WASHINGTON — After Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cut nine Navy officers, including all the women, from a promotion list, several female officers say they see the unusual intervention as a sign that their careers now have a ceiling and worry for the future generation of female military leaders.
The Navy had selected 31 sailors to promote from the rank of captain to one-star admiral, but Hegseth recently intervened to strike nine people from the list, including three women and two Black men, according to a Defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss information not permitted to be released publicly.
As a result, the Navy is not promoting a single woman to the one-star admiral rank this year even though women make up about one-quarter of all Navy officers and nearly one-third of the sea service’s midgrade ranks, according to military data from 2024.
The Associated Press spoke with eight female Navy officers of varying ranks and time in service after Hegseth’s cuts, which were reported earlier by the New York Times, became public. They spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution from their superiors.
The more junior officers said they saw the development as a sign that their careers would become politicized if they rose too far in the ranks, and some said they felt they now had a limit on how far they could be promoted. Some said it made them feel less valued within the military and wondered whether that wasn’t part of the intent.
The Pentagon has not offered any rationale on why the women, or any of the other six people, were removed from the promotion list.
Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s top spokesman, said on social media last week that “military promotions are given to those who have earned them” and that the Pentagon “will never consider the color of a service member’s skin or their gender as a factor in promotions.” The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request seeking further comment.
The Navy’s process for choosing which officers to promote to the one-star rank has been relatively constant and transparent over the years. The service convenes a group of officers, called a promotion board, that examines the records of eligible officers and chooses those deemed to be the most qualified.
The board that selected the initial slate of 31 officers for promotion was directed by then-Navy Secretary John Phelan, an appointee of President Trump, to “recommend for promotion the best qualified officers within their respective competitive category.”
The order from Phelan, who abruptly departed his post in April, said the board should consider an officer’s performance, competence and character, among other traits, as part of those qualifications.
It also said that given China’s prominence in the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy, “special consideration shall be given to officers who have excelled in their knowledge of the political military affairs and U.S. strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region, and operational contingency planning for Indo-Pacific war plans.”
Hegseth has long argued, without offering evidence, that women in the military benefit from preferential treatment and are not suited for combat roles.
“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth told hundreds of military leaders in September.
The approach, he asserted, made the Pentagon “less capable and less lethal.”
Phelan’s order said the Navy cannot discriminate based on criteria such as race and sex, and it specifically noted that “this guidance shall not be interpreted as requiring or permitting preferential treatment of any officer or group of officers on the grounds of race, religion, color, sex.”
The full list of 31 people to be promoted was approved by Phelan, other Navy leaders and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, before it reached Hegseth, who chose to make the changes, the Defense official said.
While Hegseth is within his rights to intervene in the list, “it’s just not the norm” and is “a break from tradition,” said Katherine Kuzminski, a researcher specializing in military recruiting and retention at the Center for New American Security think tank. She said that promotions historically have been seen as “the services’ business.”
Kuzminski noted that “this is a decision that’s not being made by the Navy — it’s being made by the secretary of Defense,” and she said Hegseth’s growing interference in operational aspects of the military services such as promotions is creating “tension” about what “normal” will look like going forward.
Some of the more senior Navy officers who spoke with the AP expressed concerns about the message it sends to the next generation of young sailors.
In addition to pulling the recent promotions of three women to admiral, Hegseth shortly after he took office fired Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the service’s top officer and the first woman to hold the job. He never explained his rationale.
Since then, he also has fired two other female three-star admirals without explanation.
Some of the officers who spoke to the AP said that while they were encouraging female sailors to stick with the Navy, they acknowledged that message is coming at a difficult time.
Kuzminski said the rhetoric and actions surrounding women in the military “affects individual service member decision-making and it also affects family unit decision-making,” including whether people make a career of the military.
Kuzminski said that following the months-long hold on military promotions by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) during the Biden administration, surveys showed that partisan politics spilling into the day-to-day lives of troops affected their decision-making.
One officer said this impact was not confined to women.
In conversations with other sailors in her unit, she said that male sailors were hesitant to deal with what appears to be a growing politicization of simply following the orders of previous administrations.
Toropin writes for the Associated Press.
Manuel Neuer to start for Germany in World Cup upon his return, despite Oliver Baumann long being labelled team’s first choice.
Published On 21 May 202621 May 2026
Bayern Munich’s Manuel Neuer has come out of international retirement to compete in next month’s World Cup after being named on Thursday as the starting goalkeeper in Germany coach Julian Nagelsmann’s squad for the tournament.
Nagelsmann made the decision after having long labelled Hoffenheim’s Oliver Baumann as his first-choice keeper.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“Yes, I plan with that [with Neuer as number one],” Nagelsmann told a press conference. “The main task was to nominate the best three keepers. So we decided that these three are part of that.”
“We contacted Manuel and asked him if he wanted to play for the national team again,” said Nagelsmann.
The 40-year-old Neuer, who last competed for Germany at Euro 2024 before his international retirement, is now set to play in his fifth successive World Cup, joining an elite group of football players with five or more tournaments.
Neuer, a 2014 World Cup winner, enjoyed a solid season with champions Bayern, who could win the domestic double with victory over VfB Stuttgart in the German Cup final on Saturday.
He signed a contract extension with Bayern last week.
There were few other major surprises in Nagelsmann’s 26-man squad for the tournament starting next month. But the coach also called up Bayern’s teenage player Lennart Karl, who enjoyed a meteoric rise this season, as well as Nadiem Amiri and Leroy Sane, who both had outside chances of earning a spot.
“They [players] fit well together. It is a good mix. Many have been playing since their youth together,” Nagelsmann said. “We are happy with our choice, but know others will stay at home who have performed very well.”
Germany, who face Curacao, Ecuador and Ivory Coast in Group E at the World Cup, have set their sights on a fifth title after shock first-round exits in the past two editions in 2018 and 2022.
“The statement stands,” Nagelsmann said. “We want to become world champions. Every player who is nominated needs to show it now every day.”
Goalkeepers: Manuel Neuer, Oliver Baumann, Alexander Nubel
Defenders: Nico Schlotterbeck, David Raum, Nathaniel Brown, Jonathan Tah, Waldemar Anton, Pascal Gross, Joshua Kimmich, Felix Nmecha, Malick Thiaw, Aleksandar Pavlovic, Antonio Rudiger, Angelo Stiller
Midfielders/Forwards: Leon Goretzka, Maximilian Beier, Jamal Musiala, Nadiem Amiri, Jamie Leweling, Kai Havertz, Lennart Karl, Florian Wirtz, Deniz Undav, Nick Woltemade, Leroy Sane
Starbucks Corporation (SBUX) announced the early results of its cash tender offers for multiple senior notes, amending the terms to increase its total purchasing capacity to $1.3B.
To accommodate the high volume of participation, Starbucks exercised its right to amend and
Members of the Writers Guild of America have officially ratified their newest contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers.
More than 90% of the 11,000 voting members in both WGA East and West registered their support of the new agreement. The voting period closed Friday at noon, after the union first struck a tentative deal earlier this month.
The new contract includes a robust healthcare plan in which studios pay over $320 million to sustain the health fund, higher residual rates — including a provision for a “success bonus” for the most popular streaming shows from 50% of the base residual to 75% — and language on the licensing of work for AI training.
“The first reaction [from members] was relief that we were not going to be going into a period of labor strife or strike authorization vote, in the midst of this contraction,” said John August, the co-chair of WGA’s negotiating committee, referring to the ongoing challenges in the industry. “Members want to work, and they want to get back to doing their job.”
Negotiations between the union and film and TV studios began in March, as the union’s current contract expires May 1. August said that, at the beginning of the negotiations, expanding the healthcare plan was a top priority. The union was able to secure increases that would raise the cap that companies pay to as high as $400,000 by 2028.
Union officials say the current cap has remained unchanged for two decades as healthcare contributions have steadily declined because there are fewer working writers.
But under the new contract, members would, for the first time, have to start contributing to their healthcare costs to the tune of $75 per month. The earnings threshold to get coverage would increase by about $7,000 to $53,773, leaving many members concerned about the higher cost.
“This is all difficult. Healthcare in America is not a good situation. But we were really mindful, as we always are, of trying to make sure the career of writing is sustainable,” negotiating committee co-chair Danielle Sanchez-Witzel said.
Additionally, the contract terms have been extended from the WGA’s usual three years to four — though it is not the first time the guild has added more time to its deal with the studios. Sanchez-Witzel clarified that the four-year period for the new contract ”is, by no means, a standard. This is just what we needed this year and what we agreed to for this cycle.”
“We were here in 2026 trying to get some things that we didn’t get earlier [in previous negotiation cycles] and happy for the progress we made,” she said.
The WGA is the first of the Hollywood unions to strike a deal with the studios. AMPTP congratulated the WGA on the ratification in a statement released shortly after the vote totals were announced.
“This deal reflects a collaborative approach that supports both writers and the industry’s long-term stability,” AMPTP said.
SAG-AFTRA and the Directors Guild of America still need to negotiate new contracts.
The actors’ union began its negotiations in February and extended those talks in March, but paused to allow AMPTP to finish its deal with the writers’ union. SAG-AFTRA’s and the DGA’s contracts expire June 30.
Ingle has come a long way since beginning her junior career with Vale Wanderers, a boys’ team in Barry.
She was forced to give up the sport when aged 12 because Football Association of Wales (FAW) rules meant she could no longer play with the boys.
Thankfully for Welsh football, Ingle returned to the pitch when her Vale Wanderers coach set up a girls’ team when she was 14.
She then played for Dinas Powys Ladies and Cardiff City Ladies before joining Chelsea for the first of two spells in 2012.
By that stage, Ingle was an established Wales international, having made her senior debut in a 2-1 World Cup qualifying defeat to Azerbaijan three years earlier, only a matter of weeks after her 18th birthday.
Ward scored Wales’ goal in Baku, with Ingle coming off the bench.
“It was a horrible game, horrible pitch, but this kid just made it look like she’d been doing it her whole life,” Ward remembers.
“She’s just a top player… technique is unbelievable, the way she reads a game, the way she can find a pass.
“She’s my favourite footballer in the world.”
Adrian Tucker was the manager who gave Ingle her first cap, in an era when the landscape was very different in women’s football.
“She was good technically but she was also really good on the physical side, which was a really big thing at that time,” he says.
“Did I think she would go on to win 150 caps? In 2009, I didn’t think Wales would play 150 games. We were struggling to get five games a season.
“But since then there has been a boom in women’s football and Sophie has been on the crest of that wave.”
This post has been updated, as indicated below.
In this week’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney fleshed out an idea he had previously mentioned briefly as a way to pay for his proposed tax cuts – setting a cap on itemized deductions.
“I’m going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end,” the Republican presidential nominee said.
“One way of doing that would be to say everybody gets – I’ll pick a number – $25,000 of deductions and credits. And you can decide which ones to use, your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit and so forth. You can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.”
The cap, Romney said Tuesday night, would ensure that the wealthy would not receive an outsized tax break. “I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now” as an overall share of U.S. taxes, he said.
Moreover, he insisted, the cap would allow him to pay for his proposed tax cuts without increasing the size of the deficit.
“Of course they add up,” he responded when Candy Crowley, the debate moderator, asked him about whether his numbers penciled out.
Politically, a cap on deductions provides an attractive solution to raising tax revenue because it avoids having to wage fights over individual deductions.
Unfortunately for Romney, however, the cap does not come close to covering the full cost of the tax plan he has proposed, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a specialized Washington think tank. The Romney tax plan would reduce federal revenue by about $5 trillion over 10 years in addition to the cost of the Bush-era tax cuts that he would extend.
“These new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed,” wrote Roberton Williams, an analyst at the nonpartisan center, which is a joint operation of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.
The Tax Policy Center analysis suggested that Romney’s proposed cap would raise revenue in a “highly progressive” way because upper-income households benefit more from itemized deductions. The center found that the cap would provide considerable revenue to offset the cost of the tax cut, but would still leave a huge gap.
The center’s staff consists of former government tax experts from both Republican and Democratic administrations. Romney and his aides cited the center as an authoritative source during Republican primary debates but since then have objected to the center’s analyses of shortcomings in their tax plan.
According to the center’s analysis, a $25,000 cap would raise about $1.3 trillion over a 10-year period. That would cover roughly a quarter of the 10-year cost of Romney’s tax plan.
If Romney made the cap tighter – allowing just $17,000 in deductions and credits – he could raise $1.7 trillion. A $50,000 cap would bring in about $760 billion. At various times, Romney has cited each of those figures as a proposed cap.
The tighter cap would hit many more taxpayers. If the cap were $50,000, for example, almost all the revenue that it would raise, about 80%, would come from taxpayers with income above $500,000 a year, and less than 4% would come from taxpayers earning less than $100,000, according to the center’s analysis. That’s because very few taxpayers other than the very wealthy have deductions that total more than $50,000.
By contrast, a cap of $17,000 would get about 40% of its revenue from that top group, and about 17% from the taxpayers earning $100,000 or less.
Romney has said that he expects part of his tax cut would be paid for by additional revenue flowing into the treasury as the result of faster economic growth. Economists disagree about whether a tax cut such as the one Romney has proposed – a reduction of current tax rates by one-fifth – would significantly increase economic growth.
In response to the center’s report, the Romney campaign issued a statement that did not dispute the math, but reiterated Romney’s position that “the President and Congress working together can make the tax code simpler, more efficient, and more pro-growth.”
[For the Record, 9:51 a.m. PST Oct. 18: This post has been updated to include the Romney campaign’s response to the Tax Policy Center’s report.]
Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook
Twitter: @DavidLauter