Latest news with #activeDuty
Fox News
19-05-2025
- Health
- Fox News
REP. SARA JACOBS: Military families deserve IVF coverage and Trump's support
Today, May 19, 2025, is the deadline for policy recommendations on ways to implement President Donald Trump's executive order to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and lower its costs. And while his administration is currently contemplating some bizarre and patronizing ways to raise birth rates, like baby bonuses and motherhood awards, my suggestion is to support military families who desperately want to grow their families. I'm incredibly proud to represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country, which is home to 110,000 active-duty service members and more than 118,000 of their family members. So, I hear all the time about their lives and their struggles to pay rent and put food on the table, their inability to find reliable childcare, their concerns about their safety, and their journeys with infertility. For example, a senior-enlisted sailor, Matt, shared with me that he and his wife Jenny had two daughters via IVF – after five miscarriages, seven frozen embryo transfers, 600 shots and spending $80,000. About a quarter of active-duty service members and military spouses report infertility, which is double the national average of the general population. When we think about the level of sacrifices we're asking from our military families, their struggles with infertility make sense. Our service members endure physically intensive training, demanding schedules, and frequent relocations during their prime reproductive years. Deployments are often long and stressful, where they're physically separated from their partner, which also takes an emotional toll. On top of that, military service also means living and working in hazardous environments that can negatively impact fertility. Despite all of these well-documented stressors, TRICARE, the country's military health insurance plan, only covers fertility services for those who can prove a service connection to injury or illness, which is often impossible to do. This leaves our military families with three realistic options: pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a chance at a family, forgo having children or leave the military altogether. The cost-of-living crisis is affecting everyone in our country, but especially military families, many of whom live on fixed incomes and struggle to afford childcare, housing and food on the table. This isn't a demographic that can easily afford tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket on anything, so folks are leaving the military for this coverage, worsening our recruitment and retention challenges and impacting our military readiness. Military families need IVF access. They deserve it. And they've earned it. That's why I introduced the "IVF for Military Families Act" alongside Illinois Democrat Senator Tammy Duckworth to require TRICARE to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF. Our legislation would cover up to three complete egg retrievals, unlimited embryo transfers, and the necessary medications for IVF and intrauterine insemination (IUI). Starting this year, members of Congress and our staff have access to comprehensive infertility treatment, including IVF coverage, just like many other civilian employees in the federal and private sectors. We shouldn't have access to benefits that our military families don't have. But despite this hypocrisy, our bill still lacks support from my Republican colleagues in both the House and Senate. I'm (obviously) skeptical of Trump's commitment to expanding IVF access, but he has called himself the "Fertilization President" and the "father of IVF." If he wants that to be true, he should throw his support behind a demographic that has already sacrificed so much for the safety and security of our country: our military families. Expanding TRICARE coverage of IVF could be the watershed moment needed to change the entire market and ensure that everyone in our country has access to IVF. It could put market pressure on private insurers to include IVF and other fertility treatments in their healthcare coverage plans so they remain competitive. This leaves our military families with three realistic options: pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a chance at a family, forgo having children or leave the military altogether. While the IVF for Military Families Act would be a monumental step forward, the ultimate goal is for everyone to have access to the full range of reproductive care, so they have the power and the ability to decide when and if to have children. We ask so much from our service members – to risk their safety, to be apart from their families, and to give up certain freedoms – but we shouldn't ask them to give up their opportunity to build a family. As a country, we need to do more than say we value our military community, we need to actually show it. And I think President Trump has a great place to start by supporting our bill to expand IVF coverage for military families.
New York Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Republicans Divided Over Bill to Enact Trump's Agenda
President Trump is breaking with his predecessors' practice of mostly limiting deployments along the U.S.-Mexico border to small numbers of active-duty soldiers and reservists. In the past four months, the Pentagon has sent thousands of active-duty combat troops and armored Stryker combat vehicles to the southwestern border to confront what President Trump declared on his first day in office was an 'invasion' of migrants, drug cartels and smugglers. That's not all. The military has also dispatched U-2 spy planes, surveillance drones, helicopters and even two Navy warships to surveil the borders and coasts round the clock. The buildup of forces underscores how Mr. Trump is breaking with his predecessors' practice of mostly limiting deployments along the U.S.-Mexico border to small numbers of active-duty soldiers and reservists. About 2,500 active-duty troops were on the border at the end of the Biden administration. Now there are about 8,600. In a recent visit with troops in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the border was fairly calm. Crossings, which decreased sharply in the waning months of the Biden administration, have plummeted even further since the Trump administration declared its goal to obtain '100 percent' operational control of the boundary with Mexico. In April, about 8,000 people were arrested after crossing the border illegally, down from about 128,000 people a year earlier, according to U.S. government statistics. Even so, there is no end in sight for the military mission on the border, which the Pentagon says has cost $525 million so far. The deployments continue to grow in size, scope and sophistication even as the debate over the benefits and drawbacks rages on, and the military expands its territorial authorities to help interdict migrants. These initial steps have provided evidence to both sides of the debate over the utility of sending frontline combat forces to the border: They appear to be deterring cartels, making life somewhat harder for human smugglers and giving infantry troops, or at least Stryker crews, a chance to hone some skills. But the costs in dollars and to long-term combat readiness are still unclear. Image On the border, commanders say a Stryker combat vehicle is particularly useful when positioned on a strategic overlook where smugglers and cartel members can see it. Image The military has also dispatched U-2 spy planes, surveillance drones, helicopters and even two Navy warships to surveil the borders and coasts round the clock. Image The U.S. border with Mexico is nearly 2,000 miles, along which the military has set up two narrow strips that have effectively been turned into parts of U.S. bases. Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, the head of the military's Northern Command, recently told Congress that the border mission would probably be 'measured in years, not months.' He added that troops would need to stay longer to thwart cyclical increases in migration. The Pentagon has created two narrow strips of land along the 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico — one in New Mexico and another in Texas — effectively turning them into parts of nearby U.S. military bases. Migrants entering the strips, which are about 200 miles and 63 miles long, are considered trespassing on military land and can be temporarily detained by U.S. troops until Border Patrol agents arrive. During a visit to the border on April 25, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held up signs in English and Spanish warning migrants against entering the areas. A federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed charges against nearly 100 migrants arrested after entering the zone in the state, saying that the federal government had failed to show that the migrants knew they were unlawfully entering a restricted military area. But 'as a practical matter, I would be surprised if many people are actually detained by the military in the narrow albeit long military base,' said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., who was a deputy judge advocate general in the military. 'Rather, I expect that the overwhelming majority of the military will be involved in supporting civilian law enforcement, not detaining border crossers.' So far, the troops have been supporting law enforcement agencies, fanning out on foot patrols, in helicopters and in combat vehicles to serve as a deterrent and to give the authorities far more eyes and ears on the ground. Image There are now 8,600 active-duty personnel stationed at the border. For now, top Trump aides have ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, a more than 200-year-old law that would allow the use of the armed forces for law enforcement duty. Mr. Trump confirmed this month that he had pressed Mexico's president to let U.S. troops into the country to help fight the drug cartels, an idea she summarily rejected. Some members of Congress have questioned whether this is the best use of active-duty troops who would otherwise be training for deployments to Eastern Europe, the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific. Lawmakers and independent analysts have voiced concerns that the border missions will distract from training, drain resources and undermine readiness. A Stryker battalion stationed in the El Paso area was scheduled for a rotation at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., and then a deployment to South Korea. Both of those assignments have been pushed off for now. 'It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness,' Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in remarks on the Senate floor on May 8. Mr. Reed said that one Marine battalion had been stringing miles of barbed wire across the California mountains. Navy aircrews are flying P-8 Poseidons — the most advanced submarine-hunting planes in the world — over the desert. The two Navy destroyers are loitering off the West Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, looking for migrant boats in the water. But several commanders and some troops stationed along the border said in interviews that serving in one of Mr. Trump's highest-priority missions gave them purpose. They are using many of their skills — route planning, mission rehearsals, patrols, surveillance flights — in the real world against criminal smuggling gangs and Mexican drug cartels, instead of just practicing at their home bases or in exercises, they said. Col. Hugh Jones, the commander of the Stryker brigade deployed along the border, said military readiness levels, as measured by Army standards such as equipment maintenance, were at 94 percent in April, up from 78 percent in December for his 2,000-soldier unit of the Fourth Infantry Division based at Fort Carson, Colo. Image Col. Hugh Jones commands the Stryker brigade deployed along the border. Image Fort Huachuca's airfield in Sierra Vista, Ariz. Image Soldiers in Douglas, Ariz., along the border wall. Commanders say they must be creative to find training areas and ways to carve out time to keep their soldiers' lethal skills sharp, from basic marksmanship to firing heavier weapons. Re-enlistments among younger soldiers in the Stryker units — who never had the opportunity to serve combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq like their more senior commanding officers — have soared in recent months, commanders say. 'This is their mission for their generation, and they're embracing it,' said Maj. Gen. Scott M. Naumann, the head of the Army's 10th Mountain Division, who moved his headquarters staff to Fort Huachuca, Ariz., in February to oversee what the military calls Joint Task Force-Southern Border. The increased military patrols, working closely with Customs and Border Protection, have pushed Mexican cartels and smugglers into more remote mountainous areas to evade detection, driving up the costs of doing business, said General Naumann, who also consults with his Mexican military counterparts. Image 'This is their mission for their generation, and they're embracing it,' Maj. Gen. Scott M. Naumann said of young soldiers in the Stryker units. U.S. intelligence officials say that human traffickers are now charging migrants about $20,000 per person to be smuggled into the country, up from $7,000 a year ago. With the flow of migrants vastly diminished, military officials say they are also focusing on arguably a more difficult job: helping domestic law enforcement agencies curb the flow of illicit drugs and other contraband into the United States, even though most such drugs are smuggled through legal ports of entry. The centerpiece of the military's ground support is more than 100 Stryker combat vehicles. The Stryker is a 25-ton, eight-wheeled vehicle that can carry 11 soldiers and weapons at speeds of more than 60 miles an hour. With its giant rubber tires instead of noisy tracks, it is fast and relatively quiet. The vehicles, which were widely used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have an array of sensors that can pinpoint a target and share that information through satellite links with intelligence centers, essential in areas like Big Bend National Park in Texas, where cell coverage is poor or nonexistent. On the border, commanders say a Stryker is particularly useful when positioned on a strategic overlook where smugglers and cartel members can see it. The vehicle's optical sights can spot individuals or groups of individuals up to about six miles away. Image The centerpiece of the military's ground support is more than 100 Stryker combat vehicles. Image The Stryker is a 25-ton, eight-wheeled vehicle that can carry 11 soldiers and weapons at speeds of more than 60 miles an hour. Image The vehicles have an array of sensors that can pinpoint a target and share that information through satellite links with intelligence centers. The drab green combat vehicles and the troops operating them initially raised suspicions in some remote communities. Residents in Presidio, Texas, feared that the soldiers would come into schools searching for undocumented migrant children. Commanders sought to dispel those worries by having troops stay in local hotels to become part of the community, and they drove a Stryker to an elementary school so children could climb on it. The military's growing presence has drawn sharp reaction from criminal groups and drug cartels, commanders say. Rock throwing against troops stationed near the border has increased, instigated by criminal groups, commanders said. In an incident near El Paso, Border Patrol agents were forced to deploy tear gas to disperse a crowd taunting U.S. soldiers and threatening to kill them. American troops are armed for their self-protection but rely on Border Patrol for crowd control. Several suspicious unarmed surveillance drones monitoring U.S. troops have posed a potentially more serious hazard, General Naumann said. Based on electronic intercepts, commanders believe the cartels are spying on soldiers to figure out how to bypass them. Commanders have the authority to shoot down any drone deemed to be hostile to U.S. troops, a step they have not yet taken. 'This is a real-world mission with real consequences,' said Lt. Col. Chad Campbell, the commander of the Stryker battalion stationed outside El Paso. Indeed, two Marines were killed and another was critically injured in a vehicle accident near Santa Teresa, N.M., a few miles from El Paso. Image Soldiers at the border are also working to support Border Patrol and local law enforcement. Pentagon leaders have previously been lukewarm at best about using troops to seal the border, calling such efforts the beginning of a slippery slope that could pull the military into domestic political issues. In Mr. Trump's first term, both of his defense secretaries wanted to avoid deploying troops to the border and, if they could not, to minimize their presence there. Mr. Trump's first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, tried to protect troops from any perception that they might be engaging in partisan political activity. In April 2018, Mr. Mattis responded to the president's initial demand for a military deployment by sending 2,100 unarmed National Guard troops. That was not much different from past deployments of National Guard soldiers to the border. Later that year, in the run-up to the midterm vote in 2018, Mr. Trump ordered that troops be deployed to the border to help deal with an approaching migrant caravan. The president asked for 10,000 troops, then 15,000. Mr. Mattis responded by sending 6,000 and told them to stick to support roles. The military announced that the border mission would be called Operation Faithful Patriot. But on Election Day, Mr. Mattis told officials to drop the name, and the Pentagon sent out a terse news release saying that the operation from then would be known simply as border support. The term 'faithful patriot,' officials said, had political overtones. Mr. Mattis's successor as defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, knocked back a White House proposal in the spring of 2020 to send 250,000 troops to the border. There are plenty of examples in which the military has been used for domestic purposes. With the exception of what experts call the 'feel good' stuff like natural disaster relief, the military has 'come away from those instances saying, 'Yeah, we don't want to do that again,'' said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University and an expert on civil-military relations. 'The military prefers to orient itself towards foreign adversaries,' Mr. Feaver said. 'It prefers to have other branches of the government, to include other security sectors like police, border police, homeland security, who train for and are optimized for domestic missions — have them do it.'
