Navy leaders this week identified an aircraft carrier and two submarines affected by faulty weld issues during work at the Newport News Shipyard in Virginia, but say that the substandard work did not take place on components that affect ship safety or operations.

In a letter to House and Senate armed services committee members Thursday, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said impacted ships include the recently-revamped aircraft carrier George Washington and the brand-new attack submarines Hyman G. Rickover and New Jersey.

Citing shipyard officials, Del Toro wrote that the issue involved “welders who did not follow welding procedures properly.”

“Importantly, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has assessed that the welds were not on components or systems that affect ship safety or operations,” he wrote. “NAVSEA, as the technical warrant holder, has determined the ships are safe to operate.”

Del Toro wrote that he first became aware of the issue on Sept. 24.

The Navy had identified those three vessels as having been impacted as of Thursday, and Del Toro’s memo states that the sea service is examining welds on 23 ships under construction or in maintenance to see if faulty welds there may impact future operations.

Lawmakers demand answers over reports of faulty Navy ship welding

Last week, officials with HII, the company that owns Newport News Shipbuilding, acknowledged that “some welders knowingly circumvented certain welding procedures” while working on military vessels.

“Malicious intent” was ruled out as a the source of the problem, HII said in a statement.

“Upon discovery of some welders not consistently following procedures, we followed our protocol, took action to communicate with our customers and regulators in a timely manner and began working the issue with the Navy,” the company said in an additional statement Friday.

The Department of Justice is investigating the matter, lawmakers confirmed this week.

Del Toro promised to cooperate with that probe and wrote Thursday that the Navy “is evaluating all legal options, and reserving our rights accordingly.”

Congressional leaders have pushed the Navy this week for more answers on the scope of the problem and how it was allowed to happen.

“These vessels are critical to U.S. defense,” House Armed Services Committee members wrote to Del Toro this week. “We must ensure that these vessels are protected against any bad actors seeking to put U.S. national security or our service members at risk.”

The Newport News yard is one of two in the United States focused on the nuclear fleet. The yard constructs parts of several submarine classes, as well as Ford-class aircraft carriers.

While the timeframe of the faulty welds has not been disclosed, George Washington left the Newport News yard in May 2023 following its midlife maintenance overhaul that began in 2017 and was originally supposed to wrap in 2021. Officials blamed the delays on extra unanticipated work during the so-called refueling and complex overhaul, or RCOH.

The carrier is currently underway in the Pacific Ocean and on its way to its new home port in Japan.

The submarine Hyman G. Rickover was commissioned in October 2023, while New Jersey was just commissioned on Sept. 14.

In the memo, Del Toro promised a full review of operations at the shipyard to ensure the welding problems do not occur again.

“The safety of our sailors and ships is of paramount importance,” he wrote. “We have given top priority to the task of defining and examining the scope of improper welds conducted on operational in-service ships, and I have directed my Navy technical experts to co-locate with the shipyard immediately to support a thorough review.”

With only one month until Election Day, the group transitioned from recruiting election workers to trying to inform the U.S. population that veterans will make up a large swath of the volunteers at election sites this November. During a time when misinformation is eroding trust in U.S. elections, the group believes veterans are the key to quashing skepticism and restoring confidence.

About one out of every 10 election workers in November will be a veteran or a family member of a veteran, according to We the Veterans.

“Many of our poll workers for this current election are actually from the veteran and military community family. We are a very trusted population of Americans,” said Julie Hendricks, director of operations for Vet the Vote. “The big push from now on is making sure that as many Americans as possible know that this group of trusted individuals are there to make your vote count when you head to your local jurisdiction.”

Between 800,000 and 1 million temporary workers will be needed to staff polling locations across the country this November, said Thomas Hicks, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Those workers welcome and check in voters, issue ballots and explain how to use voting equipment.

Vet the Vote tackles election misinformation with Super Bowl launch

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission acts as an independent agency that supports state and local officials to administer elections. The agency partnered with Vet the Vote to help boost the nation’s confidence in the November election.

“There’s been so much negativity about elections and the way that they’re run, and it should be noted that the people who are doing this are our neighbors,” Hicks said. “They’re the folks that are part of the PTA, people you’re seeing at church, and so forth. If you go into a polling place, you’re likely to know these folks. Know that they’re doing their best to serve the country and serve you.”

We the Veterans brought on other partners to help spread their message, including NASCAR, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, Microsoft and Walmart.

The group traveled across the country this year, hosting events to teach communities about the election process and recruit poll workers. We the Veterans worked with secretaries of state in New Hampshire, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont and Michigan to host those events, Hendricks said.

“It’s really important that we were able to partner with the people in charge of elections in those states to show communities that elections are local,” she said. “Although we count numbers nationally and talk about poll workers nationally, this is hyperlocal and state regulated. Not everybody understands that.”

The group is holding another event in Jacksonville, Florida, on Wednesday as a “thank you” to those veterans and military family members who are volunteering. Attendees will be able to talk to Florida and Georgia election officials and interact with ballot equipment to learn more about the voting process in those states.

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

Trump’s allegations involve the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or UOCAVA, a law protecting the rights of such groups to vote in federal elections.

The Republican presidential nominee wrote on his Truth Social platform last week that Democrats are working to get millions of votes from overseas voters.

“Actually they are getting ready to CHEAT!” Trump wrote. “They are going to use UOCAVA to get ballots, a program that emails ballots overseas without any citizenship check or verification of identity whatsoever.”

Trump further alleged that Democrats “want to dilute the TRUE vote of our beautiful military and their families.”

Trump’s post comes amid Republican concerns that absentee voting allows the potential for greater voter fraud, and for ballots to be cast by noncitizens. Some critics have also questioned the verification process for absentee ballots.

No evidence has arisen of any widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and some analysts warn that raising concerns about such systems without evidence decreases Americans’ trust in their elections.

When it comes to UOCAVA voters, experts say it would be practically impossible to alter the vote tally in any meaningful way.

While UOCAVA ensures the rights of overseas and military voters to cast their ballots, voter eligibility is determined by thousands of local election officials across the country who handle UOCAVA voter ballot requests and ballots separately.

A soldier with a home of record in Hennepin County, Minnesota, for example, must contact the Hennepin County election office to register and request a ballot. A sailor with a home of record in Cobb County, Georgia, must contact the Cobb County election officer to register and request a ballot.

As such, experts in the field say, any unified effort to steal or inflate the UOCAVA vote would be essentially impossible, given all the election offices involved.

“We’re talking about ballots that go through 7,500 jurisdictions, where election officials can pinpoint erratic patterns,” Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president and CEO of the nonpartisan U.S. Vote Foundation, told Military Times. “To be a fraudulent UOCAVA voter, you’d have to come up with an identity of someone who lives in a certain place at a certain time, and had an address and their identification.”

Absentee voting deadlines loom for troops and their families

The system for overseas and military absentee voting is so diffuse that any large-scale fraud couldn’t conceivably happen, she said.

Dzieduszycka-Suinat has worked in the field of overseas voting for years, and said she had never heard of a case where a UOCAVA voter who didn’t have identification was allowed to vote.

Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment this week regarding the Truth Social post.

Dzieduszycka-Suinat said there may be more attention on overseas voters this cycle because of the role UOCAVA ballots played in the close races in Arizona and Georgia in 2020.

On the same day that Trump posted about UOCAVA ballots, the Democratic Party arm for American expats noted that “votes from abroad ensured that both Arizona and Georgia went for Biden-Harris.”

Trump’s post is accurate in noting that Democrats have announced efforts to get out the overseas vote, saying there are 9 million eligible American citizen voters, far higher than government estimates of 2.9 million.

While there has been a significant rise in overseas citizen ballot requests for this election, Bob Carey, a retired Navy captain and former director of the government’s Federal Voting Assistance Program, or FVAP, said Democrats’ estimate of 9 million overseas voters is “unrealistically high.”

Carey, who has also worked on several Republican campaigns, said such an estimate makes it “understandable why people would be concerned.”

“But I still don’t think there will be widespread voting by noncitizens using UOCAVA,” he said.

Each local election jurisdiction has different requirements regarding what they will accept to determine an overseas or military voter’s eligibility and legitimacy.

“I think that election officials are exceedingly careful about who they approve when they come with the Federal Post Card Application, and they don’t give the voters an easy time,” Dzieduszycka-Suinat said. “They want to be sure it can stand up to scrutiny.”

“We’ve had situations lately where UOCAVA voters who didn’t have the requested ID are being turned down,” she added, pointing to three would-be UOCAVA Ohio voters and one Oregon voter who have recently been turned down because they didn’t have the requested ID, and Dzieduszycka-Suinat suspects there are probably more.

Amid the partisan rancor of American election season, Dzieduszycka-Suinat said she prefers to view Trump’s post as an indicator that the overseas vote is increasingly relevant to those back home.

“Maybe this informs people that they do have the right to vote and it’s all hogwash,” Dzieduszycka-Suinat said. “I can only assume the power of the overseas vote is growing. Why else would a candidate care?”

Deputy editor Leo Shane III contributed to this report

Nearly 7,000 Guardsmen and another 1,000 active duty soldiers have already been sent to communities across the Southeastern United States to conduct search-and-rescue missions, clear damaged roads and transport aid to hard-hit areas.

Maj. Gen. Win Burkett, director of domestic operations and force development for the National Guard Bureau, told reporters that military officials are continuing to coordinate with state officials to best respond to their needs.

“As the states determine that they need more capability, or they need to start replacing some of the formations that they have, then we’re going to provide that,” he said. “We’re going to continuously look for solutions that would enable that as quickly as possible.”

Fort Liberty soldiers deploying to help with Hurricane Helene relief

Guard and Reserve forces from 16 states are involved in the response to the hurricane, which has killed at least 191 individuals in six states. More than 40 rotary wing aircraft and 600 military vehicles are assisting local emergency personnel with their work.

According to state officials, about 1 million homes are still without power, and many residents in mountainous areas remain trapped due to mudslides and washed-out roadways.

Officials in South Carolina are already expecting to need additional forces for relief efforts there. About 1,000 military personnel are currently operating there.

“The main effort right now has been debris clearing. … We work in concert with the power companies to ensure they can have access to the locations they need,” said Col. Jason Turner, director of military support for the South Carolina National Guard. “But clearing the roadways is the first and foremost priority for the state, and then establishing communications.”

Col. Paul Hollenack, commander of the North Carolina National Guard’s 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team, said forces there have delivered about 1 million pounds of emergency supplies in the week since the storm struck the state, and more than 500 people have been rescued by military specialists.

“And we are still doing significant flight operations in support of search and rescue at this point,” he said.

Burkett warned that additional bad weather could complicate those efforts and extend the domestic military missions.

“There’s another system that’s making its way into the Gulf now,” he said. “It’s not completely formed, and even if it doesn’t form, if it turns into a rain event, it could exacerbate the recovery operations.”

The Guard leader said he has been impressed by the military’s response thus far, but noted the level of destruction was unsettling.

“It’s a really dangerous environment,” he said. “I wouldn’t say that it was worse than what people thought was possible, but I think you really don’t get a feel for it until you get out and see it. That’s what makes every storm and every response unique.”

In a Sept. 16 liberty order, U.S. Forces Japan banned troops from visiting off-base drinking establishments and publicly consuming alcohol from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. every day.

The edict applies to all service members, regardless of age.

The rules went into effect on Tuesday, according to the order, and apply to any service members serving in Japan under U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

Japan protests sex assault cases involving US military on Okinawa

The memorandum calls upon military personnel to police both their own and other service member’s conduct, and report any lawlessness immediately to their superiors.

“Acts of indiscipline or misbehavior by U.S. military personnel adversely impact international relations, tarnish the image of the United States military, and affect our military readiness,” the order states.

Commanders retain the right to strengthen the policy when appropriate, as well as provide exemptions to the curfew, according to the order.

The restrictions come after several service members were arrested for sexual assault in the Okinawa region of Japan over the last six months.

US envoy expresses regret over alleged sex crimes by troops on Okinawa

The order also calls on commanders to refrain from granting liberty to service members “not in compliance with Service-specific and DoD directives regarding sexual assault prevention and response training.”

Commanders are also required to remain current on personal accountability training involving sexual assault and its prevention, according to the command.

50,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan, with half of them in Okinawa, according to an earlier Military Times report.

The website was one of nearly two dozen flagged in a recent report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a research group focusing on foreign policy and national security. The group warned that Iranian operatives were trying to pass off the sites as legitimate news outlets and use the content to cast doubt on America’s democratic process.

In addition to veterans, the sites target various minority groups, including Black, Spanish-speaking and Muslim voters, FDD reported.

“Not Our War” posts articles that disparage U.S. military operations overseas and criticize both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Many of its posts are written in a way to elicit strong reactions from veterans, and its homepage includes a tab labeled “Veterans,” said Max Lesser, a senior analyst on emerging threats at FDD.

“The broader aim of the website is to discredit US military actions across the board, but then there is another focus, which is targeting veterans,” Lesser said.

Disinformation creates ‘precarious year for democracy,’ experts warn

The cybersecurity company Mandiant warned of the same website during a briefing about election interference given to members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission earlier this year. The company, a subsidiary of Google, said the site praised the Iranian government and prominent pro-Iran political figures, denigrated the Israeli government, criticized U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and posted about divisive issues in the U.S., including the upcoming presidential election.

Experts have warned for months that U.S. adversaries — such as China, Russia and Iran — would target American voters with disinformation leading up to the election. Some of the messaging meant to sow division is reaching veterans by preying on their sense of duty to the U.S., some experts warned.

A 2017 study from Oxford University found Russian operatives disseminated “junk news” to veterans and service members during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Vietnam Veterans of America warned that foreign adversaries were aiming disinformation at veterans and service members at a massive scale, posing a national security threat.

“Conspiracy theories are a threat to vulnerable veterans, and they could drag your loved ones into really dark and dangerous places,” Jacob Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Military Times in May.

Microsoft reported in August that Iran had begun an election-interference campaign in the United States by setting up four websites that masqueraded propaganda as news. FDD used Microsoft’s findings to uncover other websites using the same web-hosting servers, it said.

Russian election interference scheme targeted US military competency

FDD released its report quickly after finding the other websites in an attempt to warn people they were fake before one of the posts gained significant traction online, Lesser said.

“We’re exposing it left of boom, before this network goes viral,” Lesser said. “That’s a note of optimism.”

Targeting veterans with disinformation isn’t a new tactic for Iran. Vlad Barash, a scientist at the social media research company Graphika, testified to Congress in 2019 that both Russia and Iran were trying to exploit veterans’ frustrations with the U.S. government by promoting the narrative that democracy was broken. At the time, Barash said such attacks “show no signs of stopping.”

In its report, FDD recommended the U.S. government sanction and indict the operatives running the websites. It also urged social media companies to monitor and block the domains. The FBI declined to comment Monday when asked whether it was investigating the websites.

Despite the room for improvement, Lesser said America’s response to election-interference campaigns has come a long way since 2016. He cited an increase in researchers uncovering disinformation attacks, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s regular warnings about election interference and efforts by the Justice Department to seize websites spreading propaganda.

“Yes, foreign adversaries are still launching operations targeting our elections,” Lesser said. “But I think as a society, we have become markedly more resilient in terms of exposing these operations and taking action against some of the operators.”

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism. Please send tips to MVJ-Tips@militarytimes.com.

Pentagon officials have said more than 100 U.S. troops were diagnosed with brain injuries following a missile attack at the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq in January 2020. The assault came in response to the American killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq a few days earlier.

While the missiles did not directly strike any U.S. forces, the barrage of strikes caused dizziness, sensitivity to light, nausea and other traumatic brain injury symptoms in dozens of troops stationed there, Defense Department officials said. In some cases, the effects lasted for weeks or months, and multiple troops had to be evacuated to Germany for medical treatment.

Most casualties from recent attacks in Middle East are brain injuries

On Tuesday, when asked by a reporter if he wished he had been tougher on Iran, given the severity of the injuries incurred in that attack, Trump downplayed the result.

“What does ‘injured’ mean?” he said. “You mean because they had a headache? Because the bombs never hit the fort…”

“None of those very accurate missiles hit our fort. They all hit outside. There was nobody hurt, other than the sound was loud. Some people said that hurt, and I accept that.”

Nearly 80 troops received Purple Hearts for injuries related to the attack, most connected to traumatic brain injury. An inspector general report released in November 2021 hinted the number of injuries may have been even higher, because military officials did not properly document all of the troops’ health issues.

Trump’s comments drew immediate criticism from Democratic Party officials and prompted condemnation from Gov. Tim Walz during the vice presidential debate on Tuesday night.

Trump also claimed at the event that “there was nobody ever tougher” towards Iran than him. Walz, who served 24 years in the Army National Guard, disputed that at the debate in New York a few hours later.

“Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than they were before because of Donald Trump’s fickle leadership,” Walz said. “And when Iranian missiles did fall near U.S. troops and they received traumatic brain injuries. Donald Trump wrote it off as ‘headaches.’”

Ohio Sen. JD Vance, Trump’s running mate and a Marine Corps veteran, did not directly address the military injuries in his comments but blamed President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris — the Democratic nominee for president — for weak policies toward Iranian aggression.

Trump has previously downplayed the severity of the Iranian missile attack against U.S. military forces. In the days following the attack, while he was still president, Trump called the injuries “not very serious” and labeled the damage caused as “minimal.”

The records intrusions were first reported by the Washington Post. In a statement, VA press secretary Terrence Hayes said the matter was referred to Justice Department investigators as soon as VA leaders were made aware of the issue.

“We take the privacy of the veterans we serve very seriously and have strict policies in place to protect their records,” he said. “Any attempt to improperly access veteran records by VA personnel is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

Neither campaign has made any public comments on the matter. The Washington Post reported the records involved included medical files but not disability or other benefits information.

Here are all the veterans running for Congress in 2024

Walz, the current Democratic governor of Minnesota, served for 24 years in the Army National Guard. Vance, a Republican senator from Ohio, served in the Marine Corps for four years.

Both men have talked about their interactions with veterans services and benefits while on the campaign trail. Vance has publicly acknowledged that he used VA health care after leaving the active-duty ranks. It is not known if Walz ever accessed the medical system.

In a letter to department employees in August, VA Secretary Denis McDonough warned that privacy rules regarding veterans records must be followed to maintain the trust of patients and families.

“Viewing a veteran’s records out of curiosity or concern — or for any purpose that is not directly related to officially authorized and assigned duties — is strictly prohibited,” he wrote. “Failure to comply with these requirements may result in disciplinary action, including removal, as well as referral to law enforcement for civil penalties and criminal prosecution.”

Vance and Walz are scheduled to appear together at their only debate of the election cycle on Tuesday night in New York City.

In the video released Monday, the Russian plane comes from behind the camera and swoops by the U.S. jet, just feet from the aircraft.

The video release of the close encounter Sept. 23, with the U.S. pilot under the direction of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, comes after a series of Russian incursions into the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone just beyond U.S. sovereign airspace.

WATCH: US, Canadian jets intercept Chinese, Russian planes near Alaska

The interaction drew condemnation from NORAD’s top officer and one of Alaska's U.S. senators.

“The conduct of one Russian Su-35 was unsafe, unprofessional, and endangered all – not what you’d see in a professional air force,” said Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command. The NORAD aircraft flew “a safe and disciplined” routine to intercept the Russian aircraft, he added.

A message sent to the Russian Embassy Monday seeking comment was not immediately returned.

The close pass of the Russian jet comes just weeks after eight Russian military planes and four of its navy vessels, including two submarines, came close to Alaska as China and Russia conducted joint drills.

None of the planes breached U.S. airspace. However, about 130 U.S. soldiers were sent along with mobile rocket launchers to Shemya Island, about 1,200 miles southwest of Anchorage. They were deployed to the Aleutian island for a week before returning to their bases.

In July, Russian and Chinese bombers flew together for the first time in international airspace off Alaska, a sign of cooperation that U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said raised concerns.

In 2022, a U.S. Coast Guard ship about 85 miles north of Alaska’s Kiska Island in the Bering Sea came across three Chinese and four Russian naval vessels sailing in single formation.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, said the close pass of the Russian jet is another reason to build America’s military presence in Alaska and the Arctic.

“The reckless and unprofessional maneuvers of Russian fighter pilots — within just a few feet of our Alaska-based fighters — in Alaska’s ADIZ on September 23 put the lives of our brave Airmen at risk and underscore the escalating aggression we’re witnessing from dictators like Vladimir Putin,” Sullivan said in a statement.

The F-16, whose pilot was assigned to the 35th Fighter Squadron of the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan Air Base, crashed during a training flight on the morning of Dec. 11, 2023, causing the loss of the $28 million fighter. The pilot safely ejected from the jet before the crash, sustaining no injuries, and was rescued by South Korean maritime forces.

The pilot was flying in formation along with three other F-16s as part of a defensive counter-air training mission, according to the report released Sept. 26. But the weather was poorer that day than expected, and the pilot flew through dense cloud coverage.

About 13 minutes into the flight, the report said, the jet’s attitude indicator stopped working due to the failure of its embedded GPS inertial navigation system. The attitude indicator is an instrument that tells the pilot where the horizon is relative to the aircraft.

US pilot safely ejects in F-16 crash off South Korea

The word “FAIL” appeared on the jet’s center display unit. The pilot switched to a backup attitude indicator, but that instrument was likewise glitching and yielding incorrect information, disorienting him, the report said.

That backup system indicated the fighter’s nose was high, but showed its altitude continued to decline. The pilot later told the investigation board he became “task saturated” — or overloaded with too much information to process and things to do at once — trying to keep the jet under control.

A wingman helped guide the pilot down, hoping to break through the clouds. But weather data later showed the cloud cover was so thick — as low as about 795 feet above sea level — that he would not have been likely to reach clear skies, the report said.

As the pilot reached 3,000 feet above sea level, he tried to level off but his disorientation became worse. As the jet neared the water, the pilot grew increasingly worried that his instruments were unreliable and ejected, 19 minutes after takeoff and 1,730 feet above sea level.

Little wreckage from the F-16 has so far been recovered, the report said. The jet’s black box containing more precise flight data was not found, nor was the Northrop Grumman-made GPS unit in the attitude indicator that is believed to have failed.

Investigators couldn’t determine why the GPS unit malfunctioned, the report said, but that it most likely lost power or experienced power fluctuations, as happened in other F-16 mishaps. That unit’s failure was the primary cause of the crash, the report said. The pilot’s need to rely on a backup attitude indicator that was also unreliable, and his disorientation, substantially contributed to the crash.

The 7th Air Force, which oversees Kunsan, said that the Air Force is working to limit the effects of temporary power fluctuations on F-16 flight instrument systems. Air Combat Command is also increasing its training to help pilots catch and fix problems with flight instruments during emergency situations, the 7th said.

The claimed attack comes as the one-year anniversary of the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip approaches. The Houthis have targeted ships traveling through the Red Sea over the war as U.S.-led airstrikes pound their positions in Yemen. That’s imperiled a waterway that typically sees $1 trillion of trade pass through it, as well as crucial shipments of aid to war-torn Sudan and Yemen.

The Houthis also continue to launch missiles targeting Israel, drawing retaliatory airstrikes from the Israelis this weekend on the port city of Hodeida.

All the Houthi-US Navy incidents in the Middle East (that we know of)

The Houthi-run broadcaster Al-Masirah claimed shooting down the MQ-9, hours after video footage circulated online showing the purported missile striking the aircraft over Yemen's Saada province. A single image online also appeared to show wreckage of the drone, with pieces resembling that of an MQ-9.

The U.S. military did not respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

General Atomics Reapers, which cost around $30 million apiece, can fly at altitudes up to 50,000 feet and have an endurance of up to 24 hours before needing to land. The aircraft have been flown by both the U.S. military and the CIA over Yemen for years.

Since Houthis seized the country’s north and its capital of Sanaa in 2014, the U.S. military has seen Reapers shot down in Yemen in 2017, 2019, 2023 and 2024. The U.S. military acknowledged the Houthis shot down two MQ-9s in September.

Houthis have targeted more than 80 merchant vessels with missiles and drones since the war in Gaza started in October. They seized one vessel and sank two in the campaign that has also killed four sailors. Other missiles and drones have either been intercepted by a U.S.-led coalition in the Red Sea or failed to reach their targets, which have included Western military vessels as well.

The rebels maintain that they target ships linked to Israel, the U.S. or the United Kingdom to force an end to Israel’s campaign against Hamas in Gaza. However, many of the ships attacked have little or no connection to the conflict, including some bound for Iran.

Those attacks include a barrage that struck the Greek-flagged oil tanker Sounion in the Red Sea. Salvagers have towed away the burning oil tanker, hoping to avoid a catastrophic leak of its 1 million barrels of oil on board. Firefighting efforts onboard the Sounion began last week and “the operation has proceeded with promising results as some fires are extinguished and other under control,” the Joint Maritime Information Center reported Monday.

The center, overseen by the U.S. Navy, also acknowledged the last attack on a merchant ship by the Houthis came on Sept. 2, but the rebels remain a threat.

“Despite a drop in attacks against merchant vessels over the last two weeks, the Houthis have shown ability and willingness to target U.S. Navy assets and coalition partners,” the center said. The Houthis claimed an attack targeted American warships last week.

U.S. Central Command said it struck northwestern Syria on Tuesday, targeting a senior militant from the al-Qaida-linked Hurras al-Deen group and eight others. They say he was responsible for overseeing military operations.

US-led drone strike in Syria kills al-Qaida-linked leader

On Sept. 16, a “large-scale airstrike” on an IS training camp in an undisclosed location in central Syria killed 28 militants, including “at least four Syrian leaders," Central Command said.

“The airstrike will disrupt ISIS’ capability to conduct operations against U.S. interests, as well as our allies and partners,” the statement read.

There are some 900 U.S. forces in Syria, along with an undisclosed number of contractors, mostly trying to prevent any comeback by the extremist IS group, which swept through Iraq and Syria in 2014, taking control of large swaths of territory.

U.S. forces advise and assist their key allies in northeastern Syria, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, located not far from strategic areas where Iran-backed militant groups are present, including a key border crossing with Iraq.

The Marines aimed to bring in 30,500 new enlisted Marines this fiscal year, which ends Monday.

They notched one additional Marine above their target number, and brought in 28 officers more than their target of 1,778, according to data provided by Marine Corps Recruiting Command.

The Marine Corps and Space Force were the only military branches to meet their recruiting goals last fiscal year, and the Corps has not missed its accession mission since 1994, officials said.

How the Marine Corps is retaining a lot of its first-term Marines

Col. Michael Hays, assistant chief of staff for operations at recruiting command, said he was “very proud” of Marine recruiters for achieving their mission. But he had a word of caution.

“It was a challenging year, but once again our Marine Recruiters and Officer Selection Officers stayed in the fight and made mission,” Hays said. “We know [Fiscal 2025] will be a similar fight, but our Marines are focused and determined to do what Marines always do – accomplish the mission.”

Those top-line numbers are for brand-new enlisted and officer Marines. The Corps also met its prior service Reserve accessions goal of a mix of 3,979 officers and enlisted who had previously served in one of the military branches and joined the Marines in fiscal 2024.

Due to historic success at retaining first-term Marines this fiscal year, the Corps was also able to schedule 600 enlistees to ship to recruit training in fiscal 2025. That figure puts the service at 27% of their enlisted recruiting mission for the next fiscal year before it begins. The fiscal 2025 enlisted accessions mission is 32,835.

And that 27% is the highest it’s been since COVID-19 disrupted recruiting for all services in 2020.

Last year, the number of recruits on contract awaiting ship dates at the beginning of fiscal 2024 was only 22% of their recruiting mission, according to data provided by the Marines.

That is an upwards trend, officials said, but it remains lower than typical pre-pandemic numbers.

Before the pandemic, the Marines averaged 53% of their “start pool,” or number of recruits already contracted and awaiting training ship dates, Marine Corps Recruiting Command spokesman Jim Edwards told Marine Corps Times.

“Rebuilding a quality start pool takes time, but [fiscal 2025] marks the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic the start pool has shown growth compared to the previous [fiscal year].” Edwards said.

Those “start pool” recruits remain in the Delayed Entry Program pool, which lasts anywhere from a few days to a year.

Longer times in the pool can help recruits better prepare physically and mentally for the rigors of recruit training, which can spell higher graduation success rates. However, any hiccups between contracting for enlistment and shipping, such as legal trouble or physical injuries, can put a dent in those committed numbers.

The Corps continues its pledge to recruit high-quality members. Along those lines, recruiters tripled the number of prior-service enlistees from 121 last year to 335 in fiscal 2024, Edwards said.

Among the fiscal 2024 enlistees, the Marines tallied 98% as high school graduates, Marine officials said, besting the Pentagon standard of 90%.

More than two-thirds of Marine enlistees scored in the top three tiers of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, again eclipsing the 60% standard set by the Pentagon.

An estimated 35% of all commissioned officer accessions included individuals from traditionally underrepresented categories, including female and racially or ethnically diverse candidates, officials said.

More than 12% of all officer accessions were women. Ten percent of all enlisted accessions were women.

The Marines have historically had the youngest members as its decades-long practice of “recruit and replace” saw about one-third of first-term Marine enlistees staying in the service, and only 45% staying beyond the second term.

These Marine Corps jobs have the highest turnover

Nearly two-thirds of subsequent-term Marines, meaning any Marine on their second or subsequent term of service, decided to stay in uniform for fiscal 2024, the highest since fiscal 2017, Marine Manpower and Reserve Affairs officials said.

But in recent years, Marine leaders are seeking to keep more Marines past their first enlistment, creating a more experienced, seasoned Marine leader in the junior and mid-career ranks.

The new model has been dubbed “recruit and retain.” And some recent developments suggest the strategy is working.

The service exceeded its first-term enlisted retention rate for fiscal 2024, keeping 117% of its target goal.

The Corps had a goal of keeping 6,950 of its first-term Marines eligible to reenlist. The service kept 7,947, according to service data.

That was the highest number of first-term Marines who stayed in the force since fiscal 2010, Marine officials said.

Part of that success was credited to a multi-year enlistment strategy in which career planners are going to Marines earlier in their contract to reenlist early, instead of waiting until their final year or months on their initial contract, officials said.

In other recruiting new, the Army announced Wednesday that it met its annual recruiting goal for the first time in two years, while the Air Force announced this summer that it was on track to hits it goals.

Meanwhile, Navy leaders said in August that the sea service would meet its goal to sign up 40,600 recruits by the end of September thanks to several new recruiting programs, but the crush of last-minute enlistments meant it won’t be able to get them all through boot camp by that time.

Guardsmen mobilized in Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, with assistance from the Maryland, Pennsylvania, Mississippi and Connecticut National Guards, according to the Army.

“It’s pretty devastating to look at a lot of homes that have been wiped off the foundations and a lot of people that are probably going to be having to restart their lives pretty shortly,” Army Brig. Gen. Alex Harlamor of the Florida National Guard told CNN on Saturday.

The hurricane, which touched down in Florida on Thursday evening, caused devastating floods, significant infrastructure damage and power outages across the Southeastern United States and has so far claimed the lives of at least 100 people, according to The Associated Press.

In Florida, 3,900 National Guard members, along with 18 Mississippi Guardsmen, maneuvered 13 helicopters and Zodiac boots to rescue over 150 people and 50 animals. They also cleared more than 1,180 miles of roads and set up 30 locations to provide supplies to those affected by the natural disaster.

MacDill Air Force Base without power after Hurricane Helene

In Georgia, where The Associated Press reports 25 people have died as a result of the storm, roughly 900 Georgia Guardsmen chainsawed through clogged roads and helped first responders with their rescue efforts. Tennessee mobilized 120 Guardsmen to save 54 people stranded by flooding and the Virginia National Guard mobilized 48 Guardsmen to rescue six people.

Nearly 500 South Carolina Guardsmen also contributed to the national cleanup and rescue efforts.

“Our National Guardsmen are trained and ready to support the citizens of South Carolina,” U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Robin B. Stilwell, South Carolina National Guard director of the joint staff, said in a release.

More than 400 Guard members responded to the crisis in North Carolina — along with 30 Guardsmen from Maryland, Connecticut and Pennsylvania — clearing roads and carrying out search-and-rescue missions.

North Carolina was hit particularly hard by the hurricane, with one county that includes Asheville reporting 30 dead, according to The Associates Press.

Republican lawmakers decried the findings as abhorrent and evidence that department planners are still improperly preventing veterans from getting quick medical care outside of the VA healthcare system.

But senior VA leaders said they are committed to providing patients with the best care possible, and promised a full review of the incidents to correct the mistakes and potentially punish the administrators involved.

The report, released Friday afternoon, focused on veterans receiving care through the VA Western New York Healthcare System over the last two years.

Investigators found that local leaders “failed to resolve significant community care scheduling delays for patients with serious health conditions, despite providers’ and community care staff’s efforts to advocate on the behalf of patients.”

Changes to VA’s community care program raise concerns about vets’ health care access

Community care — where veterans can receive medical appointments and treatments at private-sector clinics but have the expenses covered by VA — has been a controversial topic in recent years, with conservatives claiming that department bureaucrats unnecessary limit those outside options.

In the New York investigation, the inspector general found that at least 42 patients had significant delays in accessing that care, despite facing serious health conditions that mandated fast action.

“For three of the 42 patients, the scheduling delay affected the provider’s management of the patient’s condition, and for 9 of the 42, the delay affected the patient’s clinical status or condition,” the report states.

In one case, a veteran with esophageal cancer had radiation therapy incorrectly denied for several months before dying from the illness. Investigators said the treatments would not likely have saved the individual, but a faster response “would likely have decreased the level of pain and improved the quality of life in the patient’s final months.”

In another case, a young veteran experiencing seizures waited more than 300 days for a consult to be scheduled, even as the patient was hospitalized several times a month for related health issues.

“Leaders failed to consistently focus on patients, respond to staff concerns, get to the root cause of concerns regarding delayed scheduling of urgent consults, and predict and eliminate risks before causing patient harm,” the report stated.

In response to the findings, “VA immediately transferred the medical center director and the chief of staff out of clinical- and veteran-facing positions pending the results of an investigation,” VA press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement.

“It is unacceptable for any veteran to have their care delayed, which is why we are taking immediate corrective actions to prevent this from happening again.”

Republican lawmakers demanded a full detailing of what that promise means.

“Community care is VA care, and I won’t let VA bureaucrats restrict it,” House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., said in a statement. “It is unacceptable that VA is allowing its own leadership and failures to yet again lead to patient harm.”

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, expressed similar concerns.

“The lapses in care described in this report cannot be ignored,” he said in a statement. “VA must answer to Congress, veterans and the American people by acting without delay to hold leadership and staff accountable through conducting an immediate national review of backlogged consults everywhere.”

In fiscal 2023, VA approved more than 7.8 million community care appointments, totaling more than $31 billion. That was up about 17% from the previous year, and represented nearly one in every six medical appointments covered by VA that year.

But Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have sparred in recent years over whether VA is doing enough to ensure that veterans are presented with non-department medical options when facing delays in care.

The inspector general said in the New York cases they reviewed, the delays occurred because “the community care team lacked a process to address time-sensitive, high-risk consults and had no standard operating procedures.”

They also said officials “were unfamiliar with community care basic processes and were not following all national standards” for approving such care.

The report recommends a full review of system leaders’ decisions regarding the delays, as well as overhauling procedures for approving such requests in the future.

The full report is available on the inspector general’s website.

Developed by Eprius, the long-pulse, high-power microwave technology known as Leonidas Expeditionary can drop swarms of drones with massive and pointed walls of electromagnetic energy.

Epirus has already delivered high-powered microwave systems to the Army as part of a $66 million contract last year.

It developed its latest Leonidas capability in partnership with the Office of Naval Research, Joint Counter-Small UAS Office, the U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and the Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO).

The company unveiled the system on Sept. 23 and is expected to deliver the completed system to the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab by the end of this year.

So far there are four iterations of the Leonidas system including the newest, which is formally known as the Expeditionary Directed Energy Counter-Swarm, or ExDECS.

Earlier Leonidas offerings have included systems that can be attached to vehicles or air drones.

Army gets first high-power microwave prototype to counter drone swarms

Leonidas ExDECS is another systems entry on the smaller side, capable of “swarm defeat,” with a transportable profile that’s highly mobile and provides a low physical signature, according to Andrew Wargofchik, a spokesperson for Epirus.

The crown jewel of the Epirus system, aside from its microwave system, is a technology called Line Replaceable Amplifier Module, or LRAM. It’s an architecture that allows the company to scale systems up or down.

“We like to think of them as sort of very scalable Lego blocks,” Wargofchik said.

The announcement of the Leonidas Expeditionary comes on the heels of the Air & Space Forces Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference, where AI’s role in the defense industry was the talk of the town.

But as the future of warfare arrives, Wargofchik said Epirus doesn’t buy into the concept that killer robots are on the horizon.

He noted projects like the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or unmanned fighter jets, as a better embodiment of what lies ahead.

Half-man, half-AI is the defense landscape the company envisioned - manned systems existing harmoniously alongside unmanned ones.

“Our CEO, Andy Lowery, likes to call it centaur warfare,” Wargofchik said.

While some in the industry criticize the Defense Department for not adopting existing and emerging AI and machine learning technologies quickly enough, Epirus is more optimistic.

Epirus directed energy to face off against vessels in US Navy testing

One of the main challenges involves bridging the gap between research and development to mass production, Wargofchik said.

Though the company began with the explicit goal of providing high-powered microwave systems for counter-drone missions, it’s expanding the development of the same systems as a counter for any-and-all electronics.

In April, Epirus demonstrated its capability to effectively take out certain vessel motors at sea during a Navy event.

“We’re kind of arriving at the shores of a whole new beach of maritime applications,” Wargofchik said.

The Next Generation Squad Weapon program includes a 6.8mm rifle and automatic rifle to replace the 5.56mm M4 and Squad Automatic Weapon, respectively.

The NGSW also includes a fire control, which contains advanced ballistics and aiming assistance not available in currently fielded rifle optics.

“We haven’t fielded a gun in this magnitude to the close combat force since the M16 started fielding in 1967,” said Col. Jason Bohannon, who manages the soldier lethality portfolio at Program Executive Office-Soldier.

The Army fielded the NGSW package to a battalion in the 1st Brigade, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, in late March with the XM7 rifle, XM250 automatic rifle and the XM157 fire control.

This summer, the 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team with the North Carolina Army National Guard also received the weapons.

101st Airborne first Army unit to field Next Generation Squad Weapons

The Army is ramping up production of the rifle, automatic rifle, optic and ammunition to field to the close combat and adjacent forces ahead of upcoming deployments, officials said.

The Army is building a separate ammunition production line at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri, while Sig Sauer, the firearm producer, is churning out 6.8mm rounds at a facility in Arkansas, officials said.

The current focus is to stockpile enough 6.8mm ammunition for training, deployment and war reserves for all Army close combat units, Bohannon said.

A host of units are slated to get a mix of the combined rifle, automatic rifle and optic, while others will receive only the rifle for now, according to information presented by Army officials on Thursday at the National Defense Industrial Association’s annual Future Force Conference.

“We’re fielding as the material is coming off the line, directly to the units,” Bohannon said.

The weapon combo gives shooters 7.62mm performance or better as far as range, lethality and barrier penetration, all noticeably more capable than the existing 5.56mm round for the individual carbine and squad-level light machine gun.

With increased distance and barrier penetration, Army planners expect soldiers to be more effective at distances in more modern, urban-type battlefield settings.

Reports on poor performance at range and ineffective barrier penetration by the 5.56mm round during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pushed Army leaders and developers to look for a better round for the close combat force.

There are about a dozen units in the NGSW fielding pipeline for fiscal year 2025, which begins Oct. 1. They include:

• From October to December, the Army Reserve’s 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Infantry Regiment at Fort Shafter, Hawaii; elements of the 25th Infantry Division, at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; the Army’s Ordnance School, at Fort Gregg-Adams, Virginia.
• From January to March, the 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington; 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, at Fort Bliss, Texas.
• From April to June, the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment at Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah, Georgia.
• From July to September, the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division with the Minnesota Army National Guard; multiple 10th Mountain Division battalions, Fort Drum, New York.

The NGSW is currently confined to close combat units such as infantry, reconnaissance, combat engineers and associated combat units. The conventional non-close combat Army is expected to continue its use of the 5.56mm M4 and M249 SAW for the foreseeable future, officials have said.

But veteran representation in the halls of the Capitol is expected to remain much higher than in the public at large. Currently, about 6% of the U.S. population has served or is serving in the military. In comparison, about 18% of House and Senate lawmakers spent time in the ranks.

Advocates say that’s good news, since veterans bring important perspectives to key issues facing congressional responsibilities.

Here are all the veterans running for Congress in 2024

“That type of lived experience is invaluable when it comes to national security debates,” said Allison Jaslow, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “It’s essential to have a decent amount of veterans in office to protect the military, track veterans’ issues first-hand.

“There are plenty of civilians who do good work on issues like mental health and veterans care, but individuals who have lived it are more likely to engage thoughtfully on them.”

Fewer veteran candidates

In 2022, 196 candidates with military backgrounds won primaries for House and Senate races. Of that group, 97 — 17 Senate candidates and 80 House hopefuls — won their races.

This year, the number of primary winners who are veterans is down almost 10%, to 181. The smaller pool means the number of November election victors is also likely to drop.

Veteran representation in Congress peaked in the 1970s, when the number of veterans in both chambers reached 400. But after the introduction of the all-volunteer military force, both the number of veterans in America and the number running for Congress dropped steadily.

In 1980, more than 29 million veterans were living in the United States. Today that total is less than 18 million.

That population change is largely to blame for the decrease in congressional numbers. In 1986, the number of veterans who won congressional elections fell below 300 for the first time in almost four decades. It dropped below 200 for the first time in 1996. In 2014, it fell below 100.

The 116th Congress, which began in 2021, opened with 91 veterans among its members, the lowest total since the end of World War II. Depending on the outcome of races this year, the total for next year’s Congress could slip below that benchmark.

Even as the totals have dropped, the number of younger veterans mounting — and winning — congressional bids has grown in recent years.

In 2018, 54 veteran candidates started their military careers before 1980, versus 44 who joined the military after 2000. This year, 55 veteran candidates started after 2000, against 38 who signed onto military service before 1980.

Of the 75 candidates this cycle with a combat zone deployment, 62 of them served in Iraq, Afghanistan or both.

Breaking down the number of veterans in the 118th Congress

Understanding the military

About 70% of the candidates with military experience are running as Republicans. That’s slightly higher than in recent years, with GOP candidates usually averaging about 65% of the field.

But Jaslow — who served with the Army in Iraq — said some of the shared political background of those candidates can blunt the partisan divide between the major parties.

These are people who have already sacrificed and served on behalf of their country,” she said.

House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill. — a Marine Corps veteran himself — said his panel’s work depends on that first-person perspective.

“There are non-veterans on the committee too, but if you’re a disabled veteran, or a decorated veteran, there is a different understanding,” he said.

“The combat veterans on the committee in particular have always been a great help, because they have had to maneuver the Veterans Affairs health care system themselves. There’s just so much more wisdom that’s available from their experiences.”

Ten of the committee’s 25 members are military veterans. Two are among the seven women veterans serving in the House and Senate.

With Trump pick, JD Vance is first post-9/11 vet on major party ticket

The presidential factor

Not included in the list of congressional candidates are the two vice presidential nominees — Democrat Tim Walz and Republican JD Vance — both of whom served in the military.

Vance enlisted in the Marine Corps after graduating high school and served a four-year stint as a combat correspondent, during which he escorted civilian press and wrote articles for a military news service. He deployed to Iraq in 2005.

Walz served 24 years in the Minnesota National Guard, deploying to Europe in support of overseas operations in Afghanistan. His departure from the military months ahead of his unit’s deployment to Iraq has become a point of contention on the campaign trail.

This year marks the first time since 2004 that both major party presidential tickets have included a candidate with military experience. In that race, it was the presidential hopefuls themselves, Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry.

“Having two candidates who are both veterans and both post-9/11 veterans, that’s an exciting moment for our country,” Jaslow said. “And it sends a message.”

Whether that veteran vice president will have fewer veteran colleagues in Congress or a larger caucus to work with will be decided by voters on Nov. 5.

This year’s field boasts 70 incumbents, 16 women and 55 individuals who started their military careers after January 2000. Fifty-two of the candidates are Democrats, while 124 are Republicans.

Below is a list of those congressional hopefuls sorted by state, with biographical data on each. Military Times will be tracking each of these races on Election Day and be following each of the winners as they enter the 119th session of Congress next January.

Fewer vets will be on the November ballot for Congress this year

Editor’s note: Eight states do not have any veterans who won a primary contest. They are Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming. Independent candidates who did not win a primary matchup were not included in this list.

Alabama

House

District 1: Barry Moore (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1990s

Member of the House Agriculture and Judiciary committees.

District 1: Tom Holmes, Democrat

Branch: Navy Reserve, 1960s

Retired state worker and advocate for the developmentally disabled.

Arizona

House

District 2: Eli Crane (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 2000s–2010s

Combat deployments: Afghanistan

Member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

District 4: Kelly Cooper, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 1990s

Owns three restaurants and credits his success to the Marine Corps.

District 8: Abraham Hamadeh, Republican

Branch: Army Reserve, 2010s–2020s

Unsuccessfully ran for Arizona Attorney General in 2022.

9: Quacy Smith, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 1990s–2000s

Currently a bishop with Grace Unlimited International Church.

Senate

Ruben Gallego, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Vocal member of the House Armed Services Committee now running for Senate.

Arkansas

House

District 1: Rick Crawford (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s

Member of the House Intelligence Committee.

District 1: Rodney Govens, Democrat

Branch: Army, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Works as a court advocate for abused and neglected children.

District 2: Marcus Jones, Democrat

Branch: Army National Guard, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

His assignments included serving as program director at NATO’s Joint Warfare Centre in Norway.

District 3: Steve Womack (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1970s–2000s

Serves on the House Budget Committee and appropriations’ defense subcommittee.

California

House

District 2: Chris Coulombe, Republican

Branch: Army & Marine Corps, 2000s–2010s

His assignments included running the Army’s Pacific Theater Air Assault School.

District 4: Mike Thompson (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Army, 1960s–1970s

Combat Deployments: Vietnam

Received a Purple Heart with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, was an airborne school instructor.

District 5: Mike Barkley, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 1960s

Has run unsuccessfully for Congress six times.

District 7: Tom Silva, Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s–2010s

Worked as veterans program coordinator at University of the Pacific.

District 8: Rudy Recile, Republican

Branch: Army National Guard 1980s–2010s

Also worked as a civilian in the Department of Agriculture.

District 9: Kevin Lincoln II, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s

Served in the White House Military Office on Marine One.

District 19: Jimmy Panetta (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Navy Reserve, 1990s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Son of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

District 21: Michael Maher, Republican

Branch: Navy, 2000s

Served on the submarine USS Salt Lake City in support of overseas operations.

District 24: Salud Carbajal (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps Reserve, 1990s

Born in Mexico, he served eight years in the military before his political career.

District 26: Michael Koslow, Republican

Branch: Air Force National Guard, 2000s–2010s

Also worked as a civilian in the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office.

District 27: Mike Garcia (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy & Navy Reserve, 1990s–2010s

Had more than 30 combat sorties during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

District 31: Gil Cisneros, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2000s

Served as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness under Biden.

District 32: Larry Thompson, Republican

Branch: Army Reserve, 1960s–1970s

Worked as a Hollywood talent manager.

District 35: Mike Cargile, Republican

Branch: Army, 1990s

Worked as an actor and manager for an indie music label.

District 36: Ted Lieu (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Air Force & Air Force Reserve, 1990s–2010s

Member of the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary committees.

District 39: David Serpa, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 2010s–2020s

Founded his own real estate company.

District 45: Derek Tran, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Son of refugees who fled Vietnam.

District 48: Darrell Issa (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s–1980s

Served in the U.S. House for 18 years until 2019, then won re-election again in 2021.

District 50: Peter Bono, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1970s–2000s

Volunteers time to help disabled veterans with benefits claims.

Colorado

House

District 6: Jason Crow (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Army, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Served as a prosecutor during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

District 6: John Fabbricatore, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1990s

Retired after 26 years as an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officer.

District 8: Gabe Evans, Republican

Branch: Army & National Guard, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Trained as a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter pilot.

Connecticut

House

District 1: Jim Griffin, Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s

Lost his bid for this seat in the 2020 Republican primary.

Senate

Matthew Corey, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s

Worked as a postal service employee and has run several restaurants.

Florida

House

District 2: Neal Dunn (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s

Completed his medical internship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

District 5: Jay McGovern, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 1980s–2010s

Served as a naval aviator aboard multiple aircraft carriers.

District 6: Michael Waltz (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army & National Guard, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Green Beret was a regular Fox News contributor before joining Congress.

District 7: Cory Mills (Incumbent), Republican,

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Bosnia

Spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan as a diplomatic consultant with the State Department.

District 9: Thomas Chalifoux, Republican

Branch: Army, 1960s–2000s

Self-funded his congressional bid.

District 13: Anna Paulina Luna (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force & National Guard, 2000s–2010s

One of five female veterans currently serving in the House.

District 14: Robert Rochford, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–2010s

Former commander of Naval Beach Group One.

District 16: Vern Buchanan (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air National Guard, 1970s

Sits on the House Ways and Means committee.

District 17: Greg Steube (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Serves on the House Veterans’ Affairs and Oversight committees.

District 17: Manny Lopez, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1980s

Disabled veteran who suffered a neck injury during grenade training.

District 18: Scott Franklin (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy & Navy Reserve, 1980s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Bosnia

Flew combat missions over Bosnia and Kosovo.

District 21: Brian Mast (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Lost both legs in an IED attack in Afghanistan.

District 25: Christopher Eddy, Republican

Branch: Air Force Reserve, 1980s–2010s

Worked 13 years as an FBI Intelligence Manager.

District 28: Phil Ehr, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 1980s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War

Founded a nonprofit to counter disinformation in U.S. politics.

Senate

Rick Scott (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1970s

Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Georgia

House

District 2: Sanford Bishop Jr. (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Army, 1960s–1970s

Has served in Congress since 1992.

District 3: Maura Keller, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1970s–2000s

Retired lieutenant colonel who also worked in the Atlanta VA healthcare system.

District 4: Eugene Yu, Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s–1980s

Also worked as a firefighter and police officer.

District 7: Rich McCormick (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Served as the department head for emergency medicine in Kandahar.

District 7: Bob Christian, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Has also worked as a sports reporter, baker and restaurant executive.

District 9: Andrew Clyde (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy & Navy Reserve, 1980s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Serves on the House Homeland Security Committee

District 11: Barry Loudermilk (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1980s–1990s

Serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

District 11: Katy Stamper, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1970s–1980s

Has received criticism for her close ties to Republican lawmakers and groups.

District 13: Jonathan Chavez, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Worked as the non-commissioned officer in charge of a joint service medical team in Iraq.

District 14: Shawn Harris, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps & National Guard, 1980s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Served as director of Joint Staff for the Army National Guard.

Hawaii

House

District 1: Patrick Largey, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1980s-2000s

Head of maintenance for a 43-story high rise building.

Senate

Bob McDermott, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 1980s–1990s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War

Worked as executive director of the Honolulu Navy League.

Illinois

House

District 7: Chad Koppie, Republican

Branch: Army, 1960s

Pilot who worked for Delta Airlines for 35 years.

District 12: Mike Bost (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 1970s–1980s

Current Chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

District 13: Joshua Lloyd, Republican

Branch: Army & National Guard, 2010s–2020s

Graduated from West Point in 2022.

Indiana

House

District 4: Jim Baird (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1960s–1970s

Combat Deployments: Vietnam

Earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts while serving with the 523rd Transportation Company.

District 4: Derrick Holder, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 1990s–2000s

Worked as a paralegal in the Indiana Department of Child Services.

District 5: Deborah Pickett, Democrat

Branch: Army Reserve, 1980s

Her brother-in-law is a Medal of Honor recipient.

Senate

Jim Banks, Republican

Branch: Navy Reserve, 2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Has served in the House since 2017.

Iowa

House

District 1: Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army & Army Reserve, 1970s–1990s

Served as the first female president of the Iowa Medical Society.

District 3: Zach Nunn (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force & National Guard, 2000s–2020s

Combat Deployment: Afghanistan

Served on the White House’s National Security Council prior to Congress.

District 3: Lanon Baccam, Democrat

Branch: Army National Guard, 1990s–2000s

Combat Deployment: Afghanistan

Oversaw veterans programs within the Department of Agriculture.

Kansas

House

District 3: Prasanth Reddy, Republican

Branch: Air Force Reserve, 2000s–2020s

Still serving as a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Kentucky

House

District 2: Brett Guthrie (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s–1990s

Eight-term congressman is a West Point grad.

District 5: Hal Rogers (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1950s–1960s

Dean of the House, he has served in Congress since 1981.

Louisiana

House

District 3: Clay Higgins (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1970s–1980s

Prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus.

Maine

House

District 1: Ronald Russell, Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s–2000s

An Airborne Ranger and a Special Forces qualified Green Beret.

District 2: Jared Golden (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Senate

Demi Kouzounas, Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s

Longtime dentist was also chairwoman of the Maine Republican Party.

Maryland

House

District 1: Andrew Harris (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy Reserve, 1980s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War

Still-practicing physician served in the Navy Medical Corps.

District 1: Blane Miller III, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2000s

Later worked as a deep-water technical diver testing military equipment.

District 3: Rob Steinberger, Republican

Branch: Navy Reserve, 1990s–2000s

Founder of a financial consulting firm.

Massachusetts

House

District 4: Jake Auchincloss (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Sits on the House Transportation Committee and select panel on China.

District 6: Seth Moulton (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2019.

Senate

John Deaton, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 1990s–2000s

Worked as a trial advocacy instructor at the Naval War College.

Michigan

House

District 1: Jack Bergman (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Marine Corps & Guard/Reserve, 1970s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Vietnam

Served as commanding general of Marine Forces Reserve.

District 7: Tom Barrett, Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 2000s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Narrowly lost a bid for this congressional seat in 2022.

District 10: John James (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Sits on the House Foreign Affairs and Energy committees.

Senate

Mike Rogers, Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s

Previously served in the House from 2001 to 2015.

Minnesota

House

District 2: Joe Teirab, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney, focused on narcotics trafficking and violent crime.

District 3: Tad Jude, Republican

Branch: Army Reserve, 1970s

Was the youngest individual ever elected to the Minnesota Legislature, at age 20.

Mississippi

House

District 1: Trent Kelly (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War & Iraq

Chairman of the House Armed Services’ seapower subcommittee.

District 2: Ronald Eller, Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s–1990s

Works in cardiac and thoracic surgery at St. Dominic’s Hospital.

Senate

Ty Pinkins, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Community organizer who has focused on unfair pay practices.

Missouri

Senate

Lucas Kunce, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Led a police training team in the Sunni Triangle while deployed to Iraq.

Montana

House

District 1: Ryan Zinke (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Served as Secretary of the Interior under Trump.

District 2: Troy Downing, Republican

Branch: Air National Guard, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Served in a Combat Search and Rescue squadron.

District 2: John Driscoll, Democrat

Branch: Army National Guard, 1960s–2000s

Has worked as a wildland firefighter, a public utility regulator, and a writer.

Senate

Tim Sheehy, Republican

Branch: Navy, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Founded an aerospace firm and still works as a firefighting pilot.

Nebraska

House

District 2: Don Bacon (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1980s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Chair of the House Armed Services Committee’s quality of life panel.

Nevada

House

District 2: Mark Amodei (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s

Serves on the House Appropriations Committee.

Senate

Sam Brown, Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Severely burned in a roadside bomb attack in Kandahar.

New Jersey

House

District 1: Theodore Liddell, Republican

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Manages his own law practice.

District 9: Billy Prempeh, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 2000s–2010s

Has twice run for the same seat without success.

District 11: Mikie Sherrill (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2000s

Sea King helicopter pilot flew missions throughout the Middle East.

New Mexico

House

District 1: Steve Jones, Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s

Worked as a management consultant and executive in the energy industry.

New York

House

District 1: Nicholas LaLota (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 2000s–2010s

Sits on the House Armed Services Committee.

District 6: Thomas Zmich, Republican

Branch: Army Reserve, 1980s–1990s

Worked as a construction manager.

District 12: Mike Zumbluskas, Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s

Has been a member of the Reform and Independence parties in the past.

District 13: Ruben Vargas, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1970s–1990s

Advocate who has been active with the International Chess Federation.

District 15: Gonzalo Duran, Republican

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

CEO of a firm focused on veterans reintegration into civilian life.

District 18: Pat Ryan (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Army, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Serves as vice ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

District 22: Brandon Williams (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s

Served as the strategic missile officer on board the USS Georgia.

District 25: Gregg Sadwick, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–1990s

Owner of a collision shop and countertop company.

North Carolina

House

District 1: Donald Davis (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Air Force, 1990s

Helped coordinate Air Force One operations at Andrews Air Force Base.

District 1: Laurie Buckhout, Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Led an 800-person battalion task force as part of the initial attack into Iraq in 2003.

District 2: Alan Swain, Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War

Flew AH-1 Cobras and AH-64 Apache helicopters.

District 4: Eric Blankenburg, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1970s–1980s

Currently working as a technology consultant.

District 8: Justin Dues, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps, 2000s–2010s

Founder of a firm specializing in wearable technology.

District 10: Pat Harrigan, Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

A Green Beret with multiple combat tours in Afghanistan.

District 10: Ralph Scott Jr., Democrat

Branch: Air Force, 2010s

Sixth great-grandson of James Madison.

District 12: Abdul Ali, Republican

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Past chairman of the Cabarrus County Republican Party.

North Dakota

House

District 1: Trygve Hammer, Democrat

Branch: Marine Corps & MC Reserve, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Former airline pilot and security consultant.

Ohio

House

District 1: Orlando Sonza, Republican

Branch: Army, 2010s

Currently the executive director of the Hamilton County Veterans Service Commission.

District 3: Michael Young, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1960s

Worked as a real estate developer and singer-songwriter.

District 6: Michael Kripchak, Democrat

Branch: Air Force, 2000s

Worked in the Air Force’s quantum computing initiatives while in service.

District 7: Max Miller (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Marine Corps Reserve, 2010s–2020s

Former deputy campaign manager for presidential operations under Trump.

District 8: Warren Davidson (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s–1990s

Took the seat of former House Speaker John Boehner.

District 12: Jerrad Christian, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 2000s

Works as a software engineer, but has used his Navy meteorology skills as a climate activist.

District 15: Mike Carey (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1980s–1990s

Was elected to Congress in a 2021 special election.

District 15: Adam Miller, Democrat

Branch: Army Reserve, 1990s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Serves in the Ohio House of Representatives.

Oregon

House

District 4: Monique DeSpain, Republican

Branch: Air Force & AF Reserve, 1980s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Kosovo

Served as a lawyer with the Judge Advocate General’s Corps for 30 years.

Pennsylvania

House

District 1: Ashley Ehasz, Democrat

Branch: Army, 2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Could become the first female graduate of West Point to serve in Congress.

District 4: David Winkler, Republican

Branch: Army & Marine Corps, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Former CEO of the veterans charity Wings for Warriors.

District 5: Alfe Goodwin, Republican

Branch: Army & Army National Guard, 2000s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Philadelphia police officer served alongside her brother in Iraq.

District 6: Chrissy Houlahan (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Air Force, 1980s

Daughter and granddaughter of career naval officers.

District 10: Scott Perry (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 1980s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Serves on the House Transportation and Foriegn Affairs committees.

District 14: Guy Reschenthaler (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Sits on the House Foreign Affairs committee.

District 14: Chris Dziados, Democrat

Branch: Army, 2000s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Was involved in the development of Space Force while serving in the Pentagon.

District 17: Chris Deluzio (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Navy, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

First-term congressman serves on the House Transportation Committee.

District 17: Rob Mercuri, Republican

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War

Member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Senate

David McCormick, Republican

Branch: Army, 1990s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Gulf War

Former Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.

South Carolina

House

District 2: David Robinson II, Democrat

Branch: Army, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Became an advocate for missing persons after his son’s disappearance in Arizona.

District 3: Sheri Biggs, Republican

Branch: Air National Guard, 2010s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Afghanistan

Commissioned in the Air Force at age 40 after a nursing career.

District 4: William Timmons (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard, 2010s

Member of the House Republican Steering Committee.

Tennessee

House

7: Mark Green (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army & Army Reserve, 1980s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Served on the mission where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was captured.

Texas

House

District 2: Daniel Crenshaw (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, Active, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Navy SEAL lost an eye in an IED blast in Afghanistan.

District 3: Keith Seif (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1970s–2000s

Served in Joint Staff assignments in U.S. European Command and NATO.

District 4: Pat Fallon (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1980s–1990s

Was a member of the 1988 Notre Dame football team which won a national championship.

District 6: Jake Ellzey (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Piloted the H-60 Seahawk helicopter, F-14 Tomcat, F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet.

District 8: Morgan Luttrell (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Brother of Marcus Luttrell, whose military service inspired the movie “Lone Survivor.”

District 11: August Pfluger (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Former F-22 pilot who served on President Trump’s national security council staff.

District 13: Ronny Jackson (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Former White House physician was demoted after retirement for improper conduct while on duty.

District 14: Rhonda Hart, Democrat

Branch: Army, 2000s

Lost her daughter in a 2018 school shooting in Santa Fe.

District 22: Troy Nehls (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army National Guard & Reserve, 1980s–2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Has faced criticism for improperly wearing a Combat Infantry Badge.

District 23: Tony Gonzales (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Sits on the House Appropriations and Homeland Security committees.

District 26: Ernest Lineberger III, Democrat

Branch: Navy, Active, 1980s–1990s

20-year career with Texas Instruments as an industrial engineer.

District 28: Jay Furman, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2010s

Served as a naval aviator.

District 36: Brian Babin (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Air Force & Air National Guard, 1970s

Earned his dental degree while in the service.

District 38: Wesley Hunt (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Served as an AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter pilot.

Utah

House

District 3: Glenn J. Wright, Democrat

Branch: Air Force, 1960s–1970s

Combat Deployments: Vietnam

Worked as a safety consultant.

Vermont

Senate

Gerald Malloy, Republican,

Branch: Army, 1980s–2000s

Worked as a business executive for a variety of defense-related firms.

Virginia

House

District 2: Jennifer Kiggans (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, Active, 1990s–2000s

Currently serves on the House Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs Committees.

District 2: Missy Cotter Smasal, Democrat

Branch: Navy, 2000s

Executive Director for Valor Run, a non-profit that hosts running events to honor military women.

District 3: Bobby Scott (Incumbent), Democrat

Branch: Army National Guard & Reserve, 1970s

Dean of Virginia’s congressional delegation.

District 3: John Sitka III, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1970s–1990s

Former merchant mariner has been involved in advocacy for those careers.

District 5: John McGuire, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–1990s

Former Navy SEAL.

District 6: Ken Mitchell, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1970s–1990s

Worked as a White House advisor for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

District 7: Derrick Anderson, Republican

Branch: Army, 2000s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Serves as a Green Beret and a member of the “Old Guard” at Arlington National Cemetery.

District 7: Eugene Vindman, Democrat

Branch: Army, 1990s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Former White House NSC advisor, brother of Trump impeachment witness Alexander Vindman.

District 8: Jerry Torres, Republican

Branch: Army & National Guard, 1970s–2000s

Served in Army Special Forces as a Green Beret.

District 11: Michael Van Meter, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–1990s

Spent 20 years in various roles at the FBI.

Senate

Hung Cao, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Former special operations explosive ordnance disposal officer.

Washington

House

District 2: Cody Hard, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s

Worked as an aircraft mechanic while in the ranks.

District 3: Joe Kent, Republican

Branch: Army, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Husband of Shannon Kent, a sailor who was killed in fighting in Syria.

District 4: Jerrod Sessler, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1980s–1990s

Former NASCAR driver who competed in Northwest Series events.

District 6: Drew MacEwen, Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s

After the military, founded a financial services firm.

District 10: Don Hewett, Republican

Branch: Air Force, 1980s

Worked as an engineer for Boeing and Microsoft.

West Virginia

House

District 2: Steven Wendelin, Democrat

Branch: Navy & Navy Reserve, 1980s–2020s

Combat Deployments: Iraq

Former networks manager for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Wisconsin

House

District 3: Derrick Van Ordern (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Navy, 1990s–2010s

Combat Deployments: Iraq & Afghanistan

Authored the book “A Navy SEAL’s Guide to the Lost Art of Manhood.”

District 5: Scott Fitzgerald (Incumbent), Republican

Branch: Army, 1980s–2000s

Serves on the House Financial Services and Judiciary committees.

Ukraine had wanted more. It has repeatedly sought permission to use U.S.-built Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles for long-range strikes deep in Russia. They have a range of up to 190 miles and, with their speed, are better able to hit mobile targets. Prior to Zelenskyy’s visit, there were hints the U.S. might provide Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM). Unlike ATACMS missiles, these missiles are abundant in the U.S. arsenal, and their stealth capability make them more effective at hitting defended targets.

White House announces billions in new Ukraine aid, new F-16 training

Sentiment in NATO is growing to give Ukraine more scope for action. This month the European Parliament asked European Union members to “immediately” lift deep strike restrictions, and so have top U.S. House Republicans and several leading congressional Democrats. Nonetheless, the U.S. approach remains hesitant.

There may be risks. On Sept. 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned an attack on Russia by a state backed by a nuclear power could lead to a nuclear response. He often cries nuclear wolf, but this time, his timing suggested worry that Biden might cave to pressures and unleash Ukraine to conduct more deep attacks.

A Russian nuclear response, however, seems unlikely and would probably bring little, if any, military gain. Russian troops are not trained to fight on a nuclear battlefield, as in the Cold War. Ukraine has few, if any, concentrated, high-value military targets. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have warned Putin not to go nuclear, while Biden has warned of “catastrophic consequences” if he does.

There is also a risk that some JASSMs might miss their targets or not be fully destroyed. Russia — and China — could analyze the debris to try to learn more about their stealth capability and sensitive electronics.

Time and again when Ukrainian forces have surprised or shocked Russia — from destroying or damaging one-third of its Black Sea fleet to seizing territory in Russia’s Kursk region — the Kremlin’s response has been weak. Suffering steep manpower losses and needing arms from Iran and North Korea, Russian forces may face limitations.

To its credit, Ukraine is doing a lot on its own to strike deep inside Russia. On Sept. 18, it carried out a stunning attack in Russia’s Tver region, blowing up a huge weapons depot in a blast akin to an earthquake. To overwhelm air defenses, Ukraine used over 100 slow-flying drones. The depot was 300 miles away from Ukraine, well beyond the 190-mile range of ATACMS missiles.

A welcome surprise has been Ukraine’s high-tech drone innovation. Former CIA Director General David Petraeus called it “unprecedented” in scale and pace. Even more is coming. Last month, Zelenskyy said Ukraine had deployed its first high-speed missile-drone, the Palianytsia.

But Ukraine needs more long-range strike power than its own aviation sector can provide. U.S. arms may be a valuable complement, despite their higher cost.

Last spring the U.S. began sending the long-range variant of ground-to-ground ATACMS missiles to Ukraine for use inside its territory. In occupied Crimea, they have ravaged Russia’s navy and air defenses and supporting infrastructure. ATACMS missiles are responsive and can hit mobile targets that elude drones. In June, the U.S. allowed Ukraine some added flexibility — to strike across the border inside Russia with ATACMS missiles wherever enemy forces were engaged in attacks.

On Sept. 26, Biden also promised to send hundreds more Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). Armed with them, Ukraine’s F-16s could shoot down some Russian combat aircraft in flight before they release devastating glide bombs.

The long-range strike mission is important for Ukraine, but so are other factors. It faces challenges in several areas, including a soldier shortage, inadequate defensive fortifications and uncertainties about future Western aid.

Nonetheless, the U.S. could benefit Ukraine by doing more to help it to conduct long-range strikes in Russia. Neither U.S. weapons nor Ukraine’s, by themselves, are enough. Together, they could raise the cost to Russia of its perfidy and help strengthen European security.

William Courtney is an adjunct senior fellow at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND research institution and was U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, Georgia, and a U.S.-Soviet commission to implement the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.

John Hoehn is an associate policy researcher at RAND and a former military analyst with the Congressional Research Service.

The White House claimed that “thousands” of veterans could benefit when President Biden announced this summer he was issuing pardons to gay veterans who were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation “and have carried the burden of this great injustice for decades.”

But three months later, only eight veterans have applied for pardons — six from the Air Force, two from the Army, and none from the Coast Guard, Navy, or Marines.

The dismally low numbers are disappointing advocates who say the promise of Biden’s pardons raised hopes that thousands of LGBTQ veterans would not only lose the stigma of courts-martial but also qualify for long-denied veterans benefits.

The War Horse discovered only eight veterans have applied for pardons since Biden’s June 26 announcement after reaching out over the last two weeks to each branch of the military. The White House did not respond to questions about the lack of applicants or whether it was doing anything more to promote the pardons.

Steve Marose, an Air Force veteran who lives in Seattle, is among the eight who’ve applied, and his case is still under review.

Marose said he was shocked by the response and wondered if the pardons’ limitations have discouraged other veterans. Only those convicted in a military court of consensual sodomy qualify, but experts say many LGBTQ veterans were forced from the military for decades simply under the threat of a court-martial.

“It sounds like it’s very broad, that thousands of people will be positively impacted,” Marose says. “When you look under the hood,” he said, it seems doubtful that such a large number of veterans will benefit.

Marose was convicted in 1990 of two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer in addition to three counts of consensual sodomy, so he is worried he may not receive a full pardon but decided to submit an application anyway.

His case is not unique. As The War Horse has reported, gay service members who wound up in a military court often faced other charges, including misconduct or conduct unbecoming, putting their eligibility for the pardon in question.

Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School and veteran law expert, was also surprised to learn that so few have jumped at the opportunity to apply for a pardon.

“It’s early, but these numbers are disappointing,” he told The War Horse.

Biden’s pardons still fall short for many LGBTQ veterans

Neither the Biden administration nor the Department of Defense could tell The War Horse how they came up with the claim that “thousands” of veterans would be eligible.

In July, The War Horse submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for Defense Department memos or reports that informed the White House that thousands of veterans would benefit from Biden’s act of clemency. However, the agency denied the request, saying the documents were part of the decision-making process, and therefore protected.

This week, The War Horse is filing a lawsuit to compel each branch of the military to turn over court-martial records that will help determine how many service members were convicted for consensual sex or other charges that criminalized their sexual orientation.

“Hopefully this lawsuit will make it easier for thousands of service members to receive some measure of recognition for how they were unfairly treated … and also allow the public to fully appreciate the scale of this injustice,” said attorney Joel Richert, an associate with Davis Wright Tremaine, a law firm that represents The War Horse.

The Department of Defense had no comment about the lawsuit.

Wishnie and other attorneys familiar with the military justice system believe that some veterans have likely found the pardon process too cumbersome. Veterans must gather documents related to their conviction, and submit a personal statement of why a pardon is being sought. If a pardon is granted, there’s also an entirely separate process for upgrading dishonorable discharges and earning VA eligibility for benefits including health care.

The pardon Biden issued this past summer is known as a “mass” pardon, meaning individuals aren’t named. That places the onus on veterans to work out whether they’re eligible and then commit to the application process.

Wishnie and other advocates say the Defense Department should take the lead in identifying veterans who were harmed and automatically upgrade their discharges. Until then, he said, little progress will be made in the effort to rectify the harms of past anti-LGBTQ policies.

“Rather than do the work itself to correct the Pentagon’s wrongdoing, the administration put the burden on veterans to prepare lengthy applications,” Wishnie said. “These low figures are the natural and foreseeable result of that choice.”

A Defense Department official told The War Horse that it isn’t practical to notify every person who is eligible for a pardon. Because the pardon period spans 60 years — from the end of World War II up until the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2011 — a majority of the court-martial records are not digital, meaning thousands of cases would have to be reviewed one by one. Instead, the same official said, veterans who think they may be eligible are encouraged to apply.

In 2013, a House bill to upgrade discharge records for LGBTQ troops indicated that between the end of World War II and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” about 114,000 service members were involuntarily separated based on sexual orientation.

Army vet still paying the price for bad paper discharge for being gay

A class action lawsuit filed last year in the Northern District of California found more than 29,000 service members were booted between 1980 and 2011 without receiving an honorable discharge due to real or perceived homosexuality or sexual perversion. That case seeks automatic discharge upgrades for gay veterans forced to leave the military.

Many of those like Army veteran Mona McGuire won’t qualify for the pardons. Earlier this year, The War Horse told the story of McGuire, a military police officer who in 1988, at the age of 20, was outed by a fellow soldier, taken into custody and told she either had to accept an other than honorable discharge or face a court-martial and possibly prison. She chose the less than honorable discharge in lieu of court-martial and gave up VA benefits and her dream of a career in the Army.

Without an actual court-martial, she doesn’t qualify for Biden’s pardons.

There is still hope for some veterans who are not eligible.

Last September, the Defense Department announced it would proactively review about 2,000 military records of service members who served during the “don’t ask, don’t tell” era and whose sexual orientation resulted in a separation. An update to this effort is expected sometime this fall. But it appears that too won’t help McGuire or Marose, who were discharged before “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a 1993 policy that forced gay service members to stay quiet about their sexual orientation or face punishment.

In 1990, Marose, a former Air Force second lieutenant, was sent to federal prison at Fort Leavenworth for 18 months following his convictions for consensual same-sex relationships and sharing an apartment with a fellow airman.

Marose is pursuing every possible path to clear his record and access VA benefits. Along with his pardon application, he’s appealed his case directly to an Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, which can’t forgive his convictions but can upgrade his dishonorable discharge. He’s also made his case directly to the VA, which has become increasingly accepting of veterans who did not separate from the military with spotless records.

More than 30 years after Marose was kicked out of the military for his sexual orientation, he understands why some LGBTQ veterans are not up for the lengthy process that may only lead to frustration or disappointment. And there is also the added question about who will be in the White House in the fall and how that could impact the pardon process.

“I have a lot of balls in the air, and I was hoping something would land,” Marose says, “but instead I feel like I’m constantly having to argue and defend and hope and pray.”

This War Horse investigation was reported by Anne Marshall-Chalmers, edited by Mike Frankel, fact-checked by Jess Rohan, and copy-edited by Mitchell Hansen-Dewar. Abbie Bennett wrote the headlines.

While many thrive in service, we must grapple with the reality that too many military families, particularly junior and middle enlisted families, are experiencing food insecurity, defined as the inability to consistently afford or access adequate meals.

Food insecurity among military families unacceptable, advocates say

According to Military Family Advisory Network’s latest research, one in four (27.7%) active duty military families are food insecure compared to 13.5% of U.S. households. MFAN’s findings are consistent with the Defense Department’s own research, which found that 24% of service members experienced food insecurity in 2022.

While the military is a microcosm of the broader population, the unique challenges and lived experiences of service members result in disproportionate rates of food insecurity. The nuances and complexities of military life, including the consequences of financial hardship, lead many to skip meals or choose less nutritious options.

How is it that those who put country before self experience food insecurity at more than twice the rate of civilians? The answer may be traced to the unique demands of military life, most notably frequent moves.

Military families move every two to three years on average. During a permanent change of station, families undergo a complete reset. Many military spouses are forced to leave their jobs and find new employment opportunities. Families must also pay first- and last-month’s rent to secure their next home and stock up on household essentials while also navigating new doctors, schools, child care and community — all without the support of an extended network.

Simply put, this reset is taxing on both pocketbooks and overall well-being.

Policy efforts to address food insecurity in the military are underway, pointing to a significant step in reducing the stigma surrounding this issue.

The Defense Department’s Taking Care of Our People initiative seeks to strengthen economic security for service members and their loved ones. The basic needs allowance, a monthly payment for military families whose household income falls below 150% of federal poverty guidelines, has been rolled out force-wide.

Inflation has some military families ‘grasping at pennies’

In the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress instituted a 5.2% pay raise, the largest in more than 20 years. In 2023, basic allowance for housing rates were increased by an average of 12%. The House Armed Services Committee formed a special panel and introduced a 31-point plan in the fiscal 2025 NDAA to evaluate military policies and strengthen service members’ quality of life.

Lawmakers have also proposed legislation to reduce barriers to federal nutrition programs, like removing service members’ housing allowance from income calculations for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as SNAP or food stamps.

Yet, the issue persists. The reality is that policy changes take time and families struggling to make ends meet do not have the luxury of time.

This is when public-private partnerships and motivated citizens have the opportunity to fill the gap. For example, initiatives are emerging to help active duty military families who have recently moved stock their pantry, offset moving costs, screen for food support and connect with their new community.

As a nation, we owe an immense debt to those who serve. And this is not just a military issue — our national security impacts us all. Solving food insecurity is about more than putting food on the table; it is offering dignified support for those who sacrifice so much for our freedoms. We must give service members and their families every opportunity not just to get by but thrive.

Shannon Razsadin is the spouse of a recently retired service member and CEO of the Military Family Advisory Network. MFAN’s mission is to understand and amplify the needs of military-connected families and inspire data-informed change.

Dave Flitman is CEO of US Foods, a leading food service distributor and corporate sponsor of Military Family Advisory Network programming. With a son serving in the U.S. Army, Flitman is passionate about serving members and veterans of the U.S. military forces.

The Defense Commissary Agency has taken steps since August to lessen the impact of possible disruptions, said John E. Hall, director and CEO of the agency.

That includes increased grocery orders for commissaries in Europe and Puerto Rico, which would be affected by a port work stoppage. Officials are also working with the industry sealift carriers to make sure all booked containers clear the port of Norfolk, Virginia, before the end of September, he said.

If a strike does happen, Hall said, DeCA is preparing to be able to use military airlifts of priority products into Europe and Puerto Rico.

That includes fresh beef, items such as baby formula, baby food, bread, hot and cold cereal, cheese, eggs, frozen juice, milk, frozen vegetables and certain canned foods.

“If we have additional capacity, we will also include highly sensitive chilled products,” he said.

Those decisions about airlifts will be based on customer need, product shelf life, projected port deliveries, and availability of products from local and U.S. suppliers.

“DeCA can assure our customers that we diligently monitor inventory levels and maintain regular communications with our industry suppliers to support the grocery needs of our patrons,” Hall added.

The general consensus is that if the strike is goes on for more than a week, it would cause major disruptions. It could take five to six weeks to recover after even one week of a strike.

And other shipments in the military community could be affected, too, such as shipments to and from overseas of service members’ household goods and vehicles, which go on commercial carriers.

U.S. Transportation Command did not respond by Military Times’ deadline to questions about the potential effects on service members and families, and any actions being taken to plan to mitigate any problems.

The International Longshoremen’s Association’s six-year contract is set to expire on Monday, and the union says it will strike at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, according to the Associated Press. A strike would shut down as many as 36 ports that handle nearly half of the cargo going in and out of the U.S. on ships, the AP noted.

If a strike does happen, it would be the first national work stoppage by the ILA since 1977, according to the AP. Even a brief strike would cause disruptions to the economy, and create a shipping backlog.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the U.S. Maritime Alliance, representing East Coast and Gulf Coast ports, posted a statement online Thursday that they’ve filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, asking that federal agency to require the Longshoremen’s union to resume bargaining.

It’s not clear how many aspects of the military community this would affect. ILA President Harold Daggett posted on the union’s Facebook page that their 85,000 members will continue to handle all military cargo, even if there is a strike. The union will also continue to work passenger cruise vessels, Daggett said.

Military stores scrambling to get baby formula -- what new parents need to know

Military exchanges

Exchange officials say they don’t expect stores to be affected by a short-time strike, but that will change if there is a prolonged strike, just as it will affect retail stores across the country.

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service and Navy Exchange Service Command have been increasing their stock over the last several weeks, and a short-term strike isn’t expected to affect customers..

AAFES’ logistics and merchandising teams are working to ensure exchange stores are prepared for possible broader challenges in the event of a longer shutdown of ports, said AAFES spokesman Chris Ward

In addition to increasing stock to bolster levels in overseas distribution centers, NEXCOM officials have put airfreight carriers on standby in case they need to ship merchandise by air, spokesperson Kristine Sturkie said.

“In the event of a prolonged strike, NEXCOM would pivot to shipping ocean containers from the West Coast and air freighting merchandise, as needed, to fill gaps in the pipeline,” she said. “Depending on the length of time of the potential strike, NEXCOM can move shipments from the West Coast to Europe, Bahrain and Djibouti, ensuring we have the merchandise our military members and families need on our shelves.”

Marine Corps exchange customers should see minimal impact as their exchanges don’t move products in or out of East Coast or Gulf Coast ports. Since all their overseas bases are in the Pacific, their direct operations are West Coast-focused, spokesperson Bryan Driver said.

But he noted that their vendors might be affected by the strikes, “with as-yet-undetermined future impact to our supply chain.”

The looming strike comes at a time when the military exchanges have been getting shipments of holiday items in preparation for the heavy Christmas shopping season. Officials don’t expect those shipments to be affected. Many of the Navy exchange holiday items have already shipped to the overseas stores, said NEXCOM’s Sturkie.

Household goods shipments

The moving industry is also unclear about which military cargo would be moved and whether it would include service members’ household goods in the event of strikes.

“We haven’t heard directly from the [International Longshoremen’s Association] on military cargo, or [household goods] specifically,” said Daniel Bradley, vice president of government and military relations for the International Association of Movers. “We hope to have more clarity with respect to what cargo may continue to be moved if a strike occurs.”

He said it’s not clear if dockworkers would know which shipments to move, “since outside of military-centered ports and obvious military cargo, most [household goods] shipments are containerized and not as obvious.”

Gone are the days of static target shooting without a time limit. The infantry marksmanship assessment, or IMA, now used primarily at Marine Corps secondary training locations such as Schools of Infantry–East and West, will be the evaluation standard for all grunts within the next five years, according to a new marksmanship campaign plan announced this month by Marine Corps Training and Education Command.

Much of what has been the shooting standard for decades is now out the window in what Marines are calling the biggest change to shooting protocols in more than a century.

The new small arms shooting standard, like the Annual Rifle Qualification introduced in 2021, will have Marines moving, changing positions and hitting realistic human targets under pressure, according to details published by the Marine Corps.

But the “secret sauce,” according to Col. Scott Cuomo, commander of Weapons Training Battalion in Quantico, Virginia, is a tablet-based data collection system that tells Marines not only how accurately they shot, but also how quickly.

Known as the Joint Marksmanship Assessment Program, or JMAP, the device, which was developed by the Naval Health Research Center, creates a digital score sheet that officials say will give Marines a much better picture of how they’ll perform under pressure in combat.

Also gone is the framework that allows Marines to max out their shooting scores. With the IMA/JMAP combo, scores will be tabulated by assessing each round’s proximity to lethal zones on targets that feature human silhouettes, according to videos released by the Marine Corps.

Accuracy scores will be divided by time — the number of seconds it takes to get into position, reload under pressure and put rounds on target, all of which will be tracked by JMAP. The actual scoring classification system has yet to be developed, but it is expected to be finalized by next fall, according to the marksmanship plan.

As described in Marine Corps documents, the IMA, as it will be implemented, consists of the following four courses of fire, totaling 49 rounds in all:

Known Distance Traverse (18 rounds). Three exercises of six rounds each will see Marines firing two rounds at a 100-meter steel target from a supported kneeling position; moving to a barricade-supported position to fire another two shots at a 200-meter target; and then placing weapons on safe while moving into a prone position to the right of the barricade before firing another two shots at a 300-meter target.

Short bay distance (15 rounds). Marines fire five rounds in a standing position, another five rounds in the kneeling position and then move in closer to the targets while speed-reloading to fire the last five rounds from a standing position.

Shooting on the move (6 rounds). Marines fire at two side-by-side targets resembling enemies while continuously on the move. They will fire two shots to the chest of the left target, two to the chest of the right target, conduct a rapid reload and fire one shot each into the heads of each target.

Manipulation and recoil control (10 rounds). In a rapid shooting evolution, Marines will unload six rounds into the chest of a humanoid target, followed by shooting four rounds to the head.

In the marksmanship plan, this high-pressure, combat-simulating shooting strategy is designated by the acronym SPEAR: Speed, Precision, Executive Control, Adaptability and Risk Exposure.

While officials acknowledge risk exposure is likely the toughest element of the group to simulate, it involves many more of the variables than legacy range-qualification assessments, which essentially only evaluated precision.

Cuomo said the changes connect to the combat future Marines envision, in which they’re fighting in smaller elements and at greater distances from each other in an environment like the Indo-Pacific.

“Translated, that means there’s going to be [fewer] Marines and maybe as many of the adversary, or maybe more of the adversary,” Cuomo said. “So, if you really believe these things, then you had better make sure that the Marine is ... objectively more lethal with the ammo that you’re giving.”

The present reality, however, is that Marines have been deeply concerned about shooting — and their lacking performance on past battlefields — for years.

As Marine Corps Times reported last year, a 2018 study by Marine Corps Combat Development and Integration exposed glaring gaps, not only in Marines’ shooting performance, but also in what the Corps knew about the effectiveness of its own shooting program.

That study, which sparked the development of JMAP, also spawned a wide-ranging literature review and experimentation.

In 2022, the Corps introduced the Infantry Marksmanship Training Program, or IMTP, for grunts, a new curriculum that represented an early step in embracing battlefield lethality over what officials call “Olympic-style” static shooting.

The results of the new program were astounding.

“[The Office of Naval Research] unequivocally demonstrated that a squad of IMTP-trained [infantry Marine course] graduates would win against a squad of legacy Basic Infantry Marine graduates 99.7 percent of the time,” Cuomo wrote in a newly published Marine Corps Gazette article describing the overhaul.

More changes related to the shooting assessment transition, meanwhile, are on the horizon, according to the new campaign plan.

New NMOS

By next spring, Marine marksmanship leaders will draft a new necessary military occupational specialty, or NMOS, a subspecialty job description, for marksmanship instructors specific to the new assessment program.

“There’s nobody trained at scale” to run the new programs, Cuomo said, though he added that the Weapons Training Battalion had just completed a proof-of-concept IMTP instructor course.

To avoid creating a new tasking that will take Marines away from other duties, officials plan to look at ways to consolidate the legacy combat marksmanship and IMTP instruction programs under a single MOS for trainers, he said.

An app for that?

Leaders are also figuring out how to give Marines and their trainers access to the vast wealth of data that JMAP will collect from shooting evaluations.

According to Marine Corps promotional materials, the real-time feedback available through JMAP will help evaluate not only a single Marine’s lethality, but also his or her performance in the context of their squad, unit or company. It will then determine how the element is performing as a whole, allowing commanders to distribute personnel in the most impactful way.

“Part of that is definitely an app on a phone, 100 percent,” Cuomo said.

While shooting data is currently siloed between ranges, with JMAP connected to a tablet for on-the-spot evaluation, the goal is to have a central hub where evaluators, leaders and maybe Marines themselves can get deep into the data.

“The neat thing about that system is you can pull data and compare yourself to every infantry Marine course student that’s ever gone through,” Col. Greg Jones, the retiring former commander of Weapons Training Battalion, told Marine Corps Times.

“You can compare yourself to the Marine Corps shooting team. ... Like a Peloton, you can have a ride and get your personal best, and you can compare yourself against everyone else’s personal best.”

Funding questions

The Marine Corps still needs to find a way to pay for all the new JMAP systems, which represent the priciest part of the new shooting program, according to the campaign plan.

The plan gives officials until the end of this year to develop a funding approach for JMAP sustainment at Weapons Training Battalion and the schools of infantry. Additionally, they will have until the first quarter of next calendar year to figure out how to buy JMAP systems for all Marine Corps infantry units by the end of 2025, while formal marksmanship training units will receive them by fall of that year.

While Cuomo wouldn’t say exactly what the systems cost, he likened the total amount needed to the cost the equivalent of a half-dozen amphibious combat vehicles.

Lt. Gen. Benjamin Watson, head of Marine Corps Training and Education Command, demonstrated his confidence that the Corps would find the funding by signing off on the plan, Cuomo said.

Future timeline

While the immediate focus around the new program will be on infantry Marines, signs point toward a service-wide goal of making all Marines proficient in shooting under pressure and in combat-like conditions.

By fiscal 2029, all entry-level Marines should be executing the full Annual Rifle Qualification, rather than the legacy Annual Rifle Training they begin with now, the plan states. This will include range updates to allow Marines to shoot the full ARQ course of fire, including flat 25-meter segments for short-bay drills.

The Rifle Marksmanship Assessment, which closely resembles the IMA, is also on track to become standard for all non-infantry Marines; TECOM is tasked with completing a range analysis by the end of next summer to determine how much it will cost to make that happen.

And while the Marines technically have five years to complete all these taskers, Cuomo emphasized that, in light of an uncertain combat future, they’re motivated to move as fast as they possibly can.

Regarding the tasker of integrating JMAP data and readouts into the existing Marine Corps Training Information Management System, Watson has budgeted three years, Cuomo said, with a deadline of fall 2027.

“That doesn’t mean he wants this to happen three years from now,” Cuomo said. “He would love for this to happen tomorrow.”

The Corps hit 114% of its stated first-term Marine retention goal this fiscal year, according to Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

That percentage translated to 7,947 Marines staying in the Corps after their first term of enlistment in Fiscal Year 2024, which ends on Sept. 30. The goal was 6,950, officials said.

That’s the highest number of retained first-term Marines since fiscal 2010. But it isn’t a total outlier.

Marines on target for active, Reserve recruiting and retention goals

“Retention directly enhances our service’s lethality,” Lt. Gen. Michael Borgschulte, deputy commandant for manpower, said in a release. “This year’s historic success in retaining the most highly qualified Marines is a ‘spike the football’ moment and is a testament to our engaged, people-focused leaders across the Marine Corps.”

The Corps has long used a “recruit and replace” model for first-term enlistees and historically has retained the fewest first-term members compared to the other military services.

Those healthy FY24 retention numbers represent a steady annual increase in retention since fiscal 2020, according to Marine data. Marine officials credited multi-year retention efforts, which allows Marines to reenlist earlier than the end of their current contract, as a large part of their success.

The Marines are the only military service to consistently meet their recruiting goals in recent years. Retaining more Marines eases the strain to recruit more new individuals, allowing for the Corps to better meet its total end strength needs.

The Marines fiscal 2024 end strength approved by Congress is 172,300 Marines. T

The service is also on track to meet its recruiting goal of approximately 28,000 new Marines this fiscal year, but those final numbers have not been released yet. The Marines met their fiscal 2023 goal of 33,302.

The Corps also retained 64%, or 5,700, of the eligible subsequent-term Marines, or Marines in enlistment periods beyond their first term, officials said. The subsequent-term Marine population eligible for retention is at its highest since fiscal 2017.

The total Marine Corps retention mission for all enlistment terms for this fiscal year was 12,912 but fiscal 2025 is higher, sitting at 13,970.

Being a Marine is enough of a bonus, No. 2 Marine Corps general says

The Corps is already halfway to reaching its fiscal 2025 total retention goal, officials said.

“Although this is a huge accomplishment, we have more work to do and cannot rest on our past successes,” Borgschulte said. “We must maintain the momentum into Fiscal Year 2025 and continue to prioritize our Marine Corps’ most valuable and lethal asset—its people.”

In recent years, the Corps conducted an overhaul of its talent management mechanisms, looking at ways to improve Marine quality of life and doing more to reach out to Marines earlier in their contracts to encourage re-enlistment or a move to the Reserve from active duty.

On that front, the Corps also exceeded its goals with the Direct Affiliation Program, or DAP, which allows active-duty Marines to directly transfer to the Reserve component.

The average number of Marines transferring directly between fiscal year 2019 and 2023 was 495, officials said.

This year, the Corps doubled that number.

Another program eases the path to return to service by specifically targeting prior service Marines who’ve left the military but want to rejoin.

In fiscal 2023 the Prior Service Enlistment Program netted 121 Marines. For fiscal 2024 the number was 335, Marine officials said.