Trump brings back the Presidential Fitness Test in public schools
The big picture: The test — featuring challenges like a one-mile run, pull-ups and the sit-and-reach — was once a rite of passage for America's youth.
It was also a source of anxiety and shame for more than a few kids, who ended up feeling like they weren't strong enough for the president's (or Arnold Schwarzenegger ' s) purposes.
Trump on Thursday will sign an executive order to reestablish the President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, which includes re-establishing the test, as first reported by CNN.
Why it matters: The Trump administration has focused on sports and athletics, including banning transgender athletes and hosting major national and international sporting events.
State of play: Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the test in 1956 to assess cardiovascular fitness, upper body and core strength, endurance, flexibility and agility, according to Harvard Health.
The test included a one-mile run, pull-ups or push-ups, sit-ups, shuttle run, and sit-and-reach.
Children in the top 15% received the Presidential Physical Fitness Award, established by former President Lyndon B. Johnson.
President Obama replaced the test after the 2012-13 school year and instituted the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, putting more emphasis on students' health rather than performance, per Education Week.
Flashback: Eisenhower originally established the test out of panic over American children being less fit than European children, Vox reported.
One of its early iterations was akin to a military training exercise.
What's next: The Presidential Fitness test will be administered by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The executive order directs the council to create school programs rewarding excellence in physical education and develop criteria for a fitness award.
What they're saying: "President Trump wants to ensure America's future generations are strong, healthy, and successful," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
We must loosen China's chokehold on battery supply chains
A ceasefire in the U.S.-China trade war doesn't change the fact that Americans are subject to Beijing's whims when it comes to critical supplies of everything from magnets to minerals. This is not an accident but the result of decades of Beijing's deliberate practices to build monopolies, dominate supply chains, stifle competition, and foster resource dependencies. But the U.S. and its allies can break China's stranglehold on the battery supply chain, if they work together now to build the components and mine the minerals that go into advanced batteries, while fighting back against China's market manipulation. In our new report, Unplugging Beijing: A Playbook to Reclaim America's Advanced Battery Supply Chains, we lay out the scale and scope of China's non-market practices in battery supply chains — dumping, price manipulation, intellectual property theft, monopolies, and forced technology transfers — and, more importantly, say what America can do about it. One key way in which China controls the battery market is through intentional overproduction — making too much of everything — driving prices below profitability in ways that push out competition. For 2025, Chinese analysts are projecting that China will make twice as many electric cars as the entire global demand from last year. While enormous subsidies and state support cushion Chinese companies, American companies cannot sustain unprofitable production. China's decision to dump cheap batteries and underlying minerals on global markets sustains their monopolies but harms free markets and open competition. Beijing may finally be acknowledging that its massive overproduction of just about everything is fueling a race to the bottom. But as the central government frets about what Xi Jinping has labeled 'disorderly price competition,' local governments in China are still backing absurd strategies to juice production, such as state-sponsored programs to sell brand new cars as 'zero-mileage' used cars — sold at a loss and dumped on foreign markets, but allowing companies to inflate sales numbers to justify factories operating at full tilt. While Beijing deploys a suite of non-market tactics at scale, its price manipulation is especially damaging. Advanced batteries depend on a host of refined minerals — lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite — that are responsible for most of the cost of the resulting battery. China's intervention in nickel markets, for instance, has saddled Western producers with unsustainable costs. In lithium, Beijing has driven prices up or down at will, undermining competing U.S. projects. To counter this, we propose creating a critical minerals and metals exchange, backed by physical assets and a U.S. strategic stockpile. This would offer offtake guarantees above a price floor to support domestic processors. China's monopolies on mineral processing have also become a weapon in the broader trade war. Beijing has imposed export restrictions on key minerals, including graphite — of which it controls more than 95 percent of global battery-grade processing. To reduce these choke points, we advocate for the creation of special economic zones that co-locate processing, infrastructure, and energy access near known reserves. These zones could take advantage of colocation synergies around large reserves, such as the Salton Sea, and could feature pre-vetted environmental analysis and rigorous safety protocols to localize mining, on-site processing, downstream fabrication, energy, and water needs for all related infrastructure. We also recommend expanding the U.S. Development Finance Corporation's risk appetite to back more processing projects internationally. Beyond supply and demand, China's record on intellectual property theft is extensive. Most Chinese espionage cases involve attempts to acquire commercial technology. The battery sector is a repeated target: the Justice Department has charged Chinese actors with stealing battery tech from Tesla and Phillips 66. Many of China's non-market tactics — from forced labor to environmental shortcuts — thrive in secrecy. To increase transparency, we recommend that the U.S. bar foreign firms from selling into American markets unless they meet strict digital customs and trade data standards. U.S.-listed companies should also be required to map their full supply chains to expose any hidden reliance on forced labor. To compete with all this, the U.S. must invest in cleaner, more efficient, and higher-performing manufacturing processes. We propose increased academic research in battery science in exchange for low-cost licensing to U.S. companies, full cost recovery for research and development in the tax code, and publicly owned modular testing facilities to reduce innovation barriers for smaller firms. There is a way forward — if we choose to act boldly. New supply chains won't emerge from one nation alone. We need domestic reindustrialization and international ally-shoring. Both require upgraded infrastructure and reliable access to the raw inputs of advanced manufacturing — minerals, chemicals, and tooling. Strengthened trade rules, coordinated tariffs, and harmonized regulations among market economies are essential. Most importantly, this effort must be spearheaded by strong American leadership and a dynamic, integrated North American trading bloc. Rebuilding America's supply chains will take industrial work and political will, but we must commit to the hard tasks now to protect our economic security and resilience for the long term. The future of American prosperity depends on it. Elaine Dezenski is senior director and head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Joshua Birenbaum serves as deputy director.
CNBC
10 minutes ago
- CNBC
Fmr. Acting Labor Secretary: Firing of BLS head puts the integrity of our statistical system at risk
Seth Harris, former Acting Labor Secretary under President Obama, and Mick Mulvaney, former White House chief of staff under President Trump, join 'Squawk Box' to discuss President Trump's firing of the head of Bureau of Labor Statistics.
CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
China standing firm against U.S. demands that it stop buying oil from Russia and Iran
U.S. and Chinese officials may be able to settle many of their differences to reach a trade deal and avert punishing tariffs, but they remain far apart on one issue: the U.S. demand that China stop purchasing oil from Iran and Russia. "China will always ensure its energy supply in ways that serve our national interests," China's Foreign Ministry posted on X on Wednesday following two days of trade negotiations in Stockholm, responding to the U.S. threat of a 100% tariff. "Coercion and pressuring will not achieve anything. China will firmly defend its sovereignty, security and development interests," the ministry said. The response is notable at a time when both Beijing and Washington are signaling optimism and goodwill about reaching a deal to keep commercial ties between the world's two largest economies stable - after climbing down from sky-high tariffs and harsh trade restrictions. It underscores China's confidence in playing hardball when dealing with the Trump administration, especially when trade is linked to its energy and foreign policies. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, emerging from the talks, told reporters that when it comes to Russian oil purchases, the "Chinese take their sovereignty very seriously." "We don't want to impede on their sovereignty, so they would like to pay a 100% tariff," Bessent said. On Thursday, he called the Chinese "tough" negotiators, but said China's pushback hasn't stalled the negotiations. "I believe that we have the makings of a deal," Bessent told CNBC. Gabriel Wildau, managing director of the consultancy Teneo, said he doubts President Trump would actually deploy the 100% tariff. "Realizing those threats would derail all the recent progress and probably kill any chance" for Mr. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to announce a trade deal if they should meet this fall, Wildau said. In seeking to restrict oil sales by Russia and Iran, a major source of revenue for both countries, the U.S. wants to reduce the funding available for their militaries, as Moscow pursues its war against Ukraine and Tehran funds militant groups across the Middle East. A CBS News investigation has revealed that China is still secretly buying Iranian oil and evading U.S. sanctions by using what's known as a "dark fleet" to transfer oil from ship to ship in the middle of the sea. When Mr. Trump unveiled a sweeping plan for tariffs on dozens of countries in April, China was the only country that retaliated. It refused to give in to U.S. pressure. "If the U.S. is bent on imposing tariffs, China will fight to the end, and this is China's consistent official stance," said Tu Xinquan, director of the China Institute for WTO Studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. WTO is the acronym for the World Trade Organization. Negotiating tactics aside, China may also suspect that the U.S. won't follow through on its threat, questioning the importance Mr. Trump places on countering Russia, Tu said. Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Beijing is unlikely to change its posture when it sees inconsistencies in U.S. foreign policy goals toward Russia and Iran, whereas Beijing's policy support for Moscow is consistent and clear. It's also possible that Beijing may want to use it as another negotiating tool to extract more concessions from Mr. Trump, Kennedy said. Danny Russel, a distinguished fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Beijing now sees itself as "the one holding the cards in its struggle with Washington." He said Mr. Trump has made it clear he wants a "headline-grabbing deal" with Xi, "so rejecting a U.S. demand to stop buying oil from Iran or Russia is probably not seen as a deal‑breaker, even if it generates friction and a delay." Continuing to buy oil from Russia preserves Xi's "strategic solidarity" with Russian President Vladimir Putin and significantly reduces the economic costs for China, Russel said. "Beijing simply can't afford to walk away from the oil from Russia and Iran," he said. "It's too important a strategic energy supply, and Beijing is buying it at fire‑sale prices." A 2024 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that roughly 80% to 90% of the oil exported by Iran went to China. The Chinese economy benefits from the more than 1 million barrels of Iranian oil it imports per day. After the Iranian parliament floated a plan to shut down the Strait of Hormuz in June following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, China spoke out against closing the critical oil transit route. China also is an important customer for Russia, but is second to India in buying Russian seaborne crude oil exports. In April, Chinese imports of Russian oil rose 20% over the previous month to more than 1.3 million barrels per day, according to the KSE Institute, an analytical center at the Kyiv School of Economics. This past week, Mr. Trump said the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on goods from India, plus an additional import tax because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. India's Foreign Ministry said Friday its relationship with Russia was "steady and time-tested." Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and a top policy adviser, said Mr. Trump has been clear that it is "not acceptable" for India to continue financing the Ukraine war by purchasing oil from Russia. "People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil," Miller said on Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures." He said the U.S. needs "to get real about dealing with the financing of this war." Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, is pushing for sanctions and tariffs on Russia and its financial backers. In April, he introduced a bill that would authorize the president to impose tariffs as high as 500% not only on Russia but on any country that "knowingly" buys oil, uranium, natural gas, petroleum products or petrochemical products from Russia. "The purpose of this legislation is to break the cycle of China - a communist dictatorship - buying oil below market price from Putin's Russia, which empowers his war machine to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians," Graham said in a June statement. The bill has 84 co-sponsors in the 100-seat Senate. A corresponding House version has been introduced, also with bipartisan support. Republicans say they stand ready to move on the sanctions legislation if Mr. Trump asks them to do so, but the bill is on hold for now.
