Despite Tougher Standards, Marine Corps Data Show More Than 9 in 10 Women in Combat Arms Are Passing the Test

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of generals and admirals from around the world to Quantico, Virginia, last September, he delivered a blunt message: Things were changing fast in the newly renamed Department of War.

“No more division, distraction, or gender delusions,” he said. “We are done with that shit.”

What mattered going forward, Hegseth said, were standards.

“I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat [units] with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men,” he said.

The same day, Hegseth signed a directive requiring sex-neutral fitness standards for all troops in combat roles. The service began implementing the new standards earlier this year.

Marines take two fitness tests annually: a physical fitness test in the spring and a combat fitness test in the fall. In January, the Marine Corps began sex-neutral grading for combat Marines on the annual physical fitness test, which consists of a 3-mile run, a choice between pushups or pullups, and an abdominal plank. Since January, Marines in combat specialties have been required to score at least 210 out of 300 points.

The Marine Corps spring physical fitness test data obtained by The War Horse shows that more than 90% of female Marines who have taken the test have met or exceeded the standard.

Kris Fuhr, co-founder of the Women in the Service Coalition, which advocates for equal opportunities for military women, said she was not surprised.

“The women prepare and they train and they’re ready,” she said.

Women serving in combat specialties have always been required to meet the same job-specific standards as men, based on the physical demands of their chosen field, such as infantry or artillery. But the broader physical fitness tests taken by all service members once or twice a year serve a different purpose: measuring overall fitness. Those tests have historically been scored using age- and sex-based standards.

While Hegseth has argued that scoring women against a male standard will preserve the level of fitness required for combat, the new policy still allows standards to vary by age, with benchmarks declining for older service members.

According to the Marine Corps, 422 women currently serve in combat specialties, 400 of whom have taken the test under the new scoring standard. Experts caution that those results cannot predict how women in combat roles across the military will fare, given the small sample size.

“Women are a small part of the Marine Corps. Women are a smaller part of combat arms within the Marine Corps,” said Kyleanne Hunter, a Marine veteran who leads Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “Making generalizable conclusions from this is very, very difficult.”

But, she added, “It still tells the story that the vast, vast majority of the women who are in this career field are doing just fine.”

The War Horse has requested similar data from the Army but has not yet received it.

Hundreds of Women Have Served in Combat Roles

When the Pentagon moved to open all combat jobs to women, the Marine Corps resisted, seeking an exemption based on a study that service leaders said showed gender-integrated units performed worse than all-male units. Critics argued the study was flawed, and the secretary of the Navy denied the request.

Over the past decade, hundreds of women have gone on to serve in Marine Corps combat roles. Thousands more have served in Army infantry units, and a few have even completed the grueling process to serve in special operations roles.

Hegseth, however, has repeatedly questioned whether women in combat positions are being held to sufficiently rigorous standards. Within months of his confirmation, he ordered a review of combat arms standards before he directed the services to adopt sex-neutral fitness standards for troops in combat roles. The Pentagon has also launched a new review of women in combat, tapping the researcher who led the earlier Marine Corps study to lead the evaluation.

“I think his mandate is based on the belief that women can’t meet men’s fitness standards within combat arms,” Fuhr said.

The early Marine Corps data suggests otherwise.

According to Marine Corps data, 91.38% of women and 96.53% of men in combat arms who have taken the test since January have met or exceeded that threshold.

Hunter said that while the results are encouraging for women serving in combat roles, she cautioned that the new scoring system could still have negative implications for women.

“It can create unnecessary promotion problems,” she said.

A female Marine who might have earned a perfect 300 under the previous female scoring scale now receives roughly 240 points for the same performance under the male scale—comfortably passing the new requirement, but with a substantially lower score, which could impact performance evaluations.

Fuhr said she expects women to adapt.

“If you tell a woman what the standard is, she will do the work to not only meet it, but often exceed it,” she said.

This article from The War Horse was edited by Paul Szoldra, fact-checked by Jess Rohan, and copy-edited by Mitchell Hansen-Dewar.

This article was originally published by The War Horse on September 15, 2026.

“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post Hegseth Made the Fitness Test Harder for Women in Combat Roles. Most Female Marines Are Passing appeared first on DCReport.org.

This is what the White House press room could have looked like after MS NOW, CNN, and Politico reporters were turned away at the security gate of the White House today. The entire White House press could have walked out in protest of Donald Trump’s outrageous violation of the First Amendment. Three of the White House Press Association members’ right to report the news had been withdrawn by Trump who accused them of reporting “fake news.”

If the reports of those three outlets have been fake news, the reports from every White House correspondent has been fake news.

You stand up for your fellow journalists, or your failure to do so tells us everything we need to know about your courage and dedication to the job of being a journalist. Donald Trump shredded the First Amendment today, and the White House Press corps stood there and watched him do it. If they had stood together and walked out, we would be in a very different place today. They didn’t, and the profession of journalism has been endangered.

Access to power is not worth capitulation to fascism. At a bare minimum, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, ABC News, and CBS News should have notified the White House that they will not attend White House briefings until their fellow reporters’ rights are restored.

Shame on the White House press corps. Shame.

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

When it comes to birth, there’s a lot more happening than simply welcoming a new baby into the world. During a vaginal delivery, newborns are naturally exposed to millions of beneficial microbes that begin colonizing their skin, mouth, and digestive tract.

In recent years, this early microbial exposure has sparked interest in a practice known as vaginal seeding, particularly among parents planning a cesarean delivery. But what exactly is vaginal seeding, and does it offer the benefits some people hope for? Researchers are actively studying the practice, yet many questions remain unanswered.

Understanding the science behind vaginal seeding and how it differs from other ways of supporting a healthy microbiome can help parents make informed decisions. Along the way, it’s also helpful to understand how URO Probiotics fit into the bigger picture of maintaining vaginal bacterial balance before and during pregnancy.

Vaginal Seeding 101

Vaginal seeding is a procedure intended to expose babies born by cesarean section (C-section) to some of the bacteria they may have encountered during a vaginal birth. Typically, a sterile piece of gauze is placed inside the mother’s vagina before the C-section . After the baby is delivered, the gauze is used to gently wipe the baby’s mouth, face, and body.

The idea behind the practice is simple: babies born vaginally naturally come into contact with their mother’s vaginal microbes as they pass through the birth canal, while babies delivered by C-section experience a different mix of bacteria. Vaginal seeding attempts to recreate at least part of that natural microbial exposure.

Why Do Some Parents Choose Vaginal Seeding?

Interest in vaginal seeding comes from growing research into the human microbiome, the vast collection of bacteria and other microorganisms that live throughout the body. Early microbial exposure may influence the development of an infant’s microbiome during the first weeks and months of life.

Some researchers are exploring whether differences in these early microbial communities could play a role in immune system development, digestion, allergies, asthma, or other aspects of long-term health. Because babies delivered by C-section encounter different bacteria than those born vaginally, some parents hope vaginal seeding may help narrow that gap.

What Does the Research Say So Far?

Early research has produced some encouraging observations, but the science is still in its early stages. A handful of small studies suggest that vaginal seeding may temporarily introduce some maternal vaginal bacteria to babies born by C-section.

In some cases, researchers observed that the infants’ microbiomes looked somewhat more similar to those of babies delivered vaginally. However, these findings should be interpreted carefully.

The studies have generally involved small numbers of participants, and scientists have not established whether these temporary microbial differences translate into lasting health benefits. Larger clinical trials are still needed to determine whether vaginal seeding is both safe and effective before it can be widely recommended.

Are There Any Risks?

While the concept of vaginal seeding is fascinating, it’s important to consider the potential risks alongside the possible benefits. The vaginal microbiome contains many beneficial bacteria, but it can also harbor harmful microorganisms that could pose serious health risks to a newborn.

For example, infections such as Group B Streptococcus  (GBS), herpes simplex virus (HSV), chlamydia, or gonorrhea could potentially be transferred during vaginal seeding if they are present. Because newborns have developing immune systems, even mild infections in adults can become much more serious in infants.

For this reason, organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) do not currently recommend routine vaginal seeding outside of approved research settings. Healthcare providers generally advise parents to discuss any interest in the procedure before delivery so potential risks and individual circumstances can be carefully evaluated.

How Can Parents Support a Baby’s Microbiome in Other Ways?

Fortunately, vaginal seeding isn’t the only way parents can encourage healthy microbial development. Researchers continue to study several everyday practices that may support a baby’s developing microbiome without the uncertainties surrounding vaginal seeding.

When possible, breastfeeding provides nutrients and beneficial compounds that support the growth of healthy gut bacteria. Skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth may also expose babies to beneficial microbes while strengthening the parent-child bond. Using antibiotics only when medically necessary helps avoid unnecessary disruptions to maternal and infant microbiomes.

What We Know Today About Vaginal Seeding

Vaginal seeding has become a topic of growing interest, highlighting just how important your microbiome may be from the very beginning of life. While early research suggests the practice may influence a newborn’s microbial exposure, scientists have not yet confirmed that it provides lasting health benefits.

As research evolves, healthcare providers will gain a clearer understanding of when, or if, vaginal seeding should become part of routine care. Until then, parents can feel confident focusing on well-established ways to support both maternal and infant health while working closely with their healthcare team to make informed decisions.

Photo: Jonathan Borba via Pexels

CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT MISSION

The post What Is Vaginal Seeding? appeared first on DCReport.org.

Distracted driving has surpassed all other causes to become the leading contributor to crashes in New Jersey, marking a significant shift in the state’s road safety landscape. With highways like interstate 95 and local Paramus roads witnessing increased incidents related to texting and driving, residents face new risks and complex aftermaths. Investigating how distracted driving shapes accident trends and legal recourse offers valuable insight into the challenges and responsibilities drivers encounter today.

New Jersey has seen a marked rise in accidents related to distracted driving, now the principal cause of vehicle crashes statewide. Texting and driving, use of navigation apps, and handheld phone calls are common distractions leading to hazardous situations. These incidents are particularly notable on bustling routes such as interstate 95 and in communities like Paramus, where heavy traffic magnifies the potential for accidents. In the event of a collision, securing guidance from a Paramus car accident lawyer can offer crucial assistance with understanding statutes, insurance processes, and the rights available to crash victims struggling with the aftermath.

Examining the scope and effects of distracted driving

The surge in distracted driving has changed the profile of New Jersey road accidents. Reckless behaviors such as texting behind the wheel have contributed to a higher rate of rear-end collisions and sideswipes, and a rear-end accident can unfold in seconds when a driver glances down at a device. Recent data shows that distracted driving now exceeds driving under the influence or speeding as the top crash factor, affecting drivers of all ages and backgrounds.

Along key corridors like Interstate 95, crashes resulting from inattention often cause significant delays, property damage, and common injuries, including whiplash and fractures. Law enforcement officials in Paramus and throughout the state aim to curb these incidents with heightened patrols and targeted educational campaigns. Despite these efforts, the complexity of distracted driving incidents can complicate legal claims and insurance settlements, making informed legal support more important than ever.

Legal response and consumer protections for New Jersey drivers

New Jersey has implemented strict regulations against texting and driving and the use of handheld devices. Penalties for these violations are increasing, and authorities frequently conduct checkpoints and targeted enforcement actions to address these behaviors. When crashes occur due to distraction, legal responsibilities and accountability become central to resolving claims fairly and efficiently.

Crash victims may face challenges related to insurance paperwork, liability determinations, or disputes over damages. In these instances, understanding local procedures and available resources is vital, especially when common injuries require follow-up care that increases costs. Residents in Paramus who experience complications after a rear-end accident or another distracted driving incident can benefit from legal experience that helps clarify their rights and supports effective resolutions to their cases.

Resources, community awareness, and continuing risks

Government agencies and advocacy groups work to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving through school programs, media campaigns, and public events in communities such as Paramus. These efforts aim to foster awareness and encourage more attentive driving habits, including avoiding texting and driving at intersections and in stop-and-go traffic. Technological advances, including safety cameras and smartphone applications designed to block notifications while driving, are also being promoted as preventive measures.

As awareness continues to grow, drivers are encouraged to remain vigilant and make use of available support services in the event of an accident. Legal and support organizations, like Varcadipane & Pinnisi, P.C, play an important role in helping New Jersey residents understand their rights and pursue appropriate solutions when affected by distracted driving, including crashes on interstate 95. Looking forward, reducing the prevalence of distraction-related accidents will depend on a strong combination of enforcement, education, and accessible advice to ensure the safety of all New Jersey motorists.

Photo: Bazoom via images.bazoom.net

CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT MISSION

The post Distracted Driving is Now New Jersey’s Leading Crash Cause — an Investigative Look appeared first on DCReport.org.

He’s not just out to dishonor one of our greatest presidents by cursing the Kennedy Center with his name. He doesn’t just intend to destroy the People’s House and turn it into Trump Tower II. He also wants to disturb the graves of the men and women he called “losers,” who wore their country’s uniform and are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He wants to tear down anything he can’t put his name on in the nation’s capital and turn it into Mar a Lago north.

We will have no excuse if we don’t stop him this time. He turned loose the excavators on the East Wing and reduced it into rubble before anyone knew what he was doing. This time, we have been warned. The photograph published of Trump in Air Force One looking at some sort of plan to “demolish” the Kennedy Center tells us exactly what he intends to do. We must stop him. If we have to lay down our bodies in the way of the wrecking balls and teeth of the excavators, then that is what should be done.

President John F. Kennedy risked his life in war and lost his life while serving the country as its president. We lit an eternal flame in Arlington Cemetery to honor him, which Trump wants to extinguish with the shadow of his arch, and we built a center for the arts on the Potomac and named it after him which Trump has now said will “end up being ripped down” because he has been blocked from putting his name on it.

Neither thing can be allowed to happen. If this country stands for anything, it stands for honoring those who have served in uniform and given their lives to defend it. Arlington Cemetery is the resting place that was built on grounds owned by Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Army of Northern Virginia and signed the surrender of the Confederate States of America. The first casualties of the Civil War were buried in what became Arlington National Cemetery while the war was still being fought.

By any measure, it is hallowed ground.

Donald Trump wants to desecrate it with his awful over-decorated “Memorial Arch” that memorializes nothing more than himself. This must not be permitted to happen.

Nor should the destruction or desecration of the memorial to President Kennedy be permitted to happen. The Kennedy Center has for more than 50 years been a gathering place for residents of the Capital and visitors who have enjoyed concerts and plays and dances and art on its grounds. President Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline were great patrons of the arts. The center honors both of them. Donald Trump hates the fact that the nation reveres them. He tore out the White House Rose Garden, which had been designed and planted under the guiding hand of Mrs. Kennedy. He replaced it with a concrete slab that he has used in the same way he uses his patio at Mar a Lago. He tore down the East Wing of the White House where Mrs. Kennedy’s office, and the offices of other First Ladies, once stood. He hates tradition. He hates history. He hates the reverence for the past that is reflected in the historic sites of Washington D.C. such as the Reflecting Pool, and so he has either torn them down or dishonored them.

As well as being a convicted criminal and an accused rapist and an compulsive liar, he is a man with no taste and no sense of honor. He is beneath contempt. What he wants to do to dishonor President Kennedy and the service members buried in Arlington National Cemetery must not be allowed to happen.

We failed to keep Trump from being elected for a second time. We must not fail in our duty to uphold the honor of the nation’s capital and its historic sites that pay tribute to the heroes of our past. To allow Donald Trump to dishonor them will dishonor us as a country that stands for freedom and democracy. His destructive and dishonorable wishes must not come to pass.

Leave a comment

Share

Give a gift subscription

Adam Smith’s 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, is often described in casual conversation (at least by noneconomists) as a manifesto for the benefits and power of free markets. That’s a part of it, to be sure. But Smith was a profound thinker, not a pamphleteer, and he digs down into a much wider discussion of why the people of certain nations become wealthy. Barry R. Weingast offers his own thematic emphasis emphasis in “What Every PhD Student Should Know About Adam Smith” (Annual Review of Economics 2026, pp. 647-668).

Weingast runs through the Smithian topics that are familiar to most economists: division of labor, supply and demand, wages and apprenticeships, the role of money, poor laws, land rents, free trade, and so on. But Weingast’s emphasizes Smith’s discussion of how the laws and institutions supporting these factors arose. Where the lords ruled, those who worked the land called “slaves” by Smith. They had no right to move to another area, and if the land was transferred from one lord to another, the farmers also transferred automatically with the land. In this situation, Smith explains, no farmer under a lord had any incentive to increase production, because as Smith wrote, “[M]en in this defenseless state naturally content themselves with their necessary subsistence, because to acquire more might only tempt the injustice of their oppressors.” Smith also offers data that free men, in contrast to the “slaves” under control of feudal lords, produced about three times as much. Weingast calls this the no-growth “feudal equilbrium.”

Weingast encapsulates the Smithian argument about the transition away from feudalism in this way. In this feudal times in England involved three primary groups: the king, the great lords, and people in towns. However, commerce begins to travel up and down rivers, and at key points along those rivers, towns start building up to handld and manage the flow of commercial traffic. Weingast describes the power shift in this way:

The trading towns of Northern Europe managed to escape the feudal equilibrium, creating liberty, the rule of law, and long-term economic growth—at least for the merchant elite. How did the towns make this escape? … Smith began with the townsmen as part of the feudal equilibrium. He reports that the king and the lords attacked these unfortunate souls without “pity or remorse.” Over time, however, the king and the townsmen came to see that they had a common enemy in the barons and lords. Indeed, the townsmen were the enemies of his enemies. The king and towns therefore could benefit from a political exchange in which the
towns gave the king taxes, fixed for all time, in exchange for various rights. These included the right to build walls around their cities and to create their own militias for security, to have their own magistrates and judicial systems, and to create their own laws and mechanisms to enforce them. These changes provided the critical political and legal infrastructure to support markets, allowing the towns to get rich over time.

The towns thus created three separate and non-incremental revolutions—in security, liberty, and the economy. The towns controlled all of these revolutions. Moreover, these exchanges were incentive-compatible. The kings valued the revenue, giving them advantages over the lords, and the towns valued their rights, greater security, and the income and profits from long-distance trade. Both parties to the exchange therefore had incentives to maintain the deal, and both had an interest in seeing the lords lose power relative to their own power. Over time, the towns grew in income and stature relative to the stagnant agriculture in the countryside. Indeed, as the towns grew rich, they were ahead of the countryside by two centuries from the standpoint of political and economic development. Smith summarizes this process: “Order and good government, and along with them the liberty and security of individuals, were, in this manner, established in cities at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every sort of violence” …

The towns also created an important transformation of the local countrysides as the towns brought these areas under their (local) security umbrella and with it a semblance of property rights, contract enforcement, and other aspects of the foundations of liberty and the rule of law. This allowed the former slaves in these areas to become specialists in the production of food and raw materials sold to merchants in the town for local consumption or for export in long-distance trade. Per Smith’s division of labor, their incomes were sure to rise above
the subsistence agriculture they had previously suffered for generations. Of course, this transformation occurred largely in the vicinity of the towns at first, spreading into the countryside far more slowly. Nonetheless, much of the agrarian hinterland remained trapped in the feudal equilibrium.

The towns used these rights from the king to take part in long-distance trade. I argue that, in many areas, resources became scarce over time, especially wood for building and for warmth (e.g., firewood). Every year this problem worsened as the scarcity increased. Holding constant for the risks, this scarcity slowly raised the value of taking part in long-distance trade. These merchants became enormously rich as they supplied the local economy with various goods that were scarce in their own towns while at the same time brought goods made or prepared locally that were scarce in other towns, often hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Again, we see here Smith’s division of labor at work.

The towns also had considerable violence potential. Given the violence of the lords, the violence potential of the towns had to be even higher. Indeed, this prowess in violence seemed a necessary and existential condition for the town’s survival. Had this condition failed, the lords would have continued to plunder the towns without pity or remorse.

In short, Smith (and Weingast) argued that the underlying conditions for division of labor, supply and demand, trade, and the other aspects of market forces were a balance of violence that allowed for public order, and then for contracts and markets to function. Weingast writes:

Indeed, in 1793, Dugald Stewart gave a eulogy for Smith [Stewart 1982 (1793)]. He reported a 1755 paper by Smith then in his possession (now lost), which said, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” To a neoclassical scholar of development, this sentence makes development sound formulaic. The reason, as I mention in the introduction, is that these economists assume the first and the third conditions when studying the developed world. But, as I suggest, Smith argued that creating these conditions is the task of development. To create a rule-of-law judicial system rather than a corrupt one based on bribery and privilege represents one of the central problems of modern development.

Of course, no country eliminated bribery and privilege altogether. There is always an element of “you-scratch-my-back, I’ll-scratch yours” and “who you know matters as much as what you know.” There are always interest groups lobbying politicians, and politicians seeking contributions. There are always people looking to build their own power. Adam Smith was a consummate realist, and in the quotation above refers to “a tolerable administration of justice,” rather than perfect justice. But even in a high-income country, pushing back hard against bribery, corruption, and privilege matters, because those factors erode the foundations on which the wealth of a nation is built.

The post Adam Smith: Rule of Law as the Backbone for Markets first appeared on Conversable Economist.