While the military trains medics relentlessly to treat the wound, we do not train them to handle the question.

I have spent years on both sides of that moment. I am a 68W combat medic instructor and a Tactical Combat Casualty Care instructor with the West Virginia Army National Guard, and I am also an endorsed chaplain.

This role encompasses teaching soldiers how to control hemorrhage and manage an airway to sitting with them months later, when the physical injury has healed, though something else has not.

The Army should close the distance between those two conversations by building trauma-informed care into how we train medics.

I expect the first objection, because I’ve made it myself. There is no time for feelings under fire. A medic has minutes, sometimes seconds, and every one of them belongs to the casualty needing life-saving treatment.

That objection misunderstands what trauma-informed care is. It should not be viewed as a separate task competing for time on the timeline. Instead, it is intertwined in the manner in which a medic performs the tasks.

Telling a casualty what you are about to do before you do it costs three seconds and keeps the individual from experiencing treatment as one more thing being done without warning.

Keeping a level voice and clear instructions is not bedside manner, but a technique that lowers physiological arousal in a patient who is already flooded. These should not be viewed as soft skills bolted onto medicine, but medicine itself.

The reason this matters is simple: soldiers are people first. They come to us carrying whatever burdens were there before the uniform — childhood adversity, losses, things never processed or disclosed. The injury a medic is treating, therefore, may not be that soldier’s first trauma. A medic who understands that will read the situation and respond differently than one taught to see only the wound.

With this approach, there are three key things every medic should be trained to recognize:

• Acute stress reactions: panic, dissociation, a casualty who has gone flat and unreachable.
• Post-traumatic symptoms in the days and weeks that follow: hypervigilance, nightmares, intrusive memories.
• Moral injury: the toll of having done, or failed to prevent, something that violates what you believe about yourself.

That last point is an area in which I have spent most of my career as a chaplain, and it is badly under-recognized in medicine because it does not present as a symptom.

Medics are positioned to catch all three areas earlier than anyone else in the formation. They are often the first medical contact for troops — and sometimes the only one — which makes them the gate to every referral that follows. A medic who has never been taught what to look for will not make the call. We know this is not a deficiency of compassion, but a general lack of awareness about what call to make.

So the ask is concrete. Add trauma-informed care instruction to 68W advanced individual training, and build it into annual recertification alongside TCCC, where it will actually stick.

Teach psychological first aid as a skill with steps: active listening, normalizing the stress response and connecting the soldier to resources. Teach medics how to avoid retraumatizing a patient during treatment. And make the handoff to a chaplain or behavioral health a taught, practiced action rather than something a medic must figure out alone. Doing so will contribute to both wellness and readiness.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimates that more than half of Americans have experienced a traumatic event, and the Department of Veterans Affairs reports higher rates of PTSD among women. Our formations reflect those numbers.

Soldiers whose psychological injuries are addressed early are more likely to return to their units and stay there. Every service member we lose downstream is a trained soldier who is not quickly replaced.

As the force plans for prolonged field care and longer evacuation timelines in future fights, medics will hold casualties longer before handing them off. Hours they spend with frightened, injured troops will matter more, not less.

Nothing in this approach is asking medics to become counselors. However, the Army must acknowledge that a medic is already doing psychological work in that moment, competently or not, trained or not. We might as well train to improve it.

Medics are taught to keep a body alive. We should also prepare them to help the soldier who walks away.

Staff Sgt. Jay Kotsko is a 68W combat medic instructor and Tactical Combat Casualty Care instructor with the West Virginia Army National Guard and an ecclesiastically endorsed chaplain. He holds a Doctor of Ministry in chaplaincy and is the author of “Even Here: Finding God in the Fractured Timelines of Trauma and Recovery.” The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official position of DoD, the Army or the West Virginia National Guard.

The training commenced with a three-day event at Twentynine Palms, California, where Marines from the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions learned how to shoot down small unmanned aerial systems, or sUASs, with rifles, shotguns and grenade launchers, according to a recent release.

Capt. Faith Richardson, a platoon commander with the Tactical Training and Exercise Control Group, said in the release that they aimed to give Marines “a realistic look at the threat.”

For the exercise, TTECG created counter-sUAS lanes where Marines engaged simulated enemy drones from distances as close as 20 meters, or around 65 feet. Controlled by members of TTECG, nicknamed “Coyotes,” the drones reach speeds at over 90 miles per hour.

“The intent of the C-sUAS lanes was to build the confidence of our Marines to target sUAS and complete the mission,” Richardson added.

Inside the lane, Marines practiced using an assortment of weapons, including the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, the M1014 shotgun, and M32A1 and M320 grenade launchers as well as electronic anti-drone weapons.

In addition to the live-fire training, the event included house clearing and patrol exercises, which tested and evaluated Marines on their ability to deny, detect and defeat sUAS.

Richardson explained that by the end, participants developed the basic skillset to apply the C-sUAS mindset to all subsequent service-level training events.

While the U.S. military has long used large aircraft drones in combat, it has rapidly accelerated the use and experimentation of small commercial drones over the past couple of years.

In December 2025, the Pentagon launched the Drone Dominance program to invest $1.1 billion into the U.S. drone market. The goal is increasing the quality of the technology while decreasing price per unit.

The program was largely influenced by the war in Ukraine, where drones have become a dominating force on the battlefield. Combatants have used inexpensive commercial drones to destroy billions of dollars worth of Russian equipment, and 90% of Russian casualties are from drone attacks.

Adopting the spirit of Drone Dominance, the Marine Corps has been quickly developing its own drone capabilities.

In the past month, the service established the Marine Corps Robotics Integration Group, or MCRIG. The group serves to integrate, standardize and institutionalize training for sUASs and C-sUASs across the total force.

The service also began stockpiling anti-drone ammo, which Marines can load into an M4 or M27 without any modification. However, unlike standard 5.56mm ammo, the anti-drone’s projectile fragments as it flies down range, so it functions similarly to a shot shell.

For intercepting medium to large attack drones, the Marine Corps inked a deal with Allen Control Systems for the Bullfrog M240, which it plans to use to aid air defense. The AI-enabled machine gun is designed to detect, track and automatically fire at aerial threats.

Moving forward, the Marine Corps said it will continue the service level training at Twentynine Palms to ensure Marines have the basic skillset to operate in areas where sUAS may be present. In turn, those who complete the training can share it with their home units.

Suno announced plans to implement a new watermarking technology and download policy to limit the spread of spammy AI tracks and increase transparency. In a lengthy blog post, CEO and co-founder Mikey Shulman laid out the company’s principles and the next steps for the company as it seeks legitimacy.

The company is rolling out new transparency tools, along with new watermarking and fingerprinting tech. Shulman says it aligns with “emerging industry standards” that will make it easier to identify Suno-generated content. He also says the company is aiming to partner with “distribution platforms on combatting fraud and misuse.”

Last year, th …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Singham, a 72-year-old American who sold his tech company for $785 million in 2017 and now lives in Shanghai, is known to fund pro-Chinese Communist Party groups that operate in the U.S. He has funneled $278 million into the broad network of nonprofits since 2017, according to a Fox News Digital investigation. These groups regularly organize and participate in anti-ICE, anti-Israel and pro-Iran demonstrations.

At a State Department summit held in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Rubio urged more than 60 countries to treat far-left global terrorism as a counterterrorism priority.

DOJ LAUNCHES GRAND JURY PROBE INTO MARXIST MOGUL NEVILLE ROY SINGHAM’S FUNDING OF LEFTIST GROUPS

“For far too long, however, our counterterrorism doctrine has had a blind spot – a blind spot when it comes to extremist violence from the political left, Rubio said. “Even today, the very idea that far-left terrorism could be a serious threat is treated as a right-wing fever dream, or worse, as a dangerous fascist conspiracy.”

Rubio noted that networks are coordinating across multiple countries, providing training instructions and using encrypted communication to facilitate unrest. He said that international cooperation is critical to disrupting the financing of dangerous organizations, and that some are working with hostile foreign states.

Rubio did not mention Singham by name and State Department officials did not respond to a request for comment.

Singham’s web of nonprofits are known to promote communist and Marxist ideals on social media platforms and on the ground at demonstrations across the country. Code Pink, which was co-founded by Singham’s wife, Jodie Evans, regularly protests in the U.S. Capitol, confronting lawmakers and openly admits that “China is Not Our Enemy.”

RUBIO PUTS ENTIRE WORLD ON NOTICE AGAINST RISE OF ‘POISONOUS’ FAR-LEFT TERROR ‘MASKED AS EQUALITY’

Rubio mentioned the dangerous influence Marxist beliefs can have when tied to acts of terrorism. He said the left often seems to excuse violence carried out by its own extremists.

“A bomb planted by a neo-Nazi group was a nefarious and murderous act of evil,” Rubio said. “But a bomb planted by a Marxist revolutionary – well, that’s just merely a tragic excess of idealism. Perhaps its means were misplaced or overzealous, but its ends were virtuous and just. That’s the implication of how they treat it.”

Congress has also taken note of Singham’s activities. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., launched an investigation into the Singham nonprofit network last year, and members in the upper chamber are also sounding the alarm on Singham’s ties to China.

“Chinese-funded, anti-American billionaires like Neville Roy Singham are instigating far-left chaos across our country,” Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital. “This needs to stop, and Secretary Rubio is rightly taking action to confront this transnational scourge head-on.”

INTEL EXPERT SAYS SINGHAM NETWORK IS MORE THAN A NONPROFIT SCANDAL—IT’S A SECURITY THREAT

Last month, Fox News Digital reported that the Department of Justice has launched a grand jury investigation into alleged financial crimes. Singham hasn’t responded to repeated requests for comment from Fox News Digital.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the grand jury in Manhattan has issued subpoenas as part of a probe launched by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York, one of the country’s most powerful districts for federal prosecutions. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche authorized the investigation as the Trump administration seeks to crack down on fraud, money laundering and other financial crimes in the multibillion-dollar nonprofit industry.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met privately with Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David Solomon in New York earlier this year, where, according to sources familiar with the discussion, he warned that the firm could come under scrutiny over its alleged role in the movement of funds tied to Singham.

During the meeting, Bessent encouraged Solomon to fully cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation, telling him that Goldman Sachs’ handling of the Singham-linked funds could become part of the federal probe should they choose not to cooperate.

A source with knowledge of the conversation told Fox News Digital that the exchange was cordial, and that Solomon indicated Goldman Sachs would aid investigators.

“All distributions from Mr. Singham’s donor-advised fund were made to legal nonprofits, as determined by the IRS,” a Treasury spokesperson said. “There have been no distributions from the account since August 2023, and it was closed in early 2024.”

Two months before Pete Hegseth appeared in front of Congress to testify in his confirmation to be secretary of defense, he sat across from the podcaster Shawn Ryan, talking about the Pentagon’s 2015 decision to open ground combat roles to women.

“It hasn’t made us more effective. It hasn’t made us more lethal,” Hegseth said. “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.”

By the time of Hegseth’s appearance on the show in late 2024, women had been serving in combat positions for nearly a decade across the military. The decision to integrate women had been thoroughly studied — before, during, and after the process — and thousands of women had served in roles ranging from infantry to combat engineers to special operations. The debate over women in combat was largely considered to be over.

But Hegseth was looking to reignite that debate. His book, “The War on Warriors,” which he was on the show to promote, dedicated a full chapter to the idea.

“Dads take us to push risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes,” he wrote in the book. “We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”

Hegseth softened his rhetoric during his January 2025 confirmation hearing, telling senators that women service members deserved the opportunity to serve in any role they qualified for.

“Women in our military, as I’ve said publicly, have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield,” he said.

Yet barely two months into his tenure at the Pentagon, Hegseth was already laying the groundwork to call into question those contributions. In March, he created a task force to review standards. Then, in December, the Pentagon’s personnel chief, Anthony Tata, announced a “review of the operational effectiveness” of ground combat units in the Army and Marine Corps, according to an internal memo obtained by The War Horse.

Now, that study is raising fears among military researchers and advocates for service women.

“We’re all concerned that this study is going to be used as a pretext to remove women from combat arms,” said Sue Fulton, the executive director of the Women in the Service Coalition, which advocates for women in the military.

Advocates have reason to worry: The researcher leading the current study on the issue, Jane Pinelis, helped lead a controversial review for the Marine Corps in 2015 that found mixed-gender units did not perform as well as all-male units. In his book, Hegseth drew heavily on that study to support the argument that women should not serve in combat arms.

“It was a flawed design from the get-go,” retired Army Col. Ellen Haring told NPR in 2015.

Defense officials initially assigned the current study to the Institute for Defense Analyses in December—only to change course and move the study to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, where Pinelis works, in April.

The highly unusual decision raises questions about the study’s independence, according to advocates and defense analysts.

“Why was this removed from IDA, where this kind of research is in their wheelhouse, and given to [the Applied Physics Lab], where this is clearly outside their expertise?” Fulton asked.

‘What is the problem we’re trying to solve?’

At his confirmation hearings, Hegseth told lawmakers that his concerns were not about women in combat, but rather, that standards had fallen to facilitate the integration of women in those units.

This February, after the Pentagon began its review, Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, asked the senior enlisted leaders from each military branch to testify on whether standards had been lowered. All of them said no.

“I’ve seen no data that supports that there’s been any lowering of standards or that there’s lowering of the readiness of units with those females in those units,” Navy Master Chief David Isom, a SEAL serving as the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified.

Women who have served in combat roles agree.

“It becomes abundantly apparent very quickly if you are contributing to the team or detracting from the team when you have to move 40 ammo cans from point A to point B,” a female officer who served in the 75th Ranger Regiment told the military news website Task & Purpose earlier this year.

Even before combat units were integrated, women guarded convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan, accompanied special operations soldiers on missions, and frequently came under enemy fire.

“Women were already serving in combat,” said Rita Graham, the policy director at Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for women in the military. The decision to open all combat roles to women came in part because four women service members, along with SWAN, sued the military for sex discrimination.

“They were being denied the recognition, the training, the medals, leadership opportunities, but most importantly, the career advancement,” Graham said.

Yet almost since he assumed office, Hegseth has been searching for evidence that standards have slipped.

Early on, Hegseth convened a team of advisors to evaluate standards at the Army’s Ranger School and special operations training programs. Hegseth served in Iraq with the team’s leader, Eric Geressy, who retired from the Army as a sergeant major. In “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth notes that Geressy was critical of women moving into frontline positions, which he called “chicken shit.”

The team quickly moved to lay the groundwork for a new study of women in combat, beginning with visits to Ranger School in March 2025 to “review and restore” standards, according to documents reviewed by The War Horse. Tata announced the study internally nine months later.

“Service members want a challenge[,] they do not want to be part of a loosing [sic] team and want to serve alongside the best,” a briefing document from the team’s visit to Ranger School said.

Laura Junor Pulzone, who served as the Pentagon’s principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness as the military prepared for full gender integration in 2014, questioned whether a new study was even necessary.

“I was the readiness person,” said Junor Pulzone. “The only thing that mattered to me was making sure that we had a predictably ready force that was capable of executing the national defense strategy, full stop.”

“What I saw was an analytically based, sound way of doing this,” she said, noting that she would have raised red flags if she felt the military had not fully studied and prepared for the transition to gender-integrated combat units.

Gender-neutral standards for jobs open to men and women in the military were first required more than 30 years ago, as the military began training women to fly fighter jets. The same requirement held true for combat roles as they opened to women, and there is scant evidence that standards for those positions have declined in the past decade.

“This study has already been done,” Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., an Air Force veteran, told The War Horse. “We know that women who serve continue to perform and meet the same standards in ground combat as their male colleagues.”

Since 2015, thousands of women have served in Army ground combat units, and hundreds more have served in similar Marine units. Multiple women have completed Army Special Forces training and the Air Force’s special warfare training pipeline. More than 180 women have graduated from the Army’s Ranger School, one of the military’s most demanding combat leadership courses. And a recent Army study found that women who completed the course showed fewer signs of physiological stress at the end of training than men.

Researchers who spoke with The War Horse said a new study makes sense if at least some anecdotal evidence found problems in mixed-gender combat units. But that has not been the case, they said.

“What is the evidence of the problem?” Junor Pulzone said. “What is the problem we’re trying to solve?”

Researchers also told The War Horse the timeframe of the study — initially six months, though extended to a year when it was transferred to Johns Hopkins — was unusually compressed.

“If I were to set up doing a study like this, it would be a large mixed-methods [study]. There would be a lot of data from the past. There’d also be a lot of conversations that would have to happen—interviews, focus groups, which are going to require some pretty significant institutional review board proposals, as well as data-sharing agreements,” said another researcher who has studied women in the military extensively and who declined to be named over potential career impacts.

“It’s a very short time for a study like this.”

A controversial study

On its website, the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins lists 39 areas of expertise, ranging from “space technology” to “tactical and ballistic missile defense systems” to “cyber-physical security.” It does not list anything related to military readiness, personnel, or ground combat.

That has raised suspicions among military researchers, who told The War Horse they were surprised the Pentagon moved the study from the Institute for Defense Analyses to Johns Hopkins’ Applied Physics Laboratory. It’s unusual for the Pentagon to change the institution conducting a study, particularly in the middle of it, they said.

“Shopping around for researchers is not a good look,” Junor Pulzone said.

And the choice of the Applied Physics Laboratory struck researchers as especially unusual.

“They have robotics people, AI people, chemists. I don’t understand why they have [the study]. I really don’t. It doesn’t make any sense,” said one researcher, who spoke on condition of anonymity over fears of potential career impacts.

A Pentagon spokesperson declined to answer The War Horse’s questions on the record. But in a response provided on background, a Pentagon official said that after the study was assigned to the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Department “recognized the need to incorporate combat-relevant field tests” into the assessment.

The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory “has the capability to examine existing personnel and operational data, as well as conduct the field tests,” the official said.

The Applied Physics Laboratory did not respond to requests for comment.

“The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory is a world-renowned research institution focused on artificial intelligence, robotics, and emerging scientific discoveries — no doubt vital and urgent work,” Houlahan said. “However, the Applied Physics Lab is not the first place that comes to mind when examining the role of women in ground combat.”

On Pinelis’ LinkedIn profile, the study’s lead researcher describes her current role as chief AI engineer at the Applied Physics Lab. She also lists work as the chief scientist for special operations. Years before, in 2015, as a statistician, she led the design and analysis of the Marine Corps study into gender-integrated units.

That study concluded that all-male units outperformed mixed-gender units on 69% of tasks. At its conclusion, the Marine Corps requested an exemption from the Pentagon’s directive to open all combat roles to women.

“This was a very politically unpopular conclusion,” Pinelis told an interviewer from Forbes in 2022. “There’s no room for compromise when it comes to scientific rigor.”

Pinelis did not respond to a request for comment from The War Horse.

The methodology behind the 2015 study drew sharp critiques. Critics pointed out that the units drew experienced male Marines, while female Marine volunteers had just gone through the Marine Corps’ initial nine-week infantry training course and only had to meet the minimum male physical fitness score to participate. It also evaluated women based on average scores, rather than assessing how capable individual female Marines were of meeting a standard.

“The fear is that something similar could happen,” said SWAN’s Graham, who previously served as an Army field artillery officer after the specialty was opened to women. “We’re really not opposed to an evidence-based review, if it’s done legitimately, if it’s done with the proper research questions, if it’s done with the proper sample sizes.”

In “The War on Warriors,” subtitled “Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” Hegseth cites the study’s finding that female Marines were injured at a higher rate than male Marines as evidence that women should not serve in combat. But Marine Corps briefing materials on the study found that better screening for physical fitness would have eliminated that issue.

Critics also note that the Marine Corps’ summary of the study omitted findings favorable to mixed-gender units, which had better problem-solving skills, higher morale, and fewer disciplinary issues than all-male units.

Advocates for women in combat argue that Hegseth’s fixation on standards — which he often ties to physical fitness —reflects a limited understanding of the reality of modern combat, which requires soldiers to be flexible, solve complex problems, and increasingly demonstrate technical proficiency.

Designing a study to clearly answer the question of whether women should be in combat units is exceptionally difficult, said Michael McGurk, the former director of research and analysis at the Army’s Center for Initial Military Training, because so many issues come into play.

“How do you determine that women are the factor that’s causing the difference, and not the company commander’s leadership, the sergeant’s leadership?” he said. “You can always find the tactical reason why we shouldn’t do this.”

The future of combat

This March, Houlahan introduced a bill addressing the Pentagon’s decision to reexamine women in combat.

“Now more than ever, we should be supporting each and every servicemember willing to wear the uniform, not scrutinizing and pushing out qualified women simply because they are women,” Houlahan said in a statement.

The bill, called the WARRIOR Act, would prohibit gender-based exclusion in the military and ensure that positions have clear standards reflecting the needs of the job—not only physical requirements, but tactical, technical, and cognitive demands.

Advocates who spoke to The War Horse agree that not every woman is up to the task of serving in combat roles. But if the military is to operate as a true meritocracy, they argue, then everyone — men and women — should be given an opportunity to serve as long as they meet the high standards those jobs require.

“We can’t claim something as the Army’s premier leadership school, and say, well, you know, it’s only for leaders that are male,” said Thomas Stone, a former Army Ranger who oversaw training given to soldiers prior to Ranger School when women were first permitted to attend the course.

And as the nature of combat evolves, so do the skills required of a soldier to excel in it.

Stone pointed out that fitness standards — like the Army Ranger requirement to hike 12 miles with a 35-pound pack — are rooted in earlier conflicts, from a different time. He argued that focusing so much attention on a question of standards developed for older conflicts risks misunderstanding the requirements of a future conflict. The Pentagon, Stone noted, recently earmarked $54 billion for autonomous warfare in its upcoming budget.

“What does the future of war look like?” he said. “Don’t you want the best human being, regardless of gender, piloting that humanoid robot?”