Latest news with #RANDCorp
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Transgender troops face ‘crushing' decision as Trump ban deadline looms
Transgender active-duty service members must decide whether to leave the military on their own or be forced out by Friday under the 30-day deadline announced last month by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a life-altering decision that those interviewed by The Hill said is nearly impossible to make. 'It's crushing,' said Cmdr. Emily 'Hawking' Shilling, who has served in the Navy for almost two decades. 'It's heartbreaking.' A naval aviator with 60 combat missions under her belt, Shilling oversaw a staff of about 200 people before she requested voluntary separation last month and was placed on administrative leave. In her latest fitness report, Shilling's commander described her as an 'inspiring leader' with 'boundless energy' and 'unmatched enthusiasm.' 'People excel under Hawking's leadership,' they wrote, referring to Shilling by her callsign. The report and Shilling's own experiences contradict how President Trump and administration officials have sought to frame her and other transgender troops' service. Trump's Jan. 27 executive order to boot transgender people from the military states they cannot satisfy the 'rigorous standards' needed to serve, and that allowing their participation threatens military readiness and unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized groups — including Black, gay or female Americans — from serving. A 2016 RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon found that allowing trans people to serve had no negative impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness. Shilling, who currently serves as president of SPARTA Pride, an advocacy group for transgender service members, said she is complying with the Trump administration's policy despite believing it to be unlawful and challenging it in court. She stressed that her views do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Navy. Shilling's lawsuit, filed in February with six other trans service members, argues that 'banning ready, willing, and able service members does not further the objectives of the United States Armed Forces.' A federal judge in Washington state, where the suit was filed, sided with the service members in a March ruling that temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing Trump's order. But after an emergency application from the Justice Department, the Supreme Court ruled in May that the Trump administration could begin enforcing its ban on trans military service. 'My oath is to the Constitution and to obey all lawful orders,' Shilling said in an interview. 'The only way that I can challenge whether or not something is lawful is through the courts, and so I actually see this as an extension of my duty, of my oath.' 'I believe this is unlawful, and in the meantime, while I challenge it, I'm going to obey the orders,' she added. 'I'm out-processing; I'm doing all my paperwork; I'm doing everything I'm being told to do, and I'm also challenging it, saying, 'I don't think that this is lawful. Courts, please make a verdict on it.' And I will honor whatever they decide.' Cmdr. Blake Dremann, another plaintiff in Shilling's lawsuit, has also begun the voluntary separation process, though he said it hasn't felt like much of a choice. He requested his separation start at the end of December, when he will hit 20 years of service and be eligible for regular retirement. 'As far as navigating anything else, it has been really just trying to figure out, 'OK, where do I want to live? What do I want to do? How am I going to handle this?'' said Dremann, a naval supply officer. 'I thought I had another 10 years to figure out what I was going to do afterwards.' Dremann recently returned to the U.S. from Guam, where he had supervised a team of sailors and junior officers repairing submarines for forward deployment on the USS Frank Cable. The assignment, he said, was part of a milestone tour that would have set him on a path to becoming a Navy captain. Under the Trump administration's new policy, 'That's been taken away from me,' he said. A member of the Navy since the early aughts, Dremann served under the Pentagon's long-standing ban on trans service members that was lifted in 2016 under former President Obama, as well as under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which prevented gays, lesbians and bisexuals from openly serving, Trump's 2017 trans military restrictions and now, the more stringent 2025 ban. 'This is the fourth time the military has had a policy that requires me to leave the service,' he said. 'This will probably be the one that gets me.' Dremann said he would be open to returning to the Navy once he separates if the Trump administration's policy were reversed in the near future. 'I even took my physical readiness test for the year,' he said. Others hesitated to say whether they would return. 'Unless there were specific policies put in place to prevent, like, what's going on now from happening in the future, having that being a case where let's say, everyone's offered a way back through the next administration, four to eight years later, you can run into this entire situation again,' said Abi, a member of the Air Force based in Alaska who asked that her last name be withheld over privacy and safety concerns. Her wife, Elizabeth, said she would be similarly uneasy with Abi someday returning to the military. The Trump administration's policy, she said, had betrayed their trust. Trump's 2017 policy barring transgender troops from serving made an exception for some who had already started to transition. The latest policy makes no such exception, deeming any service member with a current diagnosis, history or symptoms of gender dysphoria unfit for military service. 'To turn around and say, 'I know we said that you could do that, but now that you have, we are choosing to punish you for it.' It's like, what else could they do that with?' Elizabeth asked. With just under five years of service, Abi said there is no real incentive to opt for voluntary separation. A Pentagon memo issued in February said some trans service members could receive separation pay at double the rate of those who were involuntarily removed, but eligibility requires at least five years of continuous active-duty service. For now, Abi and Elizabeth are biding their time. They are looking to relocate, possibly to California, where Elizabeth has family, but cannot make concrete plans — including finding work — until they know when Abi will be discharged. 'It's very scary to be in such an unknown position,' Abi said. Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott said he similarly has no plans to voluntarily separate, a decision that, as a reservist, he must make by July 6. 'Most of the incentives for voluntary separation are geared toward folks who have more time and service than I do,' he said. 'So, for me personally, I'm watching to see if any new guidance or any new policies come out. But really, we're just kind of preparing to see what the involuntary separation process is going to look like.' 'I hate the verbiage being used as voluntary versus involuntary,' he added, 'because this isn't really voluntary for any of us. This is not what we wanted.' Talbott said he's hopeful the policy will again be blocked in court. Like Shilling, he is the lead plaintiff in a challenge to Trump's executive order. A district judge sided with Talbott and more than a dozen other plaintiffs in March, blocking the administration from implementing Trump's order, describing it as 'soaked in animus.' An appeals court temporarily halted the order as it weighs whether to grant a longer pause. 'I'm kind of trying to do my best to hold down the fort for everyone,' Talbott said. 'That's what I try to stay focused on. I have a job in the military, I have my civilian job as well, and things need to get done. You know, the world does not revolve around this case; the world does not revolve around me by any shape of the imagination, and I have jobs to do, and I have responsibilities, and that's what I try to stay focused on.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Transgender troops face ‘crushing' decision as Trump ban deadline looms
Transgender active-duty service members must decide whether to leave the military on their own or be forced out by Friday under the 30-day deadline announced last month by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a life-altering decision that those interviewed by The Hill said is nearly impossible to make. 'It's crushing,' said Commander Emily 'Hawking' Shilling, who has served in the Navy for almost two decades. 'It's heartbreaking.' A naval aviator with 60 combat missions under her belt, Shilling oversaw a staff of about 200 people before she requested voluntary separation last month and was placed on administrative leave. In her latest fitness report, Shilling's commander described her as an 'inspiring leader' with 'boundless energy' and 'unmatched enthusiasm.' 'People excel under Hawking's leadership,' they wrote, referring to Shilling by her callsign. The report and Shilling's own experiences contradict how President Trump and administration officials have sought to frame her and other transgender troops' service. Trump's Jan. 27 executive order to boot transgender people from the military states that they cannot satisfy the 'rigorous standards' needed to serve, and that allowing their participation threatens military readiness and unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized groups — including Black, gay or female Americans — from serving. A 2016 RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon found that allowing trans people to serve had no negative impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness. Shilling, who currently serves as president of SPARTA Pride, an advocacy group for transgender service members, said she is complying with the Trump administration's policy despite believing it to be unlawful and challenging it in court. She stressed that her views do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Navy. Shilling's lawsuit, filed in February with six other trans service members, argues that 'banning ready, willing, and able service members does not further the objectives of the United States Armed Forces.' A federal judge in Washington state, where the suit was filed, sided with the service members in a March ruling that temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing Trump's order. But after an emergency application from the Justice Department, the Supreme Court ruled in May that the Trump administration could begin enforcing its ban on trans military service. 'My oath is to the Constitution and to obey all lawful orders,' Shilling said in an interview. 'The only way that I can challenge whether or not something is lawful is through the courts, and so I actually see this as an extension of my duty, of my oath.' 'I believe this is unlawful, and in the meantime, while I challenge it, I'm going to obey the orders,' she added. 'I'm out-processing; I'm doing all my paperwork; I'm doing everything I'm being told to do, and I'm also challenging it, saying, 'I don't think that this is lawful, courts, please make a verdict on it.' And I will honor whatever they decide.' Commander Blake Dremann, another plaintiff in Shilling's lawsuit, has also begun the voluntary separation process, though he said it hasn't felt like much of a choice. He requested that his separation start at the end of December, when he will hit 20 years of service and be eligible for regular retirement. 'As far as navigating anything else, it has been really just trying to figure out, 'OK, where do I want to live? What do I want to do? How am I going to handle this?'' said Dremann, a naval supply officer. 'I thought I had another 10 years to figure out what I was going to do afterwards.' Dremann recently returned to the U.S. from Guam, where he had supervised a team of sailors and junior officers repairing submarines for forward deployment on the USS Frank Cable. The assignment, he said, was part of a milestone tour that would have set him on a path to becoming a Navy captain. Under the Trump administration's new policy, 'That's been taken away from me,' he said. A member of the Navy since the early aughts, Dremann served under the Pentagon's longstanding ban on trans service members that was lifted in 2016 under former President Obama, as well as under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which prevented gays, lesbians and bisexuals from openly serving, Trump's 2017 trans military restrictions and now, the more stringent 2025 ban. 'This is the fourth time the military has had a policy that requires me to leave the service,' he said. 'This will probably be the one that gets me.' Dremann said he would be open to returning to the Navy once he separates if the Trump administration's policy were reversed in the near future. 'I even took my physical readiness test for the year,' he said. Others hesitated to say whether they would return. 'Unless there were specific policies put in place to prevent, like, what's going on now from happening in the future, having that being a case where let's say, everyone's offered a way back through the next administration, four to eight years later, you can run into this entire situation again,' said Abi, a member of the Air Force based in Alaska who asked that her last name be withheld over privacy and safety concerns. Her wife, Elizabeth, said she would be similarly uneasy with Abi someday returning to the military. The Trump administration's policy, she said, had betrayed their trust. Trump's 2017 policy barring transgender troops from serving made an exception for some who had already started to transition. The latest policy makes no such exception, deeming any service member with a current diagnosis, history or symptoms of gender dysphoria unfit for military service. 'To turn around and say, 'I know we said that you could do that, but now that you have, we are choosing to punish you for it.' It's like, what else could they do that with?' Elizabeth asked. With just under five years of service, Abi said there is no real incentive to opt for voluntary separation. A Pentagon memo issued in February said some trans service members could receive separation pay at double the rate of those who were involuntarily removed, but eligibility requires at least five years of continuous active-duty service. For now, Abi and Elizabeth are biding their time. They are looking to relocate, possibly to California, where Elizabeth has family, but cannot make concrete plans — including finding work — until they know when Abi will be discharged. 'It's very scary to be in such an unknown position,' Abi said. Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott said he similarly has no plans to voluntarily separate, a decision that, as a reservist, he must make by July 6. 'Most of the incentives for voluntary separation are geared toward folks who have more time and service than I do,' he said. 'So, for me personally, I'm watching to see if any new guidance or any new policies come out. But really, we're just kind of preparing to see what the involuntary separation process is going to look like.' 'I hate the verbiage being used as voluntary versus involuntary,' he added, 'because this isn't really voluntary for any of us. This is not what we wanted.' Talbott said he's hopeful the policy will again be blocked in court. Like Shilling, he is the lead plaintiff in a challenge to Trump's executive order. A district judge sided with Talbott and more than a dozen other plaintiffs in March, blocking the administration from implementing Trump's order, which they said was 'soaked in animus.' An appeals court temporarily halted the order as it weighs whether to grant a longer pause. 'I'm kind of trying to do my best to hold down the fort for everyone,' Talbott said. 'That's what I try to stay focused on. I have a job in the military, I have my civilian job as well, and things need to get done. You know, the world does not revolve around this case; the world does not revolve around me by any shape of the imagination, and I have jobs to do, and I have responsibilities, and that's what I try to stay focused on.'
Business Journals
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Journals
The case for self-funding: A solution to rising healthcare costs
Today, about 37% of covered workers are enrolled in fully-insured healthcare plans. But what does that really mean? In a fully-insured health plan, the employer pays a fixed amount – also known as a premium – to an insurance company. In return, the insurance company takes on the responsibility of paying for employees' medical claims. It's like buying a subscription to cover all healthcare costs, except it comes with a hefty price tag and very little control. In comparison, in a self-funded insurance plan, the employer assumes the financial risk for providing healthcare benefits to its employees. Instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, the employer sets aside funds to cover medical claims. Fully-insured plans are typically 10%-15% more expensive than self-funded plans, according to OneDigital. That difference adds up fast – and the ripple effect has dire consequences on American families. The average family has just $6,700 in liquid assets. Meanwhile, out-of-pocket maxes often climb past $10,000, leaving many just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. Employers are making every effort to control rising costs, but it often feels like an insurmountable challenge. In 2025, they will contribute nearly 12 times more to employee healthcare than they did in 2000. Despite this, many employees still struggle to afford healthcare, without a corresponding improvement in quality. Families shouldn't have to delay care or risk financial ruin to get the treatment they need. That's not just unfair, it's unacceptable. And it's time we do something about it. The players in the healthcare cost game When healthcare costs soar year after year, it's natural to wonder who's responsible. But the reality is more complex than just 'insurance companies' or 'hospitals.' At OneDigital, we've made it our mission to dig into the data and uncover what's going on beneath the surface. According to a RAND Corp study, employers pay hospitals an average of 254% of the Medicare rate. For perspective, that's approximately 100% more than what half of those hospitals need to break even. These inflated charges don't just bloat costs – they block access. They especially hurt people facing emergency medical needs, when shopping around simply isn't an option. Worse yet, today's system does not align incentives with employee needs or member outcomes. Most network contracts do little to protect the people actually using the care. Up to 80% of medical bills contain errors, and under these contracts, many carriers pay them without reviewing them. That leaves patients footing the bill for services they never received. Instead of focusing on getting people healthy, our current model treats symptoms, overprescribes medications, and leans heavily on surgeries and tests. The result? High costs, low value, and poor long-term outcomes. For employers, this is a wake-up call. If we want to control costs and improve outcomes, we can't just keep shifting expenses around. We need a better strategy – one that reduces costs at the source. The case for self-funding Employers can make their benefits an asset and align with their incentives by choosing a self-funded, customizable plan. Many employers fear the only way self-funding works is if they have over 500 employees. But that's not the case at all. Employers just need a willingness to learn and to understand how to manage risk to succeed with this type of health plan. Self-funding also allows employers to implement innovative cost-containment solutions – including reference-based pricing – to reduce overall healthcare costs while maintaining quality for employees. Some worry that self-funding creates disruption. Yes, there might be a learning curve. Yes, there may be changes. However, I believe the level of disruption is often influenced by how the plan is managed. Teaching someone how to read a new ID card is a small price to pay to ensure that, if they ever face a medical crisis, they won't have to drain their savings or lose their home just to stay alive. And this isn't theoretical, it's personal. In one year, I had a baby, needed emergency surgery for appendicitis, and was diagnosed with cancer. We paid $15,000 out-of-pocket, which wiped out my and my husband's Health Savings Accounts (HSA). It was a financial punch at a time when we were already overwhelmed. That experience changed how I see health benefits, and why I'm so passionate about helping employers build plans that protect their people. A smarter strategy starts now Employers have more power than they realize. When you invest in employee health, you're not just doing the right thing, you're doing the smart thing. Healthy employees are more productive and engaged. They take fewer sick days, perform better, and tend to stick around longer. At OneDigital, we help employers reimagine what healthcare can look like. We don't offer cookie-cutter solutions. We build customized, data-driven, and people-focused plans designed to meet the unique needs of your workforce. With our proprietary Impact Studio, we can transform data and technology into actionable insights – helping our clients to build benefits that deliver real impact to their employees and their bottom line. It's time to break away from outdated models, challenge the status quo, and build a better future for our people. Let's start now. Stop overpaying for healthcare. Contact me at cschlarb@ to explore a smarter, self-funded solution that protects your people and your bottom line. Cassie Schlarb leads the Risk and Underwriting department at OneDigital for the West Region. Her career has been focused on helping clients achieve high level benefits at competitive costs, utilizing innovative strategies on the market and her team is focused on achieving the best financial outcomes for our clients. This team of analysts and underwriters has several decades of experience in both the carrier and broker side and is skilled in providing the necessary insights for OneDigital clients to make the right decisions for their business.
Nikkei Asia
06-05-2025
- Business
- Nikkei Asia
ASEAN falls short again
Derek Grossman is a senior defense analyst at the think tank RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, California, and an adjunct professor in the practice of political science and international relations at the University of Southern California. He formerly served as an intelligence adviser at the Pentagon. Southeast Asia's premier regional bloc -- the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) -- is in trouble once again. Malaysia, the current chair, wanted to forge unity and act collectively to respond to American tariffs. Instead, select ASEAN members -- including Cambodia and Vietnam -- have decided to pursue bilateral trade negotiations to protect their own interests.
Reuters
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
FSB says Ukrainian spies are posing as RAND employees to recruit Russians
MOSCOW, March 27 (Reuters) - Russia's FSB security service accused Ukrainian spy agencies on Thursday of trying to recruit Russian citizens and obtain military information by posing as staff of U.S. non-profit think tank RAND Corp. "The FSB has received information about representatives of the Ukrainian special services using the cover of the influential American RAND Corporation for recruiting activities in the territory of the Russian Federation and obtaining limited information about the Russian Federation's special military operation in Ukraine," state news agency RIA said.
