Army cuts athletic trainers from fitness teams, with medics to take up slack
The Army is cutting certified athletic trainers from the fitness training teams across the service, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Jim Mingus said Tuesday, replacing them with strength coaches.
But regular medics might get extra training to deal with fitness-related injuries when the trainers are gone.
The overall goal, he said, was a fitter, stronger Army.
'We will not have arrived until we have a no-neck Army,' Mingus joked. 'Everybody in the Army, their traps are going to go from the base of their head right down to their neck.'
Athletic trainers are civilian specialists trained to help prevent or treat injuries that often occur during normal fitness training like weight lifting and running. To replace them, the Army says it will hire more strength coaches, fitness specialists who focus on creating and monitoring workouts but who often lack training on injury prevention.
As for the injuries that athletic trainers might have helped with, soldiers will now have to go find a medic in their unit, officials said.
A typical Army platoon, Mingus said, already has its own medics who are present for unit training and exercises. 'We just need to train them on how to identify and be able to do some of that treatment there,' he said.
The move will effect the teams set-up in large units under the Army's holistic health and fitness program, or H2F, the Army's massive overhaul of its fitness and wellness training for soldeirs. Those teams, which are made up of about 20 people for Brigade-sized units, had been designed with seven strength and conditioning coaches and four athletic trainers. But going forward, the Army is cutting its athletic trainers and moving to 11 strength and conditioning coaches.
Mingus said the units with H2F access are seeing fewer injuries, faster recovery times and better marksmanship scores. According to H2F data provided by the Army, for units with the program, they have seen a 14% decrease in musculoskeletal injuries, 23% greater Army fitness test pass rate, and 27% more soldiers qualifying as experts for rifle marksmanship.
H2F was announced in 2017 as cultural shift towards improving soldiers' total wellness that goes beyond physical fitness, to include taking care of their mental health, getting enough rest, and eating well.
As part of the program, the Army embedded teams within their formations to give soldiers more direct access to fitness professionals without needing to make appointments at clinics or hospitals.
Those changes, first reported by Military.com, came down to credentialing and budgeting issues, Mingus said. Athletic trainers are considered health providers and are overseen by the Defense Health Agency, which oversees the entire military's medical staff. But the H2F program does not include DHA positions.
'If you're in the health providing business, you have to be credentialed, licensed and overseen by DHA, which is outside the Army's control,' Mingus said at an event hosted by the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington D.C. 'We wanted to keep this as an Army program. We wanted to be able to control our teams and how they interact.'
While a strength and conditioning coach focuses on improving fitness through proper technique and deliberate planning in training, an athletic trainer, or AT, is trained in the medical science of injury prevention and recovery.
The strength and conditioning coaches are 'probably not going to be able to do it in treatment, which is why your medic, your battalion surgeon, your brigade surgeon — there are [occupational therapists] within a division, they need to come in and perform those functions with the strength and conditioning coach,' Mingus told Task & Purpose. 'It's just a slightly different pairing.'
Mingus, a major proponent of H2F, said the Army is no longer testing the feasibility of it as a pilot, but rather sees it as an established program 'for the entire Army.' The service initially equipped 20 of its maneuver formations with H2F teams and the goal is to outfit 111 active duty brigades with their own H2F teams by the end of fiscal year 2027.
The Army is using pilot teams within National Guard and Army Reserve units to determine the best configuration because their needs and training schedules are obviously different. Those H2F units might be established in 'centralized locations where soldiers can be advised by human performance subject matter experts either virtually or in person,' according to an Army release.
'It is absolutely here to stay,' Mingus said. 'The optimized human component of how you fight is actually, I think, more important than anything else that we will do. Fitter people are hard to kill. That's just fact.'
Beyond the physical successes, he said the program is leading to 'many other intangibles' like soldiers experiencing less mental health crises and committing fewer 'acts of indiscipline.' Those 'intangibles' have equated to 22% lower behavioral health reports and a 502% reduction in substance abuse profiles.
He said that the investment in the program — which costs roughly $3 million to stand and $2.5 million to sustain — will equate to $3 million in annual savings per formation.
Mingus also said the goal is to have the program pay off for soldiers who want to have lifetime Army careers or for those who retire with enduring injuries — many of which cost the government through Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare.
'Think about the number of NCOs and senior officers that retire and their quality of life is just crap,' he said. 'We owe that to our troopers that are out there that if you want to commit to 20, 30, whatever number of years, you ought to know that you're going to go into your next life with a pretty decent quality of life.'
Top enlisted leader of Air Force Special Operations Command fired amid investigation
The Marine in one of the most famous recruiting commercials is now in Congress
75th Ranger Regiment wins 2025 Best Ranger Competition
Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer reenlists in Marine Reserve
Air Force pilots get a new way to pee at 30,000 feet
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tricking Veterans: Using Suicide and Mental Health Struggles as a Guise for Privatizing the VA
The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to opinions@ for consideration. While attention remains focused on the looming crisis of Department of Veterans Affairs employees facing termination, an even more ominous threat to veterans' health care advances unnoticed through the halls of Congress. Three pieces of legislation are gaining momentum, each crafted to systematically dismantle VA-delivered care under the guise of sympathy for veteran suicide and mental health struggles. These bills could deliver the decisive blow in a long-standing campaign by proponents determined to privatize VA health care, collapsing the system by pulling funding it needs to care for veterans. Despite promises of greater "freedom," "autonomy" and "choice," unfettered private-sector funding threatens to narrow -- rather than expand -- veterans' actual options. As resources steadily drain from VA facilities and units disappear, millions of veterans who rely on VA services -- particularly those with service-connected conditions -- will lose access to the system they prefer. Instead, those funds will go into the coffers of private health care companies. Lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation to grant veterans unrestricted access to privatized care, known as the Veterans Community Care Program, or VCCP. A particular emphasis has been on mental health care, where legislation has aimed to eliminate VA referral requirements entirely. None of these potential laws has made it very far, until now. Three bills are proceeding through Congress. One, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, secured House approval last month. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (SVAC) is actively weighing whether to follow suit. Should it do so, or if the other bills gain traction, the foundational structure of the VA system could crack. Even without legislation, we're seeing a shift underway. In the VA secretary's new budget, VA medical care funding would be cut by 17% while VCCP private-sector resources would receive a 50% boost. Veterans genuinely appreciate the convenience of community care referrals close to home, but they remain largely unaware of the devastating long-term consequences these legislative changes could bring. If veterans truly grasped the scope of what's being planned, they'd likely reject them. When the Veterans of Foreign Wars surveyed 10,000 members, an overwhelming 92% wanted the VA preserved as the primary health care source -- not dismantled in favor of insurance cards for private providers. A Common Defense poll last week found that two-thirds of veterans oppose downsizing the VA. The Disabled American Veterans is so alarmed by the prospect of unchecked outsourcing that it published a 2023 report with the stark warning title, "A Broken Promise: What if the Veterans Health Administration Goes Away?" That question cuts right to the core. If the VA does not remain the sole authorizer of care, and receive sufficient funding to meet patient demand, the system -- which research consistently shows equals or exceeds community care in critical quality and outcome measures -- faces dismantlement. The VA will likely end up instead as a sprawling assortment of outpatient clinics. If that sounds familiar, it's the plan envisioned in the Project 2025 blueprint. The ripple effects will also reach into America's broader health care landscape. The VA serves as the primary training ground for the nation's health care workforce. Furthermore, VA research -- for countless mental and physical conditions that help both veteran and civilian populations -- would suffer crushing consequences. The VA's role as the nation's health care safety net during public health emergencies would also be severely compromised. The drive for privatization -- shifting governmental responsibilities and funding to private-sector entities -- has deep roots in anti-government politics. Over the past decade, libertarian advocates have forged a powerful alliance with health care corporations seeking lucrative access to billions of taxpayer dollars, joined by veterans' organizations positioning themselves as preferable alternatives to VA care. The strategy crystallized at a June 2014 gathering of conservative activists, where Concerned Veterans for America, backed by the Koch brothers, unveiled a plan to discredit and steadily privatize VA health care. This vision gained legislative traction two months later when Congress enacted the VA Choice Act, expanding private-sector use. The VA Mission Act of 2018 accelerated this shift through the Veterans Community Care Program, which has experienced explosive growth of 15% to 20% annually and already accounts for 40% of all VA-funded patient care. Despite these legislative changes, one essential safeguard against large-scale VA privatization has remained intact: Veterans must still receive authorization from VA staff to obtain private care. This gatekeeping function serves an indispensable purpose, ensuring the VA can allocate resources efficiently and continue investing in high-quality, innovative care within its own system. Community options are unquestionably an essential backup for veterans living far away or facing lengthy waits for VA appointments. However, excessive private-sector use risks destabilizing the VA system and jeopardizing its viability. A "Red Team" of independent health care experts concluded last year that the metastasizing growth of private-sector referrals placed the system in an "existential crisis." These allocations are draining resources from VA facilities, threatening to eliminate services and close facilities. This precarious situation is already evident under current eligibility requirements. Further statutory expansions of veterans' eligibility -- especially unfettered access -- for private-sector care would be financially unsustainable for VA direct care. Champions of privatization have introduced numerous bills designed to eliminate the requirement for VA authorization before veterans can access private care. These advocates have strategically seized upon veteran suicide and mental health crises as leverage points, exploiting the genuine sympathy these urgent issues generate to advance their broader privatization agenda that bears little connection to improving veterans' mental health. The underlying statistics certainly warrant concern: Veteran demand for mental health services has continued to climb relentlessly for years, outstripping the VA's funded capacity, while the veteran suicide rate remains persistently entrenched at levels approximately 50% higher than that of the general population. However, the proposed solutions reveal an inconvenient contradiction. Expanding outsourced mental health care would move veterans away from higher-quality, more timely treatment toward a fragmented private system ill-equipped to address their needs. The VA is widely considered the gold standard for treating psychological wounds. Compared to VA mental health clinicians, VCCP providers are far less likely to utilize evidence-based psychotherapies, receive mandatory training in military sexual trauma and suicide prevention, or seamlessly integrate mental and physical health care. Even the VA Mission Act recognized this disparity, citing VA mental health providers as possessing unique "special expertise" that distinguishes them from their civilian counterparts. Similarly, the VA's suicide prevention initiatives exceed private-sector efforts. Each of the VA's 170 medical centers employs dedicated suicide prevention coordinators who collaborate with VA clinicians to oversee suicide risk screening, expedited mental health appointments, follow-up after missed appointments, safety planning, and medical record flagging. Annual suicide prevention and lethal means safety training is mandatory for all VA providers. Veterans receiving all their care through community programs experience higher suicide rates than those treated exclusively within VA facilities. The privatization push also wasn't driven by the private sector's capacity to deliver care more quickly. Most American counties lack a single psychiatrist, while 45% of rural counties have no psychologist. Veterans wait longer for mental health appointments through the VCCP than within the VA system itself. The VA system still has plenty more work to get done. Veterans currently wait an average of 17 days for a mental health appointment, while those requiring more intensive care face a 16-day delay from initial screening to admission into residential rehabilitation programs. In 2017, Jeff Miller, the recently departed chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs (HVAC), began working as a lobbyist for billionaire Steven Cohen, founder of the Cohen Veterans Network mental health clinic chain. Cohen objected to the VA's policy requiring prior authorization before reimbursing for private care. He sought to eliminate this regulation, allowing veterans to walk into his clinics, receive services, and send the VA the bill afterward -- no approval needed. Miller and Cohen Network representatives met with HVAC committee members and drafted legislation abolishing the VA's authorization requirement for mental health care. These efforts gained movement when then-Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., agreed to introduce their bill. The legislation faced immediate and unified opposition from major veterans service organizations. These groups recognized that the bill would undermine not only the VA's mental health services but also threaten the integrated health care system's overall structure. Faced with this resistance, the bill was quickly withdrawn. Talking to ProPublica, a former VA official presciently warned at the time, "If you start trying to carve into government money in veterans' care to feed things like the Cohen Veterans Network, that's actually privatization. It's going to be death by a thousand cuts." In 2019, veteran suicide statistics seemed to portray a devastating picture. Despite a decade of well-conceived efforts, the numbers simply weren't budging. Twenty veterans took their lives each day, 14 of whom were not using the VA for services. The unyielding problem begged for fresh approaches. This recognition sparked genuine bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, John Boozman, R-Ariz., and Mark Warner, D-Va., joined forces, while Representatives Jack Bergman, R-Mich., and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., did the same in the House. Together, they crafted the IMPROVE (Incorporating Measurements and Providing Resources for Outreach to Veterans Everywhere) Wellbeing for Veterans Act -- a three-year pilot program to provide federal grants to community organizations already working on the ground to identify at-risk veterans disconnected from VA health care and furnish preventive services before suicidal crises emerged. What made the Improve Act truly unprecedented wasn't just its community-leveraging framework, but its insistence that renewed funding be based on demonstrated improvements. The bill's architects mandated capturing comprehensive outcome data at multiple points to distinguish which community programs enhanced veterans' mental resiliency over a long-term period and thereby reduced suicide risk. Meanwhile, Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., SVAC ranking member, was constructing his own comprehensive veterans' mental health bill. During negotiations, he agreed to include Improve Act language in the package, later renamed the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program after a 25-year-old Army sniper instructor who'd recently died by suicide. Tester's bill sailed through Congress, and the pilot Fox Grant Program began funding grantees in late 2022. The 18-month Fox Program review revealed a bleak picture of widespread ineffectiveness. Organizations were supposed to track participants' suicidal ideation, financial stability, mental health status and social supports before and after providing services, but most didn't do so. Out of all participating entities, only 295 people completed services and filled out at least one of the five required questionnaires. That's roughly, on average, four people per grantee -- a shockingly minuscule number. Even worse, the report failed to break down results by individual organization, making it impossible to determine whether they were helping improve veterans' well-being. As the three-year pilot approached the time for reauthorization in 2024, House and Senate committees held hearings to chart the program's future. However, applying the original renewal criteria for grantees would create a problem: If grant money was truly reserved for community programs that demonstrated improvement, many grantees would surely lose funding. The solution emerged as a sham workaround -- ensure private-sector money continued flowing by ignoring the requirement that grantees measure outcomes. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, adopted this hands-off approach with her No Wrong Door for Veterans Act. It mandates a one-time initial screening while making no mention of pre and post assessment instruments designed to evaluate program outcomes and inform renewal decisions -- an omission that implicitly renders such evaluations voluntary. The potential abandonment of required pre and post comparative data troubled several lawmakers. House Democrats offered amendments to ensure continuation of outcomes tracking, but these were swiftly rejected. The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act contained two additional provisions that will accelerate privatization. One compressed VA access standards, the time limit the VA has to schedule, from 20 days to an unrealistic 3-day window for mental health referrals -- virtually guaranteeing automatic referrals to non-VA providers. Then, once Fox Grant recipients secure this expedited community care pathway, political pressure would inevitably mount to extend identical leeway to all enrolled veterans, draining more resources from VA facilities. Another provision posed an equally grave threat: The bill expands eligible grant recipients to include "mental health care entities" and permits them to offer non-emergency direct mental health treatment. This expanded scope would duplicate the mental health care provided at nearby VA and VCCP facilities, undermining the very agency it is intended to complement. A pair of other veterans' mental health bills have entered the legislative pipeline, each creating broad avenues for veterans to access private-sector services independently of VA involvement. One is the Veterans Health Act, introduced in 2023 by Jerry Moran, R-Kan., then the SVAC ranking member. The legislation includes a pilot program designed to expand access for veterans experiencing mental health and substance use disorders. Under this framework, veterans could schedule appointments directly with community providers, circumventing VA referral systems. Despite its pilot designation, the bill contains a mandate to expand this model across all health conditions throughout the entire VA system after three years. Moran reintroduced the pilot in March 2025 as part of the Veterans Access Act, which is slated for consideration this summer. The second bill -- the Recover Act -- introduced last fall by HVAC Chairman Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., would allocate grants to facilities for mental health services. This Cohen Veterans Network-backed legislation would create a parallel care system beyond services already available through the VA and the VCCP. This proposed arrangement raises troubling concerns about accountability. The VA would lose ability to oversee treatment furnished through these grants, while recipient facilities would face no requirement to share health records with VA providers -- a fundamental breakdown in care coordination that could leave veterans' treatment fragmented and potentially compromised. We've reached a critical juncture. The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act cleared the House in late May, leaving the Senate to make a pivotal choice: Advance this legislation or pursue legislation that retains accountability. Both the Veterans Health Act and the Recover Act are teed up for further attention. By the time America celebrates Veterans Day this fall, Washington may have delivered a mortal blow to the system uniquely designed to serve those who answered their country's call. -- Russell Lemle is a senior policy analyst with the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
Woman Visits Gym Every Week, but There's a Twist: 'Need This'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A savvy woman has shared the only reason she goes to the gym once a week—and it isn't to work out. The TikTok clip, shared by @almillishit, has gathered 4.6 million views and 316,400 likes. It shows a spray tan machine, and the text overlaid explains that she pays $25 a month for a fitness membership "just to get a weekly spray and never actually work out." The Delaware-based woman told another user: "I'm genuinely so lucky [and] grateful." Some users expressed their envy, and said: "So jealous. Mine only has tanning booths!!!" Many users are impressed with the woman's money-saving hack, as the average cost of a spray tan is generally between $25 and $60, according to The Knot. "That's cheaper than the tanning bed I pay for at the salon each month," said one user, and another wrote: "Damn. I just paid $40 for one level 1 spray tan." "This should be it instead of the tanning beds," suggested a third user. In the comments, the woman tells another user that she is "scared" of sunbeds, most likely because sunlamps and sunbeds—including tanning beds and booths—are classified as known human carcinogens. A stock image of women using her phone in a gym. A stock image of women using her phone in a gym. Oscar Gutierrez Zozulia/iStock / Getty Images Plus Are Spray Tans Safe? According to the American Cancer Society, the amount and type of ultraviolet (UV) radiation a person receives from tanning beds depend on several factors: the type of lamps used, the duration of exposure, and the frequency of use. Most tanning beds primarily emit UVA rays, with a smaller proportion being UVB, which is a risk factor for all types of skin cancer. As a safer alternative, many people opt for sunless tanning methods such as fake tan products or sprays. These products work by interacting with proteins on the surface of the skin to create a temporary darkening effect, mimicking a natural tan. Like a real tan, the color gradually fades over several days. Most sunless tanning products contain an FDA-approved ingredient called dihydroxyacetone (DHA), a color additive used specifically for external application. When used correctly, these products are generally considered safe. However, the American Cancer Society cautions that DHA should only be used on the skin's surface and not: Inhaled through the nose or mouth. Ingested. Applied to areas with mucous membranes (such as the eyes, nose, or lips). If you're considering using a sunless tanning product, consult your doctor—especially if you have sensitive skin or health concerns. It's also important to note that most of these products do not provide sun protection. Even if a product contains sunscreen, its effectiveness typically lasts only a few hours. To reduce the risk of skin damage and skin cancer, continue using broad-spectrum sunscreen and wearing protective clothing when spending time outdoors. Newsweek has reached out to @almillishit for comment via email. We could not verify the details of the case. Do you have any clever hacks you use to make life easier (or cheaper) that you want to share? Send them to life@ with some details and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.
San Francisco Chronicle
10 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Latest: Trump heads to Fort Bragg to celebrate 250th anniversary for US Army
President Donald Trump plans to speak at Fort Bragg on Tuesday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as he deploys the military in an attempt to quiet immigration protests in Los Angeles. Trump has promoted the Army's anniversary as a reason to hold a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, which is also his 79th birthday. Trump's Tuesday schedule, according to the White House 12:25 p.m. — Trump will travel to Fort Bragg, North Carolina 2:40 p.m. — Once he arrives, Trump will observe a military demonstration 4:00 p.m. — Trump will deliver remarks to service members, veterans and their families 6:00 p.m. — Trump will travel back to the White House Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to face Congress for first time since Signal leaks He's expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they're unhappy that Hegseth hasn't provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. Kennedy on Monday removed every member of a scientific committee that advises the CDC on how to use vaccines and pledged to replace them with his own picks. Major physicians and public health groups criticized the move to oust all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Kennedy, who was one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine activists before becoming the nation's top health official, has not said who he would appoint to the panel, but said it would convene in just two weeks in Atlanta. Although it's typically not viewed as a partisan board, the entire current roster of committee members were Biden appointees. Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests Trump made no secret of his willingness to take a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. By overriding California's Gov. Gavin Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, he's moving swiftly to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide. For now, Trump is betting that they will. Trump heads to Fort Bragg while facing criticism for deploying military at Los Angeles protests Trump plans to speak at Fort Bragg on Tuesday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as he deploys the military in an attempt to quiet immigration protests in Los Angeles. Fort Bragg, located near Fayetteville, North Carolina, serves as headquarters for U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Highly trained units like the Green Berets and the Rangers are based there. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will also be at Tuesday's event, along with service members, veterans and their families. Trump has promoted the Army's anniversary as a reason to hold a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, which is also his 79th birthday. Trump, who sees the military as a critical tool for domestic goals, has used the recent protests in Los Angeles as an opportunity to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell disturbances that began as protests over immigration raids.
