The six-month independent review, commissioned by Undersecretary of Defense Anthony Tata in December, was originally set to be performed by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a Washington, D.C.-area nonprofit that administers three research centers supported by federal funding. The effectiveness study, according to a Pentagon official, was set to kick off with the 10-year anniversary of Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s lifting of the ban on women in ground combat roles at the end of 2015.

This review, the official told Military Times on Monday, is “in line with standard [Department of War] practice for evaluating the effects of significant policy changes.”

But a reevaluation of study requirements has led to a reassignment of the work, the official said.

“The Department has since recognized the need to incorporate combat-relevant field tests, based on established tasks, conditions, and standards, into the independent review to produce the comprehensive data required for this effort,” the official said. “DoW has engaged the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to assume responsibility for the study from IDA, effective April 2026. JHU/APL, a University Affiliated Research Center, has the capability to examine existing personnel and operational data, as well as conduct the field tests, ensuring a unified effort that will further posture our warfighters to meet mission objectives.”

JHU/APL will now complete work over the next 12 months to inform what’s now being called the “Performance, Readiness, and Integrated Mission Effectiveness Assessment,” according to the Pentagon. The assessment will use established analytical techniques “to identify the dominant drivers of combat performance variance in ground combat units and provide evidence-based findings to inform force design, training, physical standards, and readiness decisions,” the official said.

A request for information to JHU/APL for more details on the study and data collection milestones did not receive an immediate response.

Pentagon officials emphasized the long tradition of conducting reviews of policy changes, citing specifically an internal assessment of the 2010 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal that was conducted in 2021, and reviews by the Pentagon-connected Rand Corporation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and the Blended Retirement System of 2015.

Historically, these analyses have been used to evaluate major changes and their impacts, but have not carried with them the possibility of reopening the matter for potential reversal. It’s not clear that the same considerations are in play here.

In a December memo first reported on by NPR, Tata described the review as gauging “the operational effectiveness of ground combat” elements and the impact of permitting women to enter the roles.

Leaders of the Army and Marine Corps were asked to provide the Institute for Defense Analyses with a broad slate of data ranging from training performance to command climate; and metrics showing individual service members’ readiness to deploy.

An email from Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson at the time also appeared to open the door to changes based on the review, saying the Pentagon “will not compromise standards to satisfy quotas or an ideological agenda — this is common sense.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed opposition to women serving in combat roles in his 2024 book “The War on Warriors,” saying they couldn’t meet the physical requirement and adding, “We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”

His Senate confirmation hearing in 2025 softened the stance. He said then that women would continue to have access to ground combat roles, “given the standards remain high.”

In September, he announced that ground combat jobs would be reserved for those who meet “the highest male standard.”

The Pentagon official said the pending combat effectiveness review, now to be carried out by JHU/APL, showcased the military’s commitment to “continuous learning and improvement.”

“These types of studies enable the Department to maximize our efforts in support of peace through strength,” the Pentagon official said Monday. “The ‘Performance, Readiness, and Integrated Mission Effectiveness Assessment’ is expected to further this tradition, increasing the lethality and readiness of the force.”

In a letter responding to queries from a coalition of lawmakers, Anthony Tata, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness said that “hazing and bullying have no place in the U.S. military,” despite comments from Hegseth that appeared to blur the lines on acceptable training.

“The definition of toxic has been turned upside down, and we’re correcting that. That’s why today, at my direction we’re undertaking a full review of the department’s definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing, to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing,” Hegseth said in his remarks.

“Of course, you can’t do, like, nasty bullying and hazing. We’re talking about words like bullying and hazing and toxic. They’ve been weaponized and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs. No more. Setting, achieving and maintaining high standards is what you all do. And if that makes me toxic, then so be it.”

Drill instructors, Hegseth said, would be empowered “to instill healthy fear in new recruits.”

“Yes, they can shark attack, they can toss bunks, they can swear, and yes, they can put their hands on recruits,” he said. “This does not mean they can be reckless or violate the law, but they can use tried and true methods to motivate new recruits, to make them the warriors they need to be.”

In his response letter, Tata put guardrails around the use of physical contact with military recruits, saying it would be used to ensure the safety of personnel.

“Drill instructors have the difficult task of shaping civilians into soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardians, and Marines,” he wrote. “Basic training involves real world scenarios and weapons. When the safety of the recruit or others is jeopardized, drill instructors may take appropriate actions to ensure the safety of the recruits.”

The response letter did not define the scope of “appropriate actions” or what would determine whether a drill instructor’s physical response to a recruit was justified. But Tata did stress that Hegseth’s effort to reevaluate definitions of terms including “bullying” and “hazing” would, he said, make it easier to identify and respond to truly objectionable behavior.

“What the department is trying to get after is the unduly burdensome complaints system in the military that undermines leaders’ effectiveness,” he wrote. “By providing definitions that focus on the egregious misconduct described in your letter, leaders will be empowered to more easily address inappropriate conduct that does not constitute hazing or bullying while focusing resources on preventing and addressing incidents of hazing and bullying.”

Rep. Judy Chu, the California congresswoman who led the group of 28 Democratic lawmakers in requesting responses from Hegseth regarding his plans to change recruit training and hazing definitions, has a personal connection to the issue: Her nephew, Lance Cpl. Harry Lew, died by suicide in Afghanistan in 2011 after a night of physical hazing and abuse by fellow Marines in punishment for falling asleep on post.

“We want a strong military where people feel that they’re unified in their desire to protect this country,” Chu told Military Times in a November interview. “Not where they are torturing one another to the point where certain people feel like they have to kill themselves.”

The most recently compiled report on military hazing, from 2024, shows that about one in five hazing and bullying complaints is substantiated, and that reporting numbers, while on a recent upswing, are relatively low, with 138 hazing complaints for that year. The Marine Corps has accounted for a disproportionately high share of hazing allegations since congressionally mandated reporting began in 2020.

Tata maintained in the letter that a “clearer definition” of hazing and bullying following the Hegseth-ordered review of definitions would increase the percentage of substantiated complaints. He also cited a new database under development by the Pentagon, thanks to funding provided in 2025 to collect and compile hazing complaints more effectively.

“Historically, these data were collected manually, and some details of the complaints were not reported to the department,” he wrote.

Pentagon officials did not officially have an update on the definitions review, which was initially expected to take 30 days, but was affected by the October government shutdown.

In a statement to Military Times following the Pentagon’s response letter, Chu was cautious.

“I am pleased that the Department of Defense has responded to our letter but remain concerned about its decision to change the definition of hazing and processes to handle hazing, bullying and harassment complaints,” she said. ”I will continue to lead my congressional colleagues in ensuring the dignity and safety of all service members and recruits and that the department accurately fulfills its annual reporting requirements to Congress. No one should have to endure abuse and hazing while honorably serving our country.”

The V-22 Osprey, which the Navy uses for aircraft carrier onboard delivery missions, is overdue for a midlife upgrade, spending far too much on unscheduled maintenance and contending with undertrained maintainers — all of which spell increased risk for a platform that has faced intense scrutiny since its earliest days in the air. The 33-page review recommends the establishment of a readiness and safety steering board to report annually to top officials on the Osprey’s status; initiation of the overdue midlife upgrade; and changes to establish a “proactive safety system” to identify and address mechanical issues before mishaps occur.

“When the V-22 Enterprise does not actively manage risks with the potential for catastrophic outcomes, the risks compound, increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic event that, if left unaddressed, will ultimately occur,” the investigation concluded.

The Navy’s review — and a simultaneously released Government Accountability Office report — follow a November 2023 crash of an Air Force CV-22 Osprey that killed eight troops, ultimately attributed to a gear box failure. In the dozen mishaps since 2022 involving Marine Corps and Air Force personnel, four Ospreys have been destroyed and 20 personnel have been killed.

The review determined that the Osprey is “accumulating safety risk” due to lagging timelines to fix identified problems; failure to follow airworthiness and flight safety procedures; missing airworthiness standards for some risks; and challenges related to differing safety standards and priorities between the three services that fly the Osprey. It also found the Osprey has suffered in readiness due to a failure to implement best practices across the services, persistent “reliability issues” and challenges in managing and delivering aircraft and parts inventory.

While defenders of the V-22 have accurately pointed out that the aircraft, at least in the Marine Corps, has a lower mishap rate than fleet averages, the report highlights other concerning ways that the Osprey is an outlier. The V-22, it found, has the second-highest number of “catastrophic” risks of any naval aviation platform, meaning components at risk of failure with catastrophic outcomes. Parts at risk are also 70% older on the Osprey than on other Navy planes, it found.

“As the first and only military tiltrotor aircraft, it remains the most aero-mechanically complex aircraft in service and continues to face unresolved legacy material, safety, and technical challenges,” the investigation notes.

In maintenance concerns, the Osprey is again at odds with other platforms, requiring 100% more unscheduled maintenance than the Navy average and requiring about 22 maintenance man-hours per flight hour, compared with about 12 for other aircraft.

“Despite numerous initiatives aimed at improving procedural compliance, most efforts to date have not led to significant improvements in safety outcomes,” investigators found. “A critical gap remains in the form of specific, measurable, and enforceable action plans, complete with clear timelines and accountable owners, to address the root causes of non-compliance, improve procedural adherence, or mitigate the effects of non-compliance at the enterprise-level.”

Among recommendations already being implemented are a retrofit of prop-rotor gear boxes to address identified risks; the development of risk mitigation plans; and a midlife upgrade, which is listed as “in-work,” with no estimated completion date. Establishment of new proficiency standards for maintainers is also underway across services. Other recommendations, like the establishment of a readiness and safety steering board, have yet to be started.

Anthony Krockel, a retired Marine Corps colonel who flew the Osprey from 2010 to 2018 and came to its defense earlier this year, saying its record “was not a safety outlier,” told Military Times he saw additional problems contributing to the aircraft’s woes.

While he noted that the aircraft was full of sensors and that issues could arise from crews’ failure to address the equivalent of “check engine lights” on degrading parts, he also said the Osprey had a track record of parts that failed well before their anticipated service lives were up.

“If something was supposed to last, you know, 10,000 hours before it is being replaced, it’s lasting, like, 2,000 hours,” Krockel said. “And so that’s what’s driving these really high unscheduled maintenance rates.”

That, in turn, he said, had a “cascading effect” on maintenance backlogs.

“So now you have to spend time that wasn’t scheduled on the backs of these Marines to fix the plane and, oh, by the way, because these components are breaking more often, you’re depleting the spares inventory much faster than was originally anticipated,” he said. “And so now you don’t have any spares on the shelf because they’re being used systemically, higher than originally budgeted for.”

Krockel said he’d still like to see a thorough review take place of the top 10 “degraders to readiness” involving the V-22, including the parts that most frequently failed.

“Some of them are technically challenging to fix. Some of them are logistics challenges,” he said. “So there’s larger challenges, but if you get those top 10 degraders fixed and get the aircraft to higher mission capable rates, then everybody wins.”

That’s the vision behind the Expeditionary Precision Approach Landing Capability (EPALC) it’s looking to acquire. In a new request for information published Monday, Naval Air Systems Command is asking industry for details about available flight line navigation systems that would allow the Corps to land any of its aircraft, manned or unmanned, in all weather conditions.

According to the solicitation, the navigation system must fit inside an MV-22, CH-53, or C-130 transport and take a four-person team no more than 90 minutes to set up. It has to be able to provide precision approach guidance to aircraft during bad weather that limits visibility to half a mile, and have an operating range of 20 nautical miles. The gear has to be rugged, according to specifications, with “environmentally hardened” features capable of operating in temperatures ranging from -20 to 145 degrees Fahrenheit and at humidity levels of 85%.

The requirements all align with Marine Corps “Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations,” a forward-looking operating concept the Corps has developed over the last decade that emphasizes dispersed operations with self-sufficient small units in the littorals, or coastal regions.

EABO “involves the employment of mobile, low-signature, operationally relevant, and relatively easy to maintain and sustain naval expeditionary forces from a series of austere, temporary locations ashore or inshore within a contested or potentially contested maritime area in order to conduct sea denial, support sea control, or enable fleet sustainment,” according to a description published by the service in 2021.

The idea of operating in contested areas also informs security requirements, which include a friend-or-foe identification system, resistance to jamming or spoofing, and the ability to operate silently and with minimal detectable signature.

The new capability described in the RFI parallels the ship-based Joint Precision Approach and Landing (JPALS) system that has revolutionized aircraft carrier landings by providing GPS-based guidance in to the flight deck, taking much of the guesswork (and terror) out of catching the wire, particularly at night or in low-visibility weather conditions.

That’s no coincidence. JPALS is made by RTX-owned Collins Aerospace, which also has developed the land-based expeditionary Joint Precision Approach Landing System (eJPALS), built for rapid deployment and “full functionality within just 90 minutes,” according to the company.

Collins’ “land-based eJPALS and ship-based JPALS systems complement each other seamlessly, working in conjunction with the JPALS airborne software and providing pilots with familiar instrumentation,” an eJPALS fact sheet states. It adds that the system can come with an optional surveillance feature to support air traffic control.

The Marine Corps has already had an opportunity to test out a version of eJPALS. In 2021, the system was quietly shipped to Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, for a three-week demo involving 50 landings, including the vertical approaches performed by the service’s F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, according to a report from Breaking Defense.

An executive told the outlet at the time that the Marine Corps was “looking at ways of incorporating [eJPALS] into the next budget request.”

The company has also pitched eJPALS to the U.S Air Force.

The new RFI, which will “allow NAVAIR to conduct and identify possible sources in the commercial marketplace capable of providing Expeditionary Precision Approach Landing Capability,” according to the solicitation, represents an early step toward actually investing and fielding the technology. Interested companies have until Jan. 16 to respond with descriptions of tech that matches NAVAIR’s requirements.

That’s according to a Defense Department report published in June and obtained by Military Times. The congressionally mandated report, which tracks the reporting and adjudication of hazing and bullying within the armed forces but does not include reports from boot camp and entry-level training, shows that while overall numbers remain small, the Marine Corps continues to be the greatest source of complaints among the services. It also shows that data collection on accountability actions for those found to have perpetrated hazing behaviors is inconsistent. 

In fiscal 2024, the last year for which data is available, troops submitted 138 complaints of hazing, of which 31, or 22%, were substantiated. That’s up from 121 complaints and 29 substantiations the previous year. They also made 1,058 reports of bullying, of which 227, or 21%, were substantiated. That’s up from 932 bullying reports and 175 substantiations in fiscal 2023.

While hazing reports saw an upswing in 2024 after three years of steady decline, bullying complaints, both total and substantiated, have been steadily increasing since 2020.

Perhaps the most notable data point is the uneven spread of complaints across the services. In 2020, the first year for which reporting is available, the Marine Corps made up 82% of hazing reports. In 2024, its smallest percentage across the four-year spread, the Corps — the smallest DOD service, except for the Space Force — accounted for 47% of reports.

Bullying reports are more evenly spread across the services. In 2024, the Navy had the most bullying complaints with 381, or 36% of the total, followed by the Air Force at 271 and the Marine Corps at 223. Notably, the Army, the largest service by far, has consistently had among the fewest reports of both hazing and bullying.

What happens following reports of hazing and bullying is not as clear. In 2024, disposition of 44 out of 138 hazing complaints was listed as “unknown,” including 30 of the 66 complaints submitted within the Marine Corps. The same was true for 123 bullying complaints. No hazing or bullying complaints were withdrawn by the complainants themselves during the report time frame. And while some data was provided regarding disciplinary actions for substantiated incidents, it was incomplete. In the Marine Corps, for example, half of the perpetrators of substantiated hazing received nonjudicial punishment, and actions regarding the other half were listed as “other.”

As provided in the recent report, the military definitions of hazing and bullying are somewhat broad. Hazing, according to the report, can be conducted in person or electronically, via social media and other means. It can involve physical actions such as striking another person; pressing or piercing an object into someone else’s skin; “branding, handcuffing, duct taping, tattooing, shaving, greasing, or painting another person;” and subjecting a person to forcible consumption of food, water, alcohol, drugs or any other substance. It can also include oral or written scolding and humiliation; “playing abusive or malicious tricks;” or “encouraging another person to engage in illegal, harmful, demeaning, or dangerous acts.”

Bullying, as defined, is even broader, including “degrading or damaging another’s property or reputation” and “intimidating, teasing, or taunting another person” in addition to the activities listed under hazing. 

Yet, as U.S. Rep. Judy Chu emphasizes, the consequences of hazing and even bullying can be deadly. Chu, a Democrat representing California’s 28th Congressional District, authored the legislative language requiring the military’s annual reports to Congress on hazing. The issue became personal to her in April 2011, when her nephew, Marine Lance Cpl. Harry Lew, took his own life in Afghanistan after a night of “merciless” physical and hazing and scolding meant to punish him for falling asleep at his post, according to an investigation into the event.

Following Hegseth’s address to the generals and an accompanying memo calling for a review of current military definitions of hazing and bullying, Chu sent a letter of concern, signed by 27 other congressional Democrats, to his office.

The letter included five detailed questions regarding the intent and potential impact of narrowing the definition of hazing, setting a Nov. 7 deadline for response.

“We strongly urge DOD to retain the existing definitions and take steps to strengthen hazing prevention and reporting policies, rather than roll back these critical protections,” the authors wrote. “All service members and recruits must be treated with dignity and respect. Weakening these protections will only worsen the existing problem of military hazing and endanger more lives.”

In an interview with Military Times, Chu said Hegseth had not responded by the set deadline, though she’d followed up and still hoped for an answer.

Chu cited other high-profile examples of military hazing with deadly results in the last 15 years, including Raheel Siddiqui, a Muslim Marine recruit who jumped off a roof at boot camp in 2016 following treatment by a drill instructor involving being forced into an industrial clothes dryer, and Army Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar, who died in 2017 of asphyxiation after an apparent hazing incident gone wrong at the hands of Marine Raiders and Navy SEALs.

“This does not serve our military,” Chu said. “We want a strong military where people feel that they’re unified in their desire to protect this country, not where they are torturing one another to the point where certain people feel like they have to kill themselves.”

It’s not yet clear how Hegseth’s memo and exhortation will affect the military. 

“Of course, you can’t do, like, nasty bullying and hazing. We’re talking about words like bullying and hazing and toxic. They’ve been weaponized and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs,” Hegseth said during his Quantico speech. “No more. Setting, achieving and maintaining high standards is what you all do. And if that makes me toxic, then so be it.”

He specifically addressed entry-level training too, saying that drill instructors and drill sergeants would once again be able to “put their hands on recruits” and “swear.”

A Sept. 30 memo coinciding with Hegseth’s speech ordered a 30-day review of definitions, saying policy defining hazing, bullying and harassment was “overly broad, jeopardizing combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization.”

“When commanders face undue administrative burdens, it distracts from their core mission,” the memo signed by Hegseth stated. “This review aims to strike a balance, ensuring leaders have the tools necessary to foster a warrior ethos rooted in mutual respect and accountability, while also maintaining a lethal and ready Force.”

The memo was signed just before the 43-day government shutdown, which paused or delayed operations across the federal enterprise.

A Pentagon official told Military Times this week there was nothing yet to announce about the review’s progress or findings.

Every service, that is, except the Marine Corps.

Nearly seven years to the day after the report’s publication, the Corps issued a Marine Corps administrative message mandating physical security survey protocols with stern accountability requirements and designated corrective actions for deficiencies.

What’s not clear, though, is why it took so long for the service to fall in on the GAO’s guidance. On GAO’s webpage for the report, the recommendation for the Marine Corps is still listed as “open” even as those for the Air Force, Army, Department of the Navy and Department of Defense are closed.

“As of August 2022, when we reached out through [the Department of Defense] about the status of this recommendation, no update was provided. We reached out to DoD in June 2023 and again in August 2023 to request an update on the status of this recommendation, but as of November 2023 we have not heard back from DOD,” GAO investigators wrote in a status update to the report’s recommendations.

“We will keep this recommendation open and continue to monitor whether the Marine Corps takes relevant implementation actions. As of March 2025, DOD has not provided information showing that the Marine Corps has taken action to meet the intent of this recommendation.”

A request for comment from the Marine Corps on the timing of its response to the GAO report did not receive an immediate answer.

According to GAO, the Army was the first to update its security regimen, adding a new information system to track inspections timelines in 2019. The Navy added new tracking questions to its explosives safety checklist in 2020, and the Air Force updated its own internal tracking tools in the same timeframe. In 2021, the Pentagon issued a memo with guidance for all the services on how to correct problems found in security inspections.

In GAO’s 2018 report, the Marine Corps fared reasonably well. In site surveys, GAO found between one and seven security deficiencies for Marine Corps armory locations, compared with one to 24 for the Army and one to 16 for the Navy. Marine security guidance also exceeded the DOD standard of six-foot-high fences, and it was the only service to require an eight-hour power backup on intrusion detection services, as prescribed by the Pentagon.

But the report did find that nearly half of Marine Corps security inspections GAO reviewed were conducted late, and two out of six Corps locations surveyed did not follow guidance for inspections and documentation.

“Marine Corps guidance does not clearly state what items must be included in the physical security inspection report,” GAO wrote at the time, adding that an official told them the Corps would clarify these requirements in an update to the Corps’ Physical Security Program manual by June 2019. That manual does not appear to have been updated then, or any time since 2009.

At all six Marine Corps locations reviewed, at least one physical security deficiency was found.

“For these 6 Marine Corps locations, we found no documentation about whether and how the deficiencies were resolved,” GAO wrote. “Instead, we found notes in the inspection documentation about next steps — such as submitting a repair work order — that were taken regarding some but not all of the identified deficiencies.”

The Marine administrative message, published Oct. 30, directs that physical security surveys are to be conducted by trained and certified specialists and reiterated that Physical Security departments must complete and maintain security surveys and other records. It dictates that commanders must provide a corrective action report and plan within 90 days for any physical security deficiencies and that a general officer-level headquarters must be notified if surveys are performed late. Along with annual surveys in accordance with requirements, it directs the Marine Corps to provide a response to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security certifying compliance.

A 2021 Associated Press report found that weapons had gone missing from all the military services between 2010-2019, with the Marine Corps reporting 204 lost or stolen weapons, including firearms and grenade launchers. Of those, 14 were later recovered, AP reported.

As the Marine Corps gets increasingly technology-focused in calibrating for future battles, the service is, for the third year in a row, preparing to dole out substantial enlistment bonuses to recruits willing and able to do battle in the cyber realm.

According to a recent Marine Corps Administrative Message published, bonuses worth up to $15,000 are available for enlistees in the fields of electronic maintenance and cyber and crypto operations.

“The [Enlistment Incentive Program] supports the recruiting effort in acquiring the talent necessary to support the Force Design and [Fleet Marine Force],” the message states. “These various programs ensure qualified applicants are aligned to a program that best fits their desires and talents.”

Within the field of electronic maintenance, 11 military occupational specialties qualify for the $15,000 enlistment bonus, ranging from electro-optical ordnance repairer to tactical air operations/air defense systems. In the cyber and crypto operations field, five military occupational specialties qualify, including electronic intelligence/electronic warfare analyst; cryptologist language analyst; and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance systems engineer.

Still on the table for enlisted recruits are bonuses of $5,000 and $10,000 for shipping out on a schedule designated by the Marine Corps; or $7,000 and $15,000, respectively, for committing to one or two additional years of service.

At least one enlistment bonus category is missing from the list. Last year’s bonus lineup included a $9,000 “targeted investment shipping bonus” applicable to Marines who earned a military occupational specialty in a list of designated career fields including aviation crew, IT and intel, and agreed to begin an obligated service timeline following that award.

The pivot to investing enlistment bonus money in tech fields began in fiscal 2024, in recognition of the service’s growing and future skills needs.

“As we progress towards an “invest and retain” model, it is ever more critical that we channel applicants into the right occupational fields to maximize our return on investment and increase Marines’ propensity to serve beyond their initial contract,” officials said in the most recent bonus message, as well as that of the last two years.

The previous year’s bonuses included a more expansive list of targeted career fields, including an extended-tour infantry option, music career fields and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear jobs.

Among all the military services, the Marine Corps has been the most consistent in recent years at making its enlisted accessions targets, even as the other services have missed their marks. This year, amid a historic recruiting surge, the Corps hit its target of 30,536 enlisted Marines. The job-targeted bonuses underscore the continued challenge of filling roles that require additional skills and proficiency, or face additional competition for talent from higher-paying civilian employers.

But largely the Corps continues to stand its ground in downplaying bonuses and emphasizing instead the culture and prestige of service.

“Your bonus is that you get to call yourself a Marine,” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith, then the Corps’ No. 2, said in 2023. “That’s your bonus. … There’s no dollar amount that goes with that.”

A subset of the general population, veterans are most easily reached en masse through Department of Veterans Affairs rolls. But that leaves approximately half of all veterans out, according to the Pentagon-linked Rand Corporation think tank.

Alongside research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, Rand on Tuesday rolled out the Veterans Insight Panel, a survey cohort intended to allow for high-fidelity and rapid survey research on a veteran population representative of all ages, geographic areas and demographics.

The initial population, built by collecting data from Rand’s American Life survey panel and NORC’s AmeriSpeak cohort, has about 3,000 members, Robert Bozick, a RAND senior demographer and director of RAND Survey Panels, told Military Times. He expects that to grow as the organizations continue to recruit.

“It is a moving target,” he said. “We wanted to make sure that we could at least field a survey and get about 1,000 responses before we launched, because that’s typically the size of surveys that our researchers and external researchers need.”

The effort to launch a new survey panel followed “an increasing need for more sophisticated, more nuanced data on veterans than what is typically being collected,” Bozick said.

National organizations collecting data on Americans, from the U.S. Census to the Centers for Disease Control, typically include a question asking survey respondents to identify their status, he said, but data collected on veterans using these methods is incidental and limited in depth.

“You can compare veterans who have asthma to the general population, but you can’t dig down deeper and beyond that, because the purpose is not to survey veterans; it’s to survey the general population,” Bozick said. “So, for example, the next logical question [would be], ‘Were you in combat? Were you in a combat zone where there may have been a burn pit?’ Things like that. You can’t get those from national data sources.”

An upcoming project for 2026 that’s sponsored by the Pittsburgh-based Heinz Endowments, for example, will focus on veteran underemployment and employment trajectories, Bozick said.

While veteran employment data is included in monthly U.S. Department of Labor reports, veteran underemployment — meaning employment that doesn’t fully utilize and recognize a veteran’s skills and experience — has been much harder to quantify.

In the last two years, the National Veterans’ Training Institute has reported that one-third of veteran job seekers are underemployed; the Journal of Veterans Studies has found 10% of post-9/11 veterans report underemployment; and the Raymond A. Mason School of Business has cited veteran underemployment as high as 60%.

“This is something our researchers are struggling with. When they try to go collect data, they get small samples,” Bozick said. “You either get a pool with a lot of Vietnam vets, not a lot of younger veterans or vice versa. All of those samples have challenges, given the diversity of the military experience.”

Notably, the Veterans Insight Panel is not exclusively for academic research. Groups and organizations will be able to pay to survey the cohort on topics of interest at a rate on the order of $2,000 per question, Bozick said.

The intent, he said, is to make the panel available to entities seeking to advance the wellbeing of veterans.

“We’re really trying to keep it in that sort of community framework, as opposed to an academic data set where PhD scientists are analyzing data and publishing in journals,” he said. “Not that we frown upon that, but that’s secondary to what we’re trying to do here.”

Also planned for early 2026, he said, is an omnibus survey containing questions from a variety of sources on issues relevant to the veteran community.

This is Lumena Mindgym, a flashy new curriculum-based therapeutic tool that’s taking the Air Force by storm. More than two dozens Mindgyms have been installed at base fitness centers and support facilities for about $100,000 apiece; Mindgym just marked its first installations outside the continental United States, in Kuwait and Turkey, earlier this year.

As the number of Mindgym advocates across the Air Force grows, other services are also entering talks to purchase the technology. It’s a lot of flash and glitz to deliver relaxation to stressed-out service members. But the number of passionate advocates for Mindgym in the military is growing, and some argue the attention it’s getting from troops who might otherwise avoid meditation and de-stressing techniques might make it worth every penny.

The technology itself was created by an entrepreneur with a finance background, rather than a scientist; company executives make clear they are not the clinical experts.

“We don’t have anybody in-house that’s a neuroscientist or Ph.D.,” Brandon Murphy, head of growth for Lumena, told Military Times in an interview, adding that they did maintain an advisory board of doctors and researchers.

Nor was Mindgym designed with the military specifically in mind. Founders were shopping the technology at a Colorado-based sporting tradeshow in 2019, Murphy said, when they encountered Adam Strang, Biotechnology Product Line Lead at the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Strang was intrigued by the tech and connected the team with veteran Air Force pilot and human performance expert Jannell MacAulay, who’d become a vocal advocate for Mindgym and help develop the curriculum to be used by airmen.

“It’s like a flight simulator for your mind,” MacAulay posted on Facebook in April during a visit to one of the Air Force’s facilities.

By 2022, a seed fund grant had enabled the installation of the first Mindgym at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, complete with a clinically validated curriculum and wearable components that measured brain activity and heart rate.

The first users were explosive ordnance disposal technicians from Hill’s 775th Civil Engineering Squadron. And that initial group of 55 airmen gave Mindgym its best evidence for effectiveness.

Over 219 20-minute training sessions, according to Lumena Labs, the group self-reported an average 30% improvement in mood. The biodata receptors documented a 16.2% reduction in stress indicators, while 61% of users said their stress management capabilities improved. Sleep quality also improved for 15% of users.

“Many in the group reported stronger focus during the Weighted Airmen Performance Systems (WAPS) testing — the program that determines promotions for Staff Sergeant (E-5) and Technical Sergeant (E-6),” Lumena stated in study analysis. “They also cited decreased incidents of road rage and across-the-board improvements in their marital relations, gym workouts, and even their golf scores.”

While follow-up studies have not been conducted, the feedback appears to demonstrate how even a small amount of therapeutic attention to the brain and the mental resilience of service members under stress can make a significant difference.

Strang, at the Air Force Research Lab, told Military Times in an interview that Mindgym compared favorably to the sensory deprivation float tanks popular for promoting relaxation and stress reduction.

“Float tanks are messy and maintenance is challenging,” Strang said, adding that it was never clear to him if the atmosphere of the tank or the opportunity to take a nap in it made the most difference to his mental state.

“I hopped into Mindgym, and it didn’t feel like a waterless float tank to me at all,” he said. “It felt like a psychedelic experience.”

AFRL has plans to study the efficacy of Mindgym in comparison with other mindfulness and relaxation technologies, though those are predicated on future funding awards.

Strang emphasized that Mindgym is not a panacea for mental health or resilience but said boosting cognition and reducing stress, particularly in a “next frontier” warfare environment where troops are joining a real fight from their desks as drone pilots or Space Force satellite operators, was worth the dedicated investment.

“They’re $100,000 cubes, I think, the last time I checked,” Strang said. “Let’s say they facilitate relaxation and recovery across 100 people by 10%; what’s the operational impact of that? I don’t know. But what happens if one person who is flying an F-35 sits in that cockpit and, because of these interventions, prevents a mishap of a $60 million aircraft? Would that be worth it? Probably.”

As the Air Force continues to install Mindgyms, the company has recently had more conversations with Navy officials, even demonstrating the Mindgym at the Sea Air Space naval trade show earlier this year. Murphy said he saw value for the technology particularly in the submarine community, where stress and operational tempo were high.

There are now 32 different sessions a service member can select in Mindgym; a grant last year enabled the recent development and deployment of a stroboscopic light therapy protocol that is supposed to promote higher theta brain wave state, enabling reduced stress in high-intensity situations.

“I’d honestly love to have [a Mindgym] on every military base on the globe,” Murphy said, “so that there’s not a service member that doesn’t have access to something like this.”

Using open-source analysis and commentary, a team of volunteers led by a retired lieutenant colonel got to work answering this question.

Two documents emerged out of this informal Marine effort.

One was a detailed 126-page handbook that described a series of scenarios and explained how existing Marine doctrine would apply to such a fight.

The handbook covered everything from how a company leader should write an order — one page, handwritten, no imagery — to drone use, and how each drone would support one unit, with leaders tasking drones in the company order.

It also candidly acknowledged gaps in official Marine Corps guidance on how to hide from enemy drones, how to use anti-tank missiles alongside drones to hunt and destroy the enemy and how to move under artillery fire.

The second document was a brief summary of 10 “lessons for leaders” about fighting on a battlefield like Ukraine.

That five-pager specified what Marine ground forces would need to win in these conditions: drones in every unit and echelon, anti-drone electronic warfare jammers, and, counter to the Corps’ recent decisions on the future shape of the force, a reliance on tanks.

“The tank is not dead, as many have predicted,” the authors wrote, citing Ukraine’s employment of armored vehicles and its desire for more to stand off Russia’s mechanized units.

These documents were combined and published in June on 2ndBn5thMar.com, a website that takes its name from a Camp Pendleton, California, infantry unit, but is unaffiliated with the Corps.

It’s run by Brendan McBreen, who retired as a lieutenant colonel in 2011 and is now a faculty member at Marine Corps Intelligence Schools in Dam Neck, Va.

The site dates to 1998, when McBreen, then attached to 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, was tasked with distributing standard operating procedures being developed to fight and train. When a sergeant suggested posting the document to the “World Wide Web,” McBreen took it upon himself to create a place to host it.

“I didn’t do anything for a couple of years,” McBreen said. “And my wife said, ‘Hey, we’re still paying $9.95 a month to this web hosting company. And so I got on – you know, once every six months, I would look and see how it’s doing. And there were thousands of downloads.”

For those concerned about operational security, McBreen said all material discussed on his site is based on open-source information and doesn’t cover anything classified.

As McBreen’s career progressed, the site traveled with him. From time to time, fellow infantry Marine officers would reach out to share their own best practices for specific tasks, such as 81mm mortar employment.

While official Marine Corps doctrine provided general guidance, McBreen said he noticed a lack of unit-level practices and procedures, creating space for this crowd-sourced infantry network to fill in the gaps.

“Some of it was good,” McBreen said of the informal input he received. “Some of it was average, but all of it was shareable.”

The emergence of drones as a battlefield factor in recent years has created new demand for guidance on how to integrate the technology into the fight and defend against it. In 2020, Marine Capt. Walker Mills co-authored a paper on how units could camouflage themselves to evade aerial surveillance and published it on McBreen’s website.

Now a drone officer, Mills contributed to portions of the new Ukraine documents dealing with drone warfare that were published on 2ndBn5thMar.com.

“The doctrine always lags somewhat,” Mills told Marine Corps Times. “Our standard infantry company and platoon publications are several years old, maybe even a decade old. So, they don’t talk a ton about small tactical [drones].”

McBreen said he’s occasionally noticed spikes in the site’s popularity over the years, notably around 2005 when he published “Night Warrior,” a training guide for nighttime combat. Most of the time, he said, he can’t tell what’s driving a new surge in traffic.

“The tracking stuff would show jiggle, jiggle, jiggle, jiggle, and then a big spike,” he said, “And you could also tell, although I never knew the origin, that some instructor said at some school, ‘Hey, students, you ought to look at this document.’”

Maj. Zachary Schwartz, who recently served as the operations officer for 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines out of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, and is now enrolled in Marine Corps Command and Staff college, said he’s used the site for guidance as an infantry leader at various levels.

While a 1st lieutenant serving as a team leader, Schwartz recalled benefitting from an article about condensing traditional Marine Corps five-paragraph orders into concise verbal instructions.

He’s also employed the practical guidance within the camouflage manual to teach signature management and deception: simple things like habitually using leaves and brush to hide the shape of a helmet. Schwartz was also a contributor to the recently published Ukraine document.

It’s hard to know the exact reach of McBreen’s website, which has typically been shared via word of mouth.

“I would say the infantry community embraces what Brendan McBreen has done,” Schwartz said. “The real pros in our community all know this website. They all know the resources on it, and they all pass it around.”

Though the documents contain candid analysis that sometimes challenges conventional Marine Corps perspectives — such as calling for tanks even as the Corps has divested itself of them to fight lighter — the site’s supporters feel that such informal discussions are what leaders want of their Marines.

“I feel like you hear a lot of leaders say, hey, professional discussion is part of being in the Marine Corps,” Mills said. “You know, leave things better than you found them.”

When McBreen published the Ukraine handbook in June, he got an immediate indicator that the document was popular when a notice from the website hosting service warned that downloads had exceeded the site’s capacity and 2ndBn5thMar.com was in danger of crashing.

“OK,” McBreen recalled saying. “I’ll give you four more dollars a month, or whatever you need.”