alive and defeating the enemy,” Boykin knows. “It is unreasonable to encumber them with the additional burden of worrying about how they provide privacy for the few women under their command during stressful and very dangerous operations. It is not the same as being a combat pilot who returns to an operating base or an aircraft carrier after the fight, where separate facilities are available.” It’s the absolute wrong policy for America, Boykin went on, because it “ignores fundamental biological differences between the sexes and the natural implications of those differences.”

And it’s not just men who feel this way, but brave women in uniform too. The New York Times pointed to an op-ed written by Kristen Griest, one of the first two females to graduate from the Army’s elite Ranger School, objecting to this woke approach to war-fighting. “With equal opportunity comes equal responsibility,” Griest insisted. “Lowering fitness standards to accommodate women will hurt the Army — and women.”

She argued that separate scoring based on gender would “drastically reduce the performance and effectiveness of combat arms units. … [T]he requirements to join the nation’s combat forces could soon be as low as performing ten push-ups in two minutes, running two miles in twenty-one minutes, deadlifting 140 pounds three times, and performing only one repetition of a leg tuck or, failing that, two minutes of a plank exercise,” she pointed out.

“While these low standards may have seemed adequate in a controlled study,” Griest insisted, “I know from experience that they will not suffice in reality. Indeed, the presence of just a handful of individuals who cannot run two miles faster than twenty-one minutes has the potential to derail a training exercise,” she warned, “not to mention an actual combat patrol. … Missions will be delayed and other soldiers will be overburdened with the weight of their unfit teammates’ equipment. This scenario is inconvenient and bad for morale during a training exercise; in combat it could be deadly.”

Griest stressed that “while it may be difficult for a 120-pound woman to lift or drag 250 pounds, the Army cannot artificially absolve women of that responsibility; it may still exist on the battlefield.” And frankly, “The entire purpose of creating a gender-neutral test was to acknowledge the reality that each job has objective physical standards to which all soldiers should be held, regardless of gender. The intent was not to ensure that women and men will have an equal likelihood of meeting those standards. Rather,” she argued, “it is incumbent upon women who volunteer for the combat arms profession to ensure they are fully capable and qualified for it. To not require women to meet equal standards in combat arms will not only undermine their credibility, but also place those women, their teammates, and the mission at risk.”

What Hegseth has done is recognize that men and women are different, Lt. Colonel (Ret.) Bob Maginnis told The Washington Stand. “Yet, across recent and mostly Democrat administrations, those differences were blurred to the point of insanity. As a result, the military departments watered down their standards for many combat positions to access women. However, as most combatants understand, that reduction in standards negatively impacted readiness. That’s the target of Hegseth’s directive — improve readiness.”

Maginnis, who wrote an entire book called “Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat,” blames Obama for starting this social experiment, which, he noted, coincided with that administration’s announcement to assign women to ground combat units. “That decision to violate a virtually universal principle of military practice represented our craven military leadership’s surrender to the political forces of radical feminism. The implications for U.S. national security were — and remain — sobering.”

Now, years later, Maginnis points out, “We know that a) very few military women are interested in combat duty; b) the Pentagon’s assurances that military readiness will not be compromised are seriously flawed; and 3) until Trump, our top uniformed leadership surrendered to feminist ideologues without a fight.”

As far as he’s concerned, this change “was a long time coming.” And it should be welcomed by every “common-sense American interested in maintaining a ready military.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

PERKINS: Military Should Be Defined by Effectiveness, Not Ideology

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Last week, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, halted President Trump’s policy that prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the military. To understand the significance of this ruling, we need to look at the policy’s origins and the reasons behind it.

Transgender-identifying individuals were never allowed to serve in the military until former President Obama changed the policy during the final days of his administration. Upon taking office in 2017, President Trump reversed that decision, citing multiple factors, including cost and military readiness.

According to an analysis by Family Research Council, which informed the 2017 policy decision, the projected cost of allowing transgender individuals to serve — which was before active recruitment began under the Biden administration — was estimated at $1.88 billion over 10 years. It’s even more now. This staggering price tag reflects taxpayer dollars that would have been used for medical treatments like hormone therapy and surgeries, along with the cost of lost service time because of the treatments.

To put that in perspective, those funds could purchase 22 F-35 fighter jets, 116 Chinook Helicopters, 3,700 Tomahawk missiles, or a Navy destroyer instead. President Trump made the right decision in 2017, and he made the right decision to reinstate the policy.

The military’s mission is clear, as the president wrote in his executive order: “to protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force. This objective should not be compromised to accommodate political agendas or ideologies. … Military service must be reserved for those who are both mentally and physically fit to serve.”

Judge Reyes, in her 79-page ruling, called the Trump policy “unabashedly demeaning” and claimed it was “soaked in animus.” Using twisted logic at best, she argued that it is sex discrimination to prohibit transgenderism, because “a biological female who identifies as a woman is not banned.” That’s precisely the point. Women can serve, and men can serve, but not men who think they are women. Keep in mind the military routinely excludes individuals based on factors that affect readiness, such as excessive body fat, pregnancy, endometriosis, or even motion sickness. These exclusions are not acts of discrimination — they are practical measures to ensure mission preparedness.

Judge Reyes may want to reconsider her interpretation of presidential authority. The Constitution, in Article II, explicitly designates the president as the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. As former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in 2022, “Judges are not given the task of running the military.” That responsibility falls to the president, whose primary duty is to ensure the safety and security of the nation.

It’s also worth noting that Judge Reyes criticized the lack of studies to support the Trump administration’s policy reversal, while ignoring the fact that the Biden administration conducted no studies when it overturned Trump’s policy on the fifth day of his presidency.

President Trump is right, and Judge Reyes is wrong. Military policy should be driven by effectiveness and national security — not the Left’s destructive ideology.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s DOJ launches review of law firms that participated in ‘weaponized lawfare’

Massive Poll Of Millions Of Americans Shows Dems Have Big Problems On Their Hands

Vulnerable Democrat Representative’s New Rhetoric On Gender Ideology Doesn’t Match Left-Wing Voting Record

Libs Up In Arms When Their Own Racism Gets Shoved In Their Face

Turns Out Americans Were Unhappier Than Ever Before Under Biden’s Watch

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

2 U.S. Soldiers, 1 Former Soldier Arrested after Allegedly Spying for China

/in , , , , , , , /by

Two soldiers and one former soldier were arrested on Thursday in schemes to sell information about U.S. weapons systems to China, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in a press release. The leakers allegedly sold classified, secret, and top-secret information regarding the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and Bradley and Stryker fighting vehicles, as well as a stolen, encryption-capable computer.

“It is unconscionable that a person who wears the uniform of a U.S. Army soldier would betray our country and the trust of his fellow soldiers,” declared W. Mike Herrington, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Seattle Field Office.

The DOJ on Wednesday charged Jian Zhao in the Western District of Washington “for conspiring to obtain and transmit national defense information to an individual not authorized to receive it, and also for bribery and theft of government property.”

During the relevant period (July through December 2024), Zhao was a battery supply sergeant for the headquarters of the 17th Artillery Brigade at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma, Wash. There, he was “directly responsible for the request, receipt, issue, turn-in, and accountability of all individual, organizational, installation, expandable, and durable supplies and equipment” and “manage[d] the records and accountability of over 55 million dollars of Army property.”

The DOJ posted Zhao’s indictment “as a courtesy to the public,” detailing how he delivered 20 military hard drives to a Chinese contact in exchange for $15,000 — a surprisingly paltry recompense for his risky espionage.

At the same time, the DOJ charged Li Tian and Ruoyu Duan with conspiring to commit bribery and theft of government property in the District of Oregon. Tian was an active-duty U.S. Army soldier who worked as a health services administrator at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, while Duan was a former soldier at the same base. According to the indictment, Tian sold U.S. military information to Duan in a conspiracy that ran from November 2021 to at least December 2024.

The arrests continue a trend of federal employees leaking classified information. Last April, a National Guardsman in Massachusetts was arrested for posting classified military documents to a gamer forum. In November, a CIA official was arrested for leaking classified U.S. intelligence assessments of Israel’s preparations for a strike on Iran.

The latest leak may be the most devastating, as it informed our most dangerous geopolitical adversary about some of our most effective military systems.

“The defendants arrested today are accused of betraying our country, actively working to weaken America’s defense capabilities and empowering our adversaries in China,” announced U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. “They will face swift, severe, and comprehensive justice.”

The U.S. intelligence community has known about China’s escalating espionage efforts in the U.S. for years, which included operating a secret police station in Manhattan. In April 2024, then-FBI Director Christopher Wray warned that China’s espionage efforts were “both broad and unrelenting,” aimed at prevent the U.S. from intervening in a “crisis between China and Taiwan by 2027.”

More recently, China responded aggressively to President Trump’s 10% tariff hike (to 20% total) by calling and raising their own tariffs on American goods by 15% (to 25% total), indicating that recent confrontations are likely to escalate further.

It’s noteworthy that the alleged acts of espionage occurred throughout all four years of the Biden administration, while the indictments and arrests came in the opening months of the Trump administration, only two weeks after FBI Director Kash Patel was confirmed on February 20. These facts suggest that these alleged spies were caught and prosecuted due to greater vigilance or increased scrutiny implemented under the Trump administration.

We don’t know this for certain. The DOJ, FBI, and U.S. Army Counterintelligence Command, which also investigated the case, have not said publicly when the investigation began. Perhaps investigators discovered the stolen data recently and only later found the culprits.

However, it seems unlikely that the U.S. military would allow individuals suspected of actively leaking classified material to a foreign adversary to remain at liberty for months while they dawdled on assembling a case. It also seems unlikely that the Biden administration, with its last-minute administrative push to “Trump-proof” the federal government, would leave this loose end for Trump to take the credit.

This interpretation of the facts raises the question, why didn’t the U.S. military catch these spies under President Biden? As it turns out, the Biden administration redirected military investigators to a far more politicized task, which turned out to be a wild goose chase.

The Biden administration launched this initiative at the very beginning with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s “stand-down” order (February 5, 2021) to combat extremism in the ranks. (Of course, this order only included far-right forms of extremism and failed to detect multiple left-wing servicemembers who committed violent acts on President Biden’s watch.) After several years of searching, multiple investigations, and more than 300 pages of reports, the investigationsconcluded that the military did not have an extremism problem.

Meanwhile, Tian and Duan were smuggling classified secrets to China, entirely undetected.

The other priority of the Biden administration Defense Department was indoctrinating servicemembers with left-wing ideology. In 2022, around the time the Chinese Communist Party launched a new warship, the U.S. Navy launched a video teaching their soldiers about preferred pronouns.

But President Trump’s administration has entirely reversed the direction of federal agencies, from the U.S. military’s recruiting numbers, to the zeal with which federal investigators root out foreign agents. “These arrests should send a message to would-be spies that we and our partners have the will and the ability to find you, track you down, and hold you to account,” Herrington warned. “Protecting the nation’s secrets, especially those necessary to preserve our military advantage and protect our troops, is one of the FBI’s top priorities.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Pentagon: Individuals with Gender Dysphoria ‘No Longer Eligible for Military Service’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

“Individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of … gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service,” according to a Pentagon memo providing “Additional Guidance on Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” revealed in a court filing Wednesday. The policy requires all servicemembers to abide by the standards associated with their biological sex and gives departments 30 days to commence separation procedures for members of the armed forces with gender dysphoria.

“The medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service,” explained the memo, signed by Darin S. Selnick, who is “performing the duties of” the

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

People with gender dysphoria have significantly higher rates of other mental health disorders, related to the general population. Attempts to transition usually involve indefinite hormonal injections, and it can involve extensive elective plastic surgeries.

Such medical issues are a distraction from the military’s warfighting mission, and people who wish to prioritize an attempted gender transition would be freer to pursue their objective if they were not in the military.

In addition, the policy continues, “The Department [of Defense] only recognizes two sexes: male and female. An individual’s sex is immutable, unchanging during a person’s life. All Service members will only serve in accordance with their sex.”

In keeping with this recognition of biological reality, the Pentagon will now judge males as males and females as females. “Where a standard, requirement, or policy depends on whether the individual is a male or female (e.g., medical fitness for duty, physical fitness and body fat standards; berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities; and uniform and grooming standards), all persons will be subject to the standard, requirement, or policy associated with their sex,” the policy states.

The Pentagon will also require the accurate usage of titles and pronouns, a sharp departure from the pronoun anarchy promoted in the military under President Biden. In fact, it explicitly cancels policies dealing with transgender military servicemembers adopted under former Presidents Biden (2023 and 2021), Trump (2019), and Obama (2016).

The policy then outlines the process by which people with gender dysphoria will be fairly but firmly separated from the military. The disqualifying factors are clear: either a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or a history of cross-sex hormones or genital gender reassignment surgeries — both of which create permanent, physiological changes. The timeline is also clear: military departments have 30 days to “establish procedures and implement steps to identify Service members” disqualified under the policy, and then 30 days to “begin separation actions.”

The date on which the policy was adopted is not apparent from the court filing, but it did take effect immediately, sometime since January 20.

The policy does not categorize gender dysphoria as a moral failing but as a medically disqualifying factor, like blindness or dyslexia. It thus allows people with gender dysphoria, absent other blemishes on their record, to obtain an honorable discharge and keep any pay or benefits they would otherwise have.

Thus, the point of the policy is not to punish servicemembers with gender dysphoria, but to promote military readiness and warfighting capabilities. “Gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service” because it “is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security,” the policy explains.

To further underscore this purpose, the policy provides a waiver process in cases where “there is a compelling Government interest in retaining the Service member that directly supports warfighting capabilities.” Such individuals must demonstrate “36 consecutive months of stability in the Service member’s sex without clinically significant distress or impairment,” and “that he or she has never attempted to transition to any sex,” and they must be “willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with the Service member’s sex.”

The DoD adopted its policy on transgender-identifying servicemembers in compliance with President Trump’s Day One executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

In response to the news, the Modern Military Association of America, an LGBTQ military advocacy group, called the policy “both medically unsound and a blatant disregard for the proven capabilities and dedication of transgender individuals who have served and continue to serve with distinction,” adding that it “it sends a damaging message to the world about the values of the United States.”

Therein lies the problem with the Biden administration’s approach. The military is not supposed to be a vehicle for transmitting American values around the world. That is the State Department’s job. The military’s singular focus should be fighting and winning wars.

In fact, it was the Biden administration’s hijacking of the military as an instrument to promote transgender ideology that sent not only a damaging message, but an insulting one — not only to other countries but also to America’s own servicemembers. During the Biden administration, military recruitment numbers plummeted year after year.

Various excuses were suggested for the decline, but the true reason was a lack of enthusiasm among military-age Americans about pledging themselves to an institution that had been captured by woke nonsense. This became evident when, after Trump’s election victory, the U.S. Army posted its best recruiting numbers in more than a decade. Nothing changed except the political leadership of the military, yet recruitment increased dramatically.

Consistent with this more compelling vision of military readiness — one that recognizes biological realities — the Pentagon is also taking steps to scrub “all DoD news and feature articles, photos, and videos that promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell ordered public relations staff on Wednesday to remove such content from public-facing websites by March 5, although they will be retained “consistent with records management requirements.”

The directive also applies to social media content — a much more ambitious undertaking — particularly singling out social media content generated during the Biden administration.

If DoD staff “cannot remove DEI content from DoD social media accounts by March 5, 2025, they must temporarily remove from public display all news articles, photos and videos published between January 20, 2021 and January 19, 2025, until the content is fully reviewed and DEI content removed,” the memo states. “While DEI-related content outside of this date range must also be removed, articles, photos, and videos from the last four years are the immediate priority to align DoD communication with the current Administration.”

Like our adversaries, the Trump administration clearly recognizes that woke ideology is a military killer. It’s committed to restoring the military to its mission, projecting American power around the globe, and thus making the whole world safer. So far, the evidence seems to show that Americans are, on the whole, excited about that shift.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Transgenderism Not ‘Honorable, Truthful’ or Compatible with Military Service: Trump EO

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by


President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders reorienting the U.S. military away from liberal indoctrination by banning extreme gender ideology —including transgender pronouns — and DEI policies aimed at advancing critical race theory. The actions brand transgender ideology a “falsehood” that prevents its adherents from living an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

President Trump’s new policy will “end invented and identification-based pronoun usage” and stop members of one sex from using the opposite sex’s “sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities” except under “extraordinary operational necessity,” such as in war zones. It classifies “gender ideology” and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as “radical, extremist, and irrational theories” and will set about “abolishing the DEI bureaucracy.”

Transgender Identity Shows Dishonor ‘Even in One’s Personal Life’

President Trump signed an executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” on Monday night.

“It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” the transgender executive order states. “This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”

Anyone “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service,” states the executive order. “Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

The order cites existing military policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03) that enlistees must be “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” It notes this would apply to “conditions that require substantial medication or medical treatment to bipolar and related disorders, eating disorders, suicidality, and prior psychiatric hospitalization” — comorbidities which tend to occur in greater preponderance among people who identify as transgender.

Transgender procedures took trans-identifying soldiers out of readiness about half the year, according to a comprehensive report authorized in the first Trump administration. The memorandum found the nation’s 994 active duty servicemembers who identify as transgender accounted for more than 30,000 mental health visits. In all, “transitioning Service members in the Army and Air Force have averaged 167 and 159 days of limited duty, respectively, over a one-year period,” constituting a “readiness risk.”

The new policy builds on a previous executive order which rescinded 78 Biden executive orders — including his transgender military service order: Executive Order 14004 of January 25, 2021 (“Enabling All Qualified Americans To Serve Their Country in Uniform”) — on day one.

Executive Order 2: Abolishing DEI in the Military

President Trump’s second executive order, “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” refocuses the military on excellence, lethality, and deterrence rather than DEI.

“Unfortunately, in recent years civilian and uniformed leadership alike have implemented Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and their attendant race and sex preferences within the Armed Forces. These actions undermine leadership, merit, and unit cohesion, thereby eroding lethality and force readiness,” says the order. With his latest action, Trump will wipe out “any vestiges of DEI offices, such as sub-offices, programs, elements, or initiatives established to promote a race-based preferences system that subverts meritocracy, perpetuates unconstitutional discrimination, and promotes divisive concepts or gender ideology.”

The move furthers his policy of rooting out “race-based and sex-based discrimination” throughout the government, including within the U.S. military. “No individual or group within our Armed Forces should be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” states the order. With this action, the federal government will no longer “violate Americans’ consciences by engaging in invidious race and sex discrimination.” The secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security will issue guidance for implementing this order within 30 days, then document their progress in carrying it out within six months. DEI programs cost the military $114.7 million in 2024 alone.

Trump Actions ‘Return the Military to Lethality’: Congressman

Conservatives and veterans praised the president’s decision to bleed social experimentation out of the military. “This is absolutely necessary. It was perfect tone by the president. We will return the military to lethality, to deterring our adversaries across the world,” said Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), a retired Army lieutenant colonel who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, on “Washington Watch” Tuesday. “This will help with recruiting. This will help with training. This will help with morale. This is the way it’s done.”

“Leadership makes a difference in the military. And our commander in chief demonstrated that leadership yesterday with these executive orders,” Self added.

“I was thrilled to see that he went back to the same policy that he enacted” in his first term, “one that we worked with him to get done, and that was to return our military to focusing on its mission to fight and win our wars, not modeling the latest cross-dressing camouflage,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran.

“Wokeism, which comes in many forms, takes progressivism to extremes and imposes it with coercion, even if it hurts the institution,” Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told The Washington Stand.

The move should prove popular with others who have served, as well. A YouGov poll found an overwhelming 94% of veterans oppose racial and gender preferences in military promotions.

But some decried the policy, which reverses secular progressive political grains. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who chairs a congressional caucus dedicated to advancing LGBTQ radicalism, called the Trump policy “beyond shameful.”

Undoing Nine Years of Democratic Social Tinkering

Former President Barack Obama paved the way for the military crisis by allowing individuals with active gender dysphoria to join the military. He added “gender identity” as a protected class in the military’s non-discrimination policies. President Donald Trump authorized a report on the issue in August 2017. The 45th president ultimately adopted the February 2018 memorandum declaring gender dysphoria incompatible with military service, but grandfathering in those who began receiving transgender injections since Obama’s order or who had been “stable” for 36 months and could be deployed.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Law (which sometimes brands itself “Glad Law”) filed a lawsuit, Jane Doe 2 v. Trump, but lost the judgment from Judge Stephen F. Williams, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “[T]here is no constitutional right for, say, biological males who identify as female to live, sleep, shower, and train with biological females. Whether allowing such flexibility in military service is a good idea or not is of no concern to the courts; that is a question for the people acting through their elected representatives,” ruled the late judge. The case never came before the Supreme Court before the Biden-Harris administration restored and expanded the Obama-Biden administration’s policies.

NCLR and Glad Law filed a new lawsuit on Tuesday asserting the military readiness policy is not “based on any legitimate governmental purpose.” Instead, “the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people.”

Additional Executive Orders Reinstate Soldiers Who Refused the COVID-19 Shot, Establish Missile Defense

Trump also signed an executive order reinstating all soldiers whom Joe Biden dismissed or left the U.S. armed services for refusing to take the COVID-19 shot. The more than 8,000 soldiers will “revert to their former rank and receive full back pay, benefits, bonus payments, or compensation.” The president’s action includes not only those forcibly removed from service but also those who voluntarily left the military rather than obey Biden’s order to take the controversial shot, which has been tied to heart problems, strokes, neurological disorders, and an as-yet-unnamed condition that mimics the symptoms of long COVID.

An inspector general’s report found Biden-Harris administration bureaucrats denied religious exemptions en masse to all but those already scheduled to retire or leave the services, spending just 12 minutes analyzing requests. Some 70% of the early servicemembers removed from service over the shot received the lower “general discharge,” rather than an “honorable discharge.”

President Trump’s new order gives the Defense and DHS secretaries 60 days to show they have followed through.

Trump also signed an executive order Tuesday authorizing the establishment of “The Iron Dome for America,” a missile defense system. “The United States will provide for the common defense of its citizens and the [n]ation by deploying and maintaining a next-generation missile defense shield,” states the order.

The executive order states the U.S. military will try to provide or enhance missile defense capabilities for U.S. allies. The executive order calls into question the Trump administration’s commitment to a non-interventionist foreign policy, stating it will “[i]mprove theater missile defenses of forward-deployed United States troops and allied [foreign] territories, troops, and populations.”

The policy captured public imagination thanks to Ronald Reagan’s televised address on Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23, 1983. Over stiff Democratic opposition and diplomatic pressure from the Soviet Union, the U.S. developed a limited missile-defense system in fits and starts over the next four decades. President Bill Clinton slow-walked the advancement of national missile defense, deferring it altogether late in his administration. In December 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and enhanced missile defense research.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

National Guardsman Challenges ‘No Christian in Command’ Policy

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A former Idaho National Guardsman is suing the Gem State after he was removed from command for expressing his biblical views on human sexuality.

Major David Worley of the Idaho Army National Guard and attorneys with Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit last week, alleging that Worley was “unlawfully, unconstitutionally, and unconscionably subjected to investigation, discrimination, retaliation, and punishment for the simple exercise of his First Amendment rights … to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs without fear of discriminatory reprisal from his chain of command.” According to the lawsuit, the discrimination against Worley is rooted in comments he made when campaigning for mayor of Pocatello and, later, for Idaho State Senate.

While campaigning, Worley expressed his opposition to drag queen story hours, pornographic material in public school libraries, and gender transition procedures for minors. Liberty Counsel noted in a press release, “All of Worley’s protected speech occurred off-duty in his private capacity and before he took command of the Idaho Army National Guard’s Recruiting and Retention unit.” In 2023, a fellow National Guardsman who identifies as homosexual filed a complaint against Worley, alleging that the major’s religious beliefs constituted discrimination.

The Idaho Army National Guard subsequently suspended Worley from command and “illegally pressured him to resign without benefit of any counsel or notice.” He was told that if he did not resign he would “face significant and life-altering disciplinary proceedings.” When Worley rescinded his resignation on the advice of counsel, the Idaho Army National Guard launched a formal investigation into the complaints against him.

Although the investigation found that the complaints against Worley were “unsubstantiated” and that there was “no evidence Worley did anything wrong in the workplace,” the National Guard branch recommended a new policy requiring candidates for command be investigated — with examination of private social media posts being a key factor in such an investigation — to ensure that they do not adhere to any “toxic” or “concerning ideologies,” a supposed effort to “ferret out” any “extremism.” Liberty Counsel dubbed the directive the “No Christians in Command” policy.

Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver said in a statement, “The Constitution simply does not allow the military to punish those with sincerely held religious beliefs or to specifically target religion for disparate and discriminatory treatment.” He called on Idaho’s Republican governor to rectify the wrong. “Governor Brad Little must ensure that the Idaho Army National Guard upholds federal and state law and protects the free speech of its service members. This discrimination against Major Worley must stop and his record must be cleared and his career restored,” Staver declared.

In comments to The Washington Stand, Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, said, “The Idaho Army National Guard made an absolutely shameful decision when they removed an officer for his speech informed by his biblical worldview outside of his military role.” She continued, “We can hope that with the new Trump administration, we will see these violations of religious freedom in the military come to an abrupt halt. This highlights the importance for President Trump to set the tone as commander and chief and make it clear that the religious freedom of every servicemember and chaplain will be protected.”

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — including LGBT activism — in the federal government. The order comes amid numerous moves by the Trump administration to exterminate identity-driven ideology from all areas of the federal government. For example, LGBT and Black Lives Matter (BLM) flags and signage have already been prohibited from government buildings and DEI-supporting military leaders have been fired. Trump, along with Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, have also announced a plan to halt and block military investigations related to alleged “extremism.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Signs Executive Orders Restricting Transgender Troops, Ending Military DEI Practices

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

From Tariffs to Territory: Trump’s Expansionist American Vision

/in , , , , , , , /by

Over the past month, President-elect Donald Trump has proposed annexing Greenland, admitting Canada to the American union, and reassuming control of the Panama Canal. To some, these proposals are jarring or confusing, and the left-wing media is only too happy to frame Trump — per usual — as a power-hungry, wannabe dictator. To find the truth, we must dig deeper.

Threats

When Donald Trump takes the oath of office on January 20, he will inherit a more dangerous world than he did in 2017. Not only are America’s adversaries more aggressive, but President Joe Biden has retreated from many of Trump’s foreign policy successes, leaving America weaker on the world stage.

Eight years ago, the only pressing threat was ISIS, which the Trump administration dismantled in 18 months. Today, Russia is in a hot war with a European democracy, China and North Korea are stronger and more belligerent than ever, and Iran is likely to develop a nuclear weapon at any time.

Meanwhile, America has fumbled its dominance in Afghanistan and the Red Sea, seen its military dwindle due to stupid social crusades, renounced the energy independence of 2019, and — from Trump’s perspective, at least — failed to benefit from the U.S.-Mexico-Canada [trade] Agreement (USMCA) that replaced NAFTA in 2020.

Now, as Trump thinks seriously about overcoming these challenges, he is proposing bold and creative solutions. But not every utterance of Trump’s public brainstorming session is wise, likely, or final. “What the president is doing is thinking long-term about our safety and security here in the United States,” explained Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) on “Washington Watch” Wednesday.

Some of the criticism directed at Trump’s suggestions is due to a failure by the mainstream media and others to see how different policy issues are interconnected. Progressivism tends to rely too heavily on narrowly defined siloes of expertise. The Biden administration, in particular, often erred by failing to recognize how its decision in one area would have negative consequences somewhere else.

Canada

At least chronologically, Trump’s current train of thought seems to begin with ruminations on how to achieve his objectives on immigration and trade policy (his favorites). Trump was looking for a way to cajole Canada and Mexico into taking more responsibility for border security, as well as address what he perceives as a trade deficit with America’s northern and southern neighbors.

In November, Trump threatened to impose a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico unless they stopped the cross-border traffic of drugs and migrants. Although dwarfed by southern border crossings, America’s porous northern border has still seen an unprecedented number of crossings under the Biden administration. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol recorded nearly 190,000 migrant encounters at the northern border in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and nearly 200,000 migrant encounters in FY2024.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford responded by warning that Canada would retaliate against the proposed tariffs by cutting off energy exports to the northern U.S. “We will go to the extent of cutting off their energy going down to Michigan, going down to New York State and over to Wisconsin,” he declared in December.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has more experience dealing with Trump, chose to avoid a confrontational standoff. Instead, he traveled to Mar-a-Lago to placate Trump and find out what Trump really wanted from the negotiations.

The visit was disastrous. At first, Trump described it as “a very productive meeting,” but he soon raised the temperature, publicly trolling Trudeau and openly contemplating the possibility of turning Canada into America’s “51st state.” Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigned from Trudeau’s cabinet on December 16 over disagreements about how to handle Trump’s threatened tariffs, disagreements which continued to simmer within Canada’s governing Liberal Party. On Monday, January 6, Trudeau himself resigned as leader of the Liberal Party “due to internal battles.” Trudeau likely never suspected that his visit to Mar-a-Lago would end his political career.

As for making Canada the 51st state, both Canada and Congress would have to agree. Canadians may object to losing their public benefits, exchanging their parliamentary system for the American division of power, or combining their 10 separate provinces into one state.

For their part, U.S. representatives would likely balk at admitting a state with a population slightly larger than California, which would take approximately 50 seats from other states through reapportionment (the U.S. House is capped at 435 members). Democrats would be reluctant to follow Trump’s lead, while Republicans would be nervous that Canada’s progressive tendencies would swing the balance of power to the Left.

It’s difficult to see how Trump’s threat to use “economic force” (a.k.a. tariffs) against Canada would overcome these systemic obstacles. Although he will have no personal role in preventing it, Trudeau said there is “not a snowball’s chance in hell” Canada will join the U.S.A., and he’s probably right.

However, it is possible that the U.S. and Canada — who already share defensive and economic treaties — can reach new agreements to bring the two nations closer together, and this may be Trump’s real goal. “Trump is a negotiator, and he’s a disrupter. So, we shouldn’t be surprised that his negotiating style is very disruptive,” Ricketts pointed out. “Trump is certainly not going to give up anything in his hand before the negotiations have even begun.”

One possible Trump objective is to make Canada meet its defense spending obligation as part of NATO. “The president knows that Russia and increasingly China have been involved in the Arctic, and that we need to secure that northern flank,” said Ricketts. “Also, he knows that Canada has not been pulling its weight with regard to its defense spending. I think last year it spent 1.3% of its GDP on its defense, when it’s supposed to be spending 2%.”

Greenland

Trump’s interest in Greenland also flows from his concern about U.S. national security to attacks from the north. Earlier this week, Trump expressed an interest in the U.S. acquiring Greenland as well. “I am hearing that the people of Greenland are ‘MAGA,’” Trump said Monday on Truth Social. “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our nation. … Make Greenland Great Again!” Donald Trump, Jr. flew to Greenland Tuesday to emphasize this point.

Greenland enjoys a strategic location on the Arctic Ocean and has large deposits of minerals such as cobalt, copper, and nickel. “It would be a way for us to help secure the northeast United States by making sure we would be able to put up our military bases there,” Ricketts explained.

The U.S. currently operates one airbase in northwest Greenland, but that may not be enough to counter a growing Chinese presence.

“We should be very concerned about what the Chinese are doing in the Arctic,” Ricketts added. There are “Chinese ships that are there that are dual purpose. They’re supposed to be doing research, but we know that there’s nothing in the Chinese Navy that … is just purely civilian. … They’ve all got [a] dual purpose. They all report to the same dictator who tells them what to do.”

After Trump’s comments, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (Denmark owns Greenland) responded that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and that “Greenland is not for sale.” But Ricketts noted that “the negotiations for Greenland … haven’t even started yet.”

The proposal to furnish Greenland is probably the Trump proposal that seems furthest afield for many Americans. This proposal neither featured in his campaign nor expresses a deep-seated desire of ordinary citizens. In fairness to Trump, however, it is not unprecedented; the U.S. occupied the island during World War II to preempt a Nazi invasion after the Danish government capitulated, and President Truman made a secret offer to buy the island in 1947.

It seems that America’s interest in Greenland is primarily related to security, and leasing more military bases may be satisfactory alternative to outright purchasing the land.

Panama

Going from north to south, on December 22, Trump set his sights on the Panama Canal, complaining that “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, highly unfair.”

Trump’s concern about Panama is also related to security. “In the event of a conflict with Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Republic of China, we’re going to have problems because … one Chinese company owns a port on both ends of that canal,” Ricketts explained. “And you bet that they will try to shut that down if there’s a conflict and harm us from being able to respond to anything going on in the Pacific.”

The U.S. finished construction of the Panama Canal in 1914 to more quickly move naval assets from the East Coast to the West Coast. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed a treaty to surrender control of the canal to Panama, a process which was completed in 1999. “On the Panama Canal, we should have never given that back to Panama,” declared Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “We should have retained control of that.”

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded that “every square metre” of the canal belongs to Panama, and that the country’s sovereignty and independence were not negotiable.

Trump has tussled with Panama before. In 2018, during his first term in office, a legal dispute resulted in Panamanian authorities forcibly seizing a 70-story Trump hotel in Panama City. How Panama and Trump might resolve this most recent dispute is not clear.

Doubling Down

During a Tuesday press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump made comments that his critics will distort to monger fear. When asked whether he would rule out the use of military force in relation to Greenland and Panama, Trump responded, “I’m not going to commit to that. It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country. We need Greenland for national security purposes.”

It’s not difficult to imagine how a skeptical media will use this statement as evidence that Trump is about to embark upon wars of conquest. But there is a far more reasonable interpretation.

Trump stated that controlling Greenland and Panama is vital to U.S. national security. This remark surely anticipates a possible confrontation with China or Russia that spans the globe, not an isolated squabble with either country. In the event of a war with, say, China, neither Panama nor Denmark could defend themselves against a Chinese invasion, which would then use their territory as a forward base for launching attacks against the U.S. homeland.

In such a situation, a U.S. president would be forced to choose between allowing China to set up shop in Panama and Greenland to attack our homeland, or preemptively occupying these strategic chokepoints ourselves — as the U.S. did with Greenland during World War II.

This wartime scenario is the likeliest interpretation for Trump’s statement, “It might be that you’ll have to do something.” Trump is prudently keeping his options open. The breaking news here is not that Trump is about to embark upon a crusade against smaller nations who share our hemisphere, but that America is about to once again have a president who recognizes the dangerous world we find ourselves in and is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: NBC ANALYST STEPHEN HAYES: “Trump is at his absolute strongest right at this moment.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

China’s Military Buildup Must Be Met with U.S. Strength, Experts Say

/in , , , , /by

A new report released by the Department of Defense is highlighting a vast military buildup being undertaken by China. Experts say the report is an important snapshot of the expansionist goals of Xi Jinping’s communist regime but warn that the true nature of China’s military ambitions is likely far more aggressive and poses a graver threat to the U.S. than what is commonly believed.

The report details that since 2023, China has added 50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that are capable of striking the U.S., increasing their total to 400. In addition, they have added 300 medium-range ballistic missiles, 100 long-range cruise missiles, and over 600 operational nuclear warheads. It also notes that hypersonic DF-27 missiles designed to evade U.S. defenses are positioned to potentially strike Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska?. As for China’s navy, which is already the largest in the world at 370 ships and submarines, it is expected to increase to 435 by 2030.

National security experts such as Lt. Col. (Ret.) Chuck DeVore say that “like Nazi Germany’s buildup in the 1930s, the militarization program ordered by the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] isn’t simply a great power buildup — it’s a weapon in service of a deadly ideology.”

The Pentagon report also notes that the CCP’s stated military objectives are to accelerate the modernization of its armed forces by 2027 for a possible invasion of Taiwan, to “complete the modernization of national defense and the military” by 2035, and to “fully transform the people’s armed forces into world-class forces” by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the CCP’s establishment of communist China.

But DeVore warns that “these timelines should be treated with skepticism. They are likely deliberate deceptions aimed at lulling adversaries into complacency or disguising China’s actual state of readiness. The pace of China’s missile expansion and cognitive warfare preparations suggests that Beijing’s capabilities likely exceed what is required for these projected milestones.”

Similarly, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for National Security, cautions that the DOD report does not accurately assess what China spends on its military.

“The PRC’s investment in its military is typically understated by the Pentagon,” he told The Washington Stand. “The 2024 Pentagon report understates the PRC’s defense budget at $330-450 billion. By comparison, the 2024 U.S. Commission on National Defense Strategy (CNDS) pegs China’s defense investment at $711 billion in 2023. That report cites Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, who has stated that ‘China’s military budget is likely three times what Beijing publicly claims, which would put it at about $700 billion annually.’”

Other experts say that the recent development of purges of top Chinese military officials for supposed corruption and disloyalty to Xi Jinping indicates that there is some ongoing instability within China’s armed forces. “Xi Jinping doesn’t trust his flag officers in the best of times, and now is certainly not the best of times,” Gordon Chang, distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, told TWS. “There’s turmoil in the military. We know this because we can see the purges, we can see the suicides and the personnel rotations.”

Chang also pointed out that China’s communist chain of command is a weakness. “The problem with China’s military is that it’s a communist military, which means it has two reporting lines, which means that it’s not going to be able to respond in a wartime situation.”

Nonetheless, Chang acknowledged that “Americans probably are underestimating China’s military strength from any number of different perspectives. So we have to be concerned that the Pentagon report does not fully capture the capabilities of the Chinese military.”

Maginnis went on to contend that the U.S. military is currently not up to the challenge of directly deterring China. “The U.S.’s active military is two-thirds the size it should be, operates old equipment, and many of its operators lack the required level of readiness,” he remarked. “Overall, our armed forces are weak, and we accept significant risk should we fall into a global war.”

“A major shortfall is our defense industrial base, which continues to underperform,” Maginnis continued. “Our industrial base cannot be quickly upgraded, and our arsenals, which were emptied by the Biden administration to supply the Ukraine war, will take years to replenish.” He added that the U.S. “isn’t attracting sufficient numbers of capable recruits, which undermines our overall readiness.”

DeVore concurred, further arguing that the incoming Trump administration must prioritize rebuilding the military in order to counter the threat from Beijing.

“To effectively counter China’s ambitions, the U.S. must rebuild its fleet, modernize its nuclear arsenal, expand missile defenses, and restore maritime lift capability,” he asserted. “… In short order, President-elect Donald Trump’s national security team must start to rebuild the Navy with more surface combatants, submarines, and support vessels to counter China’s maritime dominance. America’s aging nuclear arsenal requires upgrades to ensure credible deterrence against China’s rapidly growing stockpile of advanced warheads and delivery systems.”

DeVore concluded by expressing confidence that Trump’s administration will “understand” the threat posed by China. “With Pete Hegseth at the helm of the Pentagon, and other key positions filled by people who understand the danger and the urgency of the situation, it comes down to whether Congress will join in the effort to preserve peace through strength.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Groundbreaking Troop Bill Heads to Biden’s Desk with First-Ever Rebuke of Trans Ideology

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

After a frustrating and bitterly divided year in Congress, one thing that will go down as a bright shining success for the GOP is the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). On Wednesday, the Senate voted to send the 1,800-page behemoth to President Joe Biden’s desk, where he will be forced to do something neither side ever thought possible: sign a bill protecting children from his radical transgender agenda.

It’s a stunning turn of events for both parties. For Republicans, the idea that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) could negotiate a deal that not only stopped taxpayer-funded gender transitions for military kids, but also erased the women in the draft provision and axed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts with his narrow majority still has insiders shaking their heads in amazement. On the flip side, it shows just how vulnerable Democrats are after the November elections — especially on the trans issue, which pollsters almost universally believe cost Kamala Harris the White House.

That’s not to say that some of Schumer’s extremists didn’t put up a fight. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was furious at the policy change, threatening — for the first time in her career — to vote against the NDAA, “a position I do not take lightly,” she insisted. “It’s flat-out wrong,” she fumed on the Senate floor, arguing that taxpayers should be forced to fork over their hard-earned dollars for the butchery of children.

In a move that was mostly for show, Baldwin fought to add an amendment to the NDAA that would reinstate the language for taxpayer-funded gender surgeries and hormones. “Let’s be clear: we’re talking about parents who are in uniform serving our country who have earned the right to make the best decisions for their families,” Baldwin and 20 senators wrote. “I trust our servicemembers and their doctors to make the best healthcare decisions for their kids, not politicians.”

The amendment to remove the protections for minors was backed by Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey (Mass.), Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (Ore.), Cory Booker and Andy Kim (N.J.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), and Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.).

FRC’s senior director for Government Affairs, Quena Gonzalez, dismissed the push as “rank political theater.” “The effort failed,” he pointed out to The Washington Stand, “because it was designed to fail. If the Democrats who run the Senate had really wanted to block protections for military kids from taxpayer-funded gender transition procedures, they could’ve done that before the bill was ever negotiated with the Republican-led House.”

Instead, he points out, “language to protect kids was included in the base House text and in the base Senate text, even before it was negotiated. So to complain now — and file an amendment that won’t get 60 votes and is therefore doomed to fail — is pure posturing. Why did they wait until now, when it’s too late to do anything meaningful?” Gonzalez wondered. “Maybe they knew they didn’t have the votes. Or maybe they understood that it’s a political loser, but feel they have to keep pandering to their hard-core radical base. Two House Democrats, Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), wasted no time blaming the Left’s extremism on the related ‘gender identity’ issue of boys being allowed in girls’ sports, restrooms, showers, and locker rooms, etc.”

Fortunately for the Democratic Party, Schumer wouldn’t allow his senators to press the issue. Rather than let his members take a politically damaging vote that puts them on the record for a policy that Americans are very much against, he quietly shelved the amendment, telling the press brightly, “The NDAA is now on a glide path to final passage.” Throwing a bone to his far-Left caucus, he added, “Of course, the NDAA is not perfect. It doesn’t have everything either side would like. … But of course, you need bipartisanship to get this through the finish line.”

To most observers, this is one of the biggest signs yet that the country is at a tipping point on extreme gender ideology. “The passage of this NDAA is a huge loss for the Left,” Gonzalez insists. “Democrats ran for president and for Congress in part by calling conservatives who stood up to the woke mob ‘transphobic.’ For the longest time, we Christians have been told that we’re ‘on the wrong side of history,’ but we are on the right side of truth. This should give Christians courage,” he underscored. “When we stand up univocally for truth, even when it’s not culturally popular, we stand for unchanging principles that will ultimately be vindicated by a much higher authority than Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court.”

By way of background, the speaker explained to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on the Hill,” that the NDAA is usually passed with broad bipartisan agreement — a rarity in a city that can barely agree on anything. This year, he said, “We had some unnecessary controversy. One of the things that we were really focused on is … return[ing] the emphasis of our national defense policy to national defense. And so, we really were on guard to make sure that a lot of the woke progressive agenda was not part of that policy prescription. And we prevailed in that.”

Jubilantly, Johnson pointed out, “We, for the first time in federal law, will be preventing [the funding of] trans surgeries on minors. … You know, there [are] about two million-plus children that are [in] military families that are insured by Tricare, which is the big federal insurer. And we wanted to make sure that those taxpayer-funded dollars don’t go in any way to the provision of any kind of ‘gender-affirming care,’ as they call it. That would do dramatic harm — permanent harm — to these young people.”

Asked what it says about the Democratic Party that they’d pursue this cultural obsession at the expense of our military, the speaker could only shake his head. “I wish I could tell you,” he said. “I think that there [are] some on the Left [who] want to use every institution of the government to advance their woke progressive socialist policies [and] experiments, [hoping for] the transformational kind of change that they always brag about that they want to hoist upon America. But I can tell you what this election cycle affirmed for us, and that is that the American people are not having that. I mean, I think that’s one of the large reasons why President Donald J. Trump got reelected with the large mandate he has and why we won control of the Senate and the House for the Republican Party, because we’re advancing common-sense ideas. These traditional ideas that have made our country what it is are still held by the American people.”

At the end of the day, Johnson believes, “We’re still a center-Right country — in spite of what they’ve been trying to convince us of for the last several years, that we’ve gone progressive Left. We have not. And the American people demand common sense. They demand and desire and certainly need a military that is focused on lethality and protecting our national interest.”

Now, he celebrated, “This experimental, non-scientific nonsense that’s been going on everywhere will no longer be a part of the federal health care of our military servicemembers. So that was a big win. And we did a lot of other things as well,” he wanted people to know. “We’re trying to root out the DEI education nonsense in the military academies. And it goes on and on. But in addition to all of that, we also included the largest pay increase in many years for active-duty service members, enlisted members, a little over 14% pay raise. And that’s desperately needed. And we also added a lot of things to help with the quality of life for those who put on the uniform to serve our country, their families, and those related to them. So a lot of great, great wins in this policy, and we’re really excited that it got over the line.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Disney Leaves LGBT Activism on Cutting Room Floor in New Series

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Johnson Wows with Anti-Woke Wins in NDAA Compromise

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

At 1,813 pages, the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) isn’t exactly light reading, but the fact that Congress has a bipartisan bill at all is as close as it gets to a Christmas miracle. While the proposal’s been on the front-burner of most leaders’ priorities, no one was quite sure if the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal before the holidays. In the end, they not only managed to agree on the text, but conservatives won a string of victories in the process.

It’s a shocking departure from the Senate version of the NDAA, which Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had threatened to stand by if House Republicans insisted on some of their hard-fought policy wins. But, in the first real sign that Democrats are waking up to Americans’ election mandate, the legislation that dropped Saturday takes a sincere stab at some of the worst forms of military wokeness.

While the bill isn’t perfect, Family Research Council’s Quena Gonzalez stressed, conservatives can celebrate three major gains. Thanks to outspoken Republicans like Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the latest version of the NDAA strips out the language that would have drafted American women into the military against their will, which, as far as Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was concerned, was “a hill to die on.”

As he and others warned, “It will be over my dead body that I’m going to allow my daughter to get drafted,” he told “Washington Watch” guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice on Friday. “[I]f she wants to serve, she can serve,” the Texan reiterated. “We can have all those debates. If somebody wants to end the draft or start the draft, they can debate that. But you’re not going to draft my daughter. And unfortunately, there are some senators like Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), for example … and others who are committed to expanding the draft to our daughters. It’s just nonsense in a country of 330 million people.”

Other hugely significant changes included the first statute protecting minors from gender transitions in federal law. Under this latest NDAA text, American taxpayers will no longer be forced to fund the hormones, puberty-blockers, and gender mutilation surgeries for the troops’ minor children. “The fact that Democrats didn’t burn down the Senate over this is remarkable,” Gonzalez emphasized. But again, it “points to the weakness of this issue in the electorate.” It also suggests that the once-powerful Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is losing its grip on Joe Biden’s party. If Democrats refused to do the HRC’s bidding on this issue, then times really are changing.

That’s not to say the country’s largest LGBT activist group didn’t have something to say about it. HRC President Kelley Robinson called out Congress’s rejection of trans drugs and procedures as an “attack” on military families. Of course, old habits die hard, and some leftists are having a hard time swallowing the changing times. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) argued that the decision somehow “undermined the bipartisan tradition of the bill. … [I]f you want to play the role of doctor and ban the care for everybody when it is not debatable that there are some minors with gender dysphoria who benefit from the treatments that this bill would ban — so you are denying health care to the children of servicemembers that they need to serve a partisan agenda — I think that’s extraordinarily problematic.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) vehemently disagrees. “Taxpayer dollars should never be used to support procedures and treatments that could permanently harm and sterilize young people,” he told The Daily Wire. “In this year’s NDAA, we’re taking a critical and necessary step to protect the children of American service members from radical gender ideology and experimental drugs.” And, he promised, more legislation is coming to “protect America’s kids.”

Another course correction worth cheering was the members’ decision to shelve the radical expansion of in vitro fertilization in the military, which FRC publicly opposed for moral and ethical reasons.

Other rebukes of the current commander-in-chief’s agenda include “gut[ting] DEI bureaucracy,” stopping the Defense Department from contracting with advertisers who “blacklist conservative news services,” ending the president’s witch-hunt for extremists in the ranks, and a freeze on “climate change programs,” among other things. Unfortunately, one explosive issue that wasn’t addressed was the taxpayer coverage of abortion travel, which Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) bravely fought for so many months.

Even so, “This year’s Annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) ensures our men and women in uniform have the resources and support they need to defend our great nation,” Johnson underscored in a statement. “The NDAA refocuses our military on its core mission of defending America and its interests around the globe by supporting law enforcement operations and the deployment of the National Guard to the southwest border, expediting innovation and reducing the acquisition timeline for new weaponry, supporting our allies, and strengthening our nuclear posture and missile defense programs.”

As the speaker explained, “This legislation includes House-passed provisions to restore our focus on military lethality and to end the radical woke ideology being imposed on our military by permanently banning transgender medical treatment for minors and countering antisemitism.”

Of course, the revamped bill will still have to survive House and Senate floor votes to keep the 60-plus year streak of passing the NDAA alive. If far-Left Democrats decide to revolt over the transgender provisions, this could be a much more painful saga. But experts point out that the legislation has usually enjoyed bipartisan support. That started to change with the Clinton presidency, Lt. Colonel (Ret.) Robert Maginnis explained to The Washington Stand, when Democrats started “aggressively using the annual defense bill as a means to advance a radical social agenda [like] gays in the military, women in direct combat, and most recently, trans-identifying servicemembers.” And this year is no exception, he noted.

“Even though most Americans are opposed to the radical transgender agenda, some congressional Democrats oppose the common-sense legislation that restricts transgender medical care for servicemembers’ children.” It’s incredible, Maginnis continued, that extremists like Smith “want scarce military medical funds to be spread even thinner — wasted — to accommodate ‘gender-affirming care’ for military dependents. That issue is quite controversial and questionably scientific.”

Still, Gonzalez insisted, the fact that the House speaker was able to manage this language is a feat of its own. “Given that he was effectively bargaining with Majority Leader Schumer and President Biden for a vote this month — neither of whom have anything to lose by insisting on hyper-liberal priorities — the joint House/Senate NDAA language that Mike Johnson has negotiated is impressive on our issues. It doesn’t ‘draft our daughters,’ which the Senate version did. It doesn’t recklessly expand IVF without regard for pro-life concerns. It did protect military kids from gender ideology that would target them for lies that they were somehow ‘born in the wrong body.’”

Is this bill perfect, he asked rhetorically? “Nope. But is it better than we have any right to expect given who was opposite Speaker Johnson at the negotiating table? Definitely. Do we want to see more protections for kids? Of course, and we’ll be sharing ideas on how to build on this momentum when Republicans take over Washington next year.”

For now, Maginnis and others implore, “Members of Congress must pass the NDAA that refuses to advance a radical social agenda. … Our armed forces have a critical mission focused on serious security threats, and our defense dollars are already over-stretched. The Pentagon must be free from the demands of our culture’s fringe.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.