Following revelations from families about some U.S. service members aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln struggling with mental health after 250 days without a port visit, sailors, retirees and lawmakers told Military Times that troops were absorbing consequences of longtime flaws within the sea service that have been worsened by the current conflict.

The Navy has struggled for years to meet high operational tempo demands, they said. Deployments are regularly extended, scheduled maintenance is missed and the shipbuilding pace remains glacial, leading to delays in delivery and an undersized fleet.

The issues have spanned multiple presidential administrations but have been compounded by the handling of the Iran war and ensuing military operations, sources said, leading to dire circumstances for some sailors.

Leaders have disputed the descriptions of deteriorating conditions aboard the Lincoln and denied reporting about quality-of-life concerns.

Asked recently by reporters about families’ concerns over the length of the deployment, President Donald Trump dismissed the question, saying that it’s “not nearly long enough.”

Asked about those same concerns, Adm. Daryl Caudle, the service’s chief of naval operations, told Military Times, “Sailors first is not a slogan — it’s a warfighting imperative.”

“The sustained pace of operations in the Middle East has only reinforced that taking care of our sailors and maintaining combat readiness are inseparable,” Caudle said.

‘We need more ships’

Following outcry about conditions aboard the Lincoln, the Navy moved the Nimitz-class carrier USS George Washington from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, where it arrived Wednesday. The ship is reportedly replacing the Lincoln, which will now steam toward its homeport of San Diego.

The move temporarily leaves the western Pacific without a U.S. aircraft carrier, the presence of which is a key part of the U.S. military’s effort to deter China in the South China Sea and reassure regional allies.

Operational tempo concerns, meanwhile, are nothing new for the service, according to retired Vice Adm. Fozzie Miller, who served as commander of U.S. Fifth Fleet and U.S. Central Command from 2012 to 2015.

Miller joined the Navy in 1979. From his early days in uniform, the service’s goal, he said, was to operate at a level that was neither too harsh for the individual sailor nor too unbearable for the equipment vital to mission success. An adequate number of warships was integral to maintaining that balance.

“We could use more carriers or less [operational] tempo,” Miller said. “It’s one or the other, but we’re a global Navy with global responsibilities, and so if we’re going to fulfill those, we need more ships.”

Rear Adm. Thomas Moore, who led the Navy’s acquisition program and went on to become commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, told Congress in 2013 that the service is “an 11-carrier Navy in a 15-carrier world.”

The demand is unlikely to dwindle, he said.

Thirteen years since Moore’s statement, the Navy is still at 11 carriers. With the USS Nimitz scheduled to retire at the end of next year, that number may soon be 10.

The USS Harry S. Truman and USS Gerald R. Ford are currently sidelined for maintenance after deployments, the latter of which notched a post-Vietnam record 326 days at sea in May after it was extended to support operations in the Middle East. The Nimitz-class USS John C. Stennis is undergoing a years-long overhaul.

The USS Ronald Reagan, also a Nimitz-class, is expected to be deployable by the end of August after a 17-month repair period. The Nimitz-class USS George H.W. Bush is in the Middle East.

“We just don’t have enough aircraft carriers right now in this rotation to sustain all the things we want to do, and I think this is a long-standing problem,” said Steven Wills, a Navy surface warfare officer who retired after 20 years.

In 2014, the Navy began implementing the Optimized Fleet Response Plan, or OFRP, deployment model, which places maintenance, training, evaluations and a single eight-month deployment within a 36-month cycle.

The service says the framework is intended to produce a more comprehensively manned and trained force while providing predictability to deployment schedules for sailors and their families.

In 2016, however, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that heavy operational demands led the Navy to increase ship deployment lengths and reduce or defer ship maintenance.

Those decisions made deployments less predictable, ate into training time, contributed to declining ship conditions and increased the time ships required for much-needed maintenance.

From fiscal 2014 through 2019, Navy ships spent more than 33,700 additional days in maintenance beyond intended scheduling, leading to fewer vessels available for training or operations.

An upended supply network

While the Navy has long struggled with carrier availability, current U.S. leadership has created more operational tempo issues through poor planning and insufficient wartime support, according to lawmakers and a sailor who deployed in support of the Iran war.

“Logistics was a complete failure the entire time out there — food, supplies, parts,” said the sailor, who served aboard an Independence-class littoral combat ship and was granted anonymity due to fear of reprisal.

Iranian attacks damaged the Navy’s longstanding logistics hub in Bahrain in February, disrupting the regional supply network supporting ships operating in the Middle East.

The Navy shifted the new logistics hub to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that sits more than 2,000 miles away from the service’s carrier strike groups in the Middle East.

Diego Garcia’s distance proved to be problematic, the sailor said, with the hub requiring the LCS to place a food order 30 days in advance.

Those orders were nearly impossible, however, with an influx schedule exacerbated by poor planning, the sailor added. Sailors were unable to resupply from the hub, instead grabbing whatever could be salvaged from replenishment-at-sea oilers.

“There’s no excuse for why, if we’re at war, we can’t get an expedited food order,” the sailor said.

Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., told Military Times that the logistical issues described by the sailor were due to preparation failures.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of people who’ve been deployed, and you know, the basic problem seems to be that if they were going to use Bahrain as a hub to restock, to get food and to provide rest and all that,” Levin said. “If that was the idea, well, clearly that didn’t work out. After February, March — [the administration] should have thought of that.”

‘People can break, too’

At least two sailors attempted to jump overboard from the USS Abraham Lincoln, families of Lincoln sailors previously told Military Times.

While the individual mental circumstances of the incidents remain unknown, the frantic operational tempo of combat operations inevitably takes a natural toll on service members, according to one sailor who has deployed to the Middle East aboard an aircraft carrier during the current conflict.

“Just like machines, people can break, too,” said the service member, who was granted anonymity for fear of reprisal from leadership. “They need rest.”

Time to rest was not always available. Losing sleep was sometimes part of ensuring safety.

If equipment broke, sailors would, at times, work well beyond normal shifts until it was fixed. In some instances, completion of the task could mean the difference between life and death.

In a 2021 review, the GAO found that just 14% of Navy officers surveyed slept at least seven hours per night during a recent deployment, while 67% reported five hours or less. GAO also found that the Navy routinely assigned fewer sailors to ships than workload studies indicated were needed to safely operate them.

By 2023, surface-fleet sailors were averaging 5.25 hours of sleep every 24 hours, below the Navy’s standard of providing at least 7.5 hours of sleep opportunity. GAO identified crew shortfalls and mattress problems as challenges to managing fatigue.

For its part, the Navy has implemented measures to try to address the issue, including initiating a study involving about 1,600 sailors wearing Oura rings to monitor sleep and other biometric indicators while underway.

But lack of sleep, according to personnel, has been just one detriment experienced during the conflict with Iran. Service members have also faced food shortages onboard the carrier, the sailor said, with quality that fluctuated between bad and horrible.

“It was either undercooked, overcooked or unrecognizable at all,” the sailor said.

As extensions piled on, a decline in morale took on a recognizable tone at the phone center or in conversations at the galleys. Humor darkened even more than usual, and port visits meant less and less.

“These things have been happening on deployments for always,” said Parker Moore, a nuclear reactor operator who served aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln before its recent deployment. “It is bad, but it is always bad.”

During Moore’s time on Lincoln, the stigma surrounding mental health remained prevalent. There were mental health professionals aboard the ship, but if a sailor sought help, the service member could be taken off their job.

“They’re terrified to disappoint the people around them,” Moore said. “If I don’t do my job, there’s only 30 people who can do it, right? So now there’s only 29 people.”

Following the report on mental health issues aboard Lincoln, the Navy said it had not observed an increase in suicidal ideation or suicide attempts. The service did note, however, that additional counselors and resources were being sent to the crew.

Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, visited Lincoln on Saturday and issued a statement claiming that the ship had the lowest number of mental health cases among the Navy’s 11 active aircraft carriers.

Lack of transparency

The Pentagon under the Trump administration has become increasingly tight-lipped over the information it provides to Congress.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth released a memo in October 2025 informing Defense Department personnel, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that authorization was required for any communication to leaders on Capitol Hill.

Hegseth also dodged several questions from lawmakers during a July Senate hearing on the Iran War.

When Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., asked the Pentagon leader whether previous statements about Iran’s military being “destroyed” and “made combat ineffective” were true, Hegseth declined to answer.

Hegseth has also not held a Pentagon press briefing about the Iran war for more than 100 days, with the last coming on May 5.

To alleviate concerns over short-term problems with current military operations like those aboard the Lincoln, Congress must be able to carry out oversight, lawmakers said.

Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., told Military Times that the Pentagon should be sharing information that would allow political leaders to assess whether the president and defense secretary were deploying assets in the most mission-effective way.

Invoking the War Powers Resolution would allow lawmakers to hold the current administration accountable, some Democrats have argued.

The resolution requires the executive branch to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying military forces and allows lawmakers to enforce the removal of military forces within 60 to 90 days unless Congress has declared war or authorized military force.

Levin supports that approach, he said, and asked that his Republican colleagues stand up and ask tough questions.

Republican members of the House and Senate armed services committees did not respond to Military Times’ requests for comment.

“I think back to George W. Bush,” Levin said. “I disagreed wholeheartedly with Iraq, but you think about the steps that he took. You think about … Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, others — their consistent engagement.”

For the LCS sailor, planning deficiencies are already rearing their head.

Though the ship did assist with the Navy’s blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, turning away more than a dozen vessels, it will now be sidelined longer than scheduled because of deferred repairs.

It is one example, the sailor said, of there being no long-term plan for ship rotations.

“‘We’re gonna keep you out here,” the sailor said of the impression made on them, “until your ship can’t operate or function anymore.’”

The answer is more complicated than whether the Food and Drug Administration has approved it.

Inside the Department of Veterans Affairs, a treatment can pass one scientific hurdle and still face others before it becomes routine care.

VA says the process can involve research, clinical guidelines, medication reviews, patient-safety systems, ethics reviews and practical questions about whether the health system has the staff, space and equipment to deliver it.

“VA moves new treatments into practice through a step-by-step process,” Dr. Ilse Wiechers, a VA mental health official, told Military Times. “Only after a treatment is shown to be safe and effective does VA roll it out more broadly.”

It starts with evidence, but evidence is only the beginning.

A new treatment may start with research, move through increasingly larger clinical trials and, for drugs and certain medical devices, undergo FDA review. VA must then consider how the evidence applies to the veterans it serves and how a treatment fits into the health system.

The 2023 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD uses the GRADE methodology to evaluate the quality and strength of evidence and weigh the benefits and harms of treatment options. The guideline also considers patient perspectives and feasibility when developing recommendations.

The 2023 PTSD guideline applied GRADE more rigorously than the 2017 version, according to the guideline. That resulted in some recommendations being downgraded as the evidence was reevaluated.

Recommendations can change as research develops, and veteran-specific evidence can matter, too.

Wiechers said evidence involving veterans can be an important consideration when VA evaluates whether a treatment should become available, even when research in other populations is promising.

For PTSD, however, the 2023 VA/DoD guideline says a lack of data on veterans or service members alone did not alter its recommendations. That helps explain why FDA approval and VA availability are not necessarily the same thing.

How a treatment moves into VA care

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, or rTMS, offers a concrete example of how the VA adopts a new treatment.

The FDA approved rTMS for depression in 2008. According to VA, the department then conducted a large study involving veterans, tested the treatment in a pilot program at 35 VA sites and expanded access after the pilot.

VA says more than 60 of its facilities now offer rTMS, with some operating specialized clinics that combine it with other advanced depression treatments. Dr. Wiechers added that the success of the program’s original 35 clinics, as listed on the VA’s website, resulted in the program expanding to over 60 facilities.

The sequence illustrates the difference between FDA approval and VA implementation. VA says it studied rTMS in its own patient population, tested its delivery across multiple facilities, and then expanded access.

There is no single office that makes the decision.

Dr. Wiechers described a team-based process in which draft policies are shared with offices responsible for delivering or overseeing a treatment. That allows potential risks, downsides and ethical concerns to be identified before policies are finalized.

Among the offices involved, Dr. Wiechers identified the Office of Mental Health and its programs, including the National Center for PTSD; the Office of Suicide Prevention; Pharmacy Services; the National Center for Ethics in Health Care; Nursing Services; and Care Management & Social Work Services.

The considerations extend beyond whether a treatment works.

Wiechers said VA also considers whether it has enough trained clinicians, specialized equipment and space to deliver a treatment, as well as whether adding it could take resources away from other care.

For medications, another layer comes into play.

VA’s National Formulary establishes the department’s national preferred list of medications. Some medications also have Criteria for Use documents that establish evidence-based conditions or restrictions for prescribing.

VA says medication reviews can be prompted by new FDA approvals or research that could affect evidence-based prescribing, clinical practice or health outcomes for veterans.

The formulary process includes VA physicians, Pharmacy Benefits Management officials and Veterans Integrated Service Network pharmacist executives. Formulary documents are reviewed, and feedback is solicited from health care teams.

An FDA-approved medication, therefore, can be available in civilian medicine while having different prescribing conditions inside VA.

That distinction can be particularly important for treatments that carry significant risks or require specialized monitoring.

Emerging treatments test the boundaries

Emerging mental health treatments illustrate the difference between scientific promise and routine clinical care.

The VA/DoD PTSD guideline, for example, recommends against benzodiazepines for PTSD, citing a lack of evidence of benefit and known harms, such as drug dependence and addiction.

It also recommends against cannabis and cannabis-derived products for PTSD, citing a lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials and potentially serious side effects.

Veterans are questioning why their legal cannabis license can’t be considered by the VA.

“I have a medical cannabis license, and I have to pay for my medication out of pocket, but almost any other medication is covered by the VA,” explained George Canfield, a retired Army veteran.

“Why can’t VA offer some kind of subsidy to offset the cost of this naturally derived treatment? I don’t expect a VA-run dispensary, but I would like it to be more affordable since it’s what helps me more than any other medication I’ve tried,” he said. “And I’ve tried them all!”

Ketamine presents a different example. The VA/DoD guideline retained a weak recommendation against ketamine for PTSD, citing limitations in the evidence and a lack of demonstrated effectiveness for the condition.

Psychedelic-assisted therapies remain an area of active research, meaning promising findings do not by themselves establish a treatment as routine VA care.

VA has recently expanded its research into psychedelic therapies and is recruiting veteran participants for clinical trials in select regions.

For veterans, those distinctions can affect whether a treatment encountered outside VA is available or subject to different conditions within the federal health system.

What happens after a treatment works?

The process continues after a treatment enters clinical practice.

VA says it monitors treatments through individual reports of adverse events or other problems, ongoing quality monitoring and formal research.

If a patient experiences a bad reaction or other adverse outcome, local staff can report and investigate it. Dedicated safety programs can identify patterns that may warrant broader review or changes in guidance.

VA also evaluates how treatments perform in actual clinical practice, particularly when a new treatment is introduced or when policies governing its use change.

Once a treatment becomes standard care, researchers generally cannot create the same untreated comparison group used in many clinical trials.

Dr. Wiechers said the most rigorous safety and effectiveness checks tend to occur early, while a treatment is still being rolled out.

The process does not end there. VA and the Department of Defense periodically revisit clinical practice guidelines as evidence changes. The current 2023 VA/DoD PTSD guideline contains 34 evidence-based recommendations and is intended to assist, rather than replace, clinical judgment. The guideline is a tool for clinicians and does not define required care.

What veterans see at the end of the process

For a veteran sitting across from a VA clinician, much of this process is invisible.

The veteran sees a treatment that is available, restricted, unavailable or offered only through a clinical trial.

Behind that decision may be years of research, clinical practice guidelines, formulary reviews, safety monitoring and assessments of whether VA can deliver the treatment.

Dr. Wiechers said there are several reasons why a treatment may not be available to veterans.

“VA only offers treatments that have solid research behind them showing they help,” she said. When a treatment is not available, she said, it may be because “the evidence isn’t strong enough yet, or it hasn’t been proven to work well specifically for Veterans.”

There is no single moment when someone decides a treatment “works.”

Instead, VA describes a sequence of decisions involving evidence, safety, effectiveness for veterans, clinical guidance, feasibility and resources. Once a treatment reaches the clinic, monitoring and research continue.

The system is designed to answer a question bigger than whether a treatment works:

Is there enough evidence that it works for veterans, can VA deliver it safely and effectively, and should it become part of routine care?

The Connecticut Democrat, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter on Wednesday to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao seeking information about the carrier’s long deployment and reports of problems involving basic supplies, water, plumbing, mental health, deck safety and mail.

The letter comes one day after a Military Times report that detailed concerns of family members who said multiple sailors aboard the Lincoln had attempted to go overboard during the deployment, which has been indefinitely extended as the carrier supports U.S. military operations in the Middle East against Iran.

The report also outlined various concerns raised by sailors and their families about conditions aboard the ship and the strain of the prolonged deployment.

The Lincoln departed Naval Base San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025, for a deployment expected to last seven months, according to Blumenthal’s letter. The carrier is now sailing towards its ninth month of deployment and, according to the senator, has gone more than 200 days without a port call.

Blumenthal asked the Navy to provide the dates of each extension to the Lincoln’s deployment, identify who authorized the extensions and explain the operational requirements behind each decision.

He also asked for a list of significant quality-of-life problems identified aboard the carrier, including mold, broken toilets or laundry facilities, inadequate water supplies and shortages of hygiene products.

Blumenthal requested information on when those problems were first identified and what corrective actions were taken.

The senator also asked what measures the Navy is taking to assess fatigue, morale, mental health and crew readiness aboard the Lincoln. Additionally, the letter asks whether commanders have identified increases in safety incidents, medical issues, disciplinary incidents or other readiness indicators associated with the extended deployment or the number of consecutive days at sea.

The Navy, meanwhile, has not provided a precise number of sailors who have attempted to go overboard or engaged in self-harm during the current deployment.

The service did not respond to inquiries by Military Times, but in a statement provided to Task & Purpose, denied the report.

“Based on information available to the command, we have not identified an increase in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts aboard the ship,” officials told Task & Purpose.

The Navy also told T&P it recognizes that extended deployments place significant strain on service members and their families, and that the Lincoln has medical professionals, counselors, chaplains, fleet and family support services available to sailors.

Navy officials also said current reports from the ship confirm continuous access to clean water and functional air conditioning. The service also acknowledged disruptions to mail and changes to resupply and replenishment during the deployment.

In his letter, Blumenthal asked the Navy to explain how it plans to maintain a carrier presence in the Middle East over the next 12 to 24 months if current operational requirements continue, including how anticipated carrier rotations could affect planned deployments, maintenance periods and carrier presence in the Indo-Pacific and other theaters.

The senator inquired as to whether the Navy believes current demand for carrier presence exceeds what can be sustainably generated under its existing force structure and deployment model.

Concerns surrounding the Lincoln come on the heels of the USS Gerald R. Ford returning to Norfolk, Virginia, on May 16 after a 326-day deployment, a record for the longest post-Vietnam deployment.

Communication has been difficult to come by, and he is now on medical hold.

Loma, who lives in San Diego, said her husband had been repeatedly overextended before he tried to jump from the carrier.

“He’s scared,” Loma said. “He thinks he’ll get a dishonorable discharge, and just because he was burnt out, his 13-year career is ruined, just like that. That’s not fair, that’s not right. That’s not what he should be worrying about right now.”

Loma said she initially received a call from the ship’s ombudsman after the incident but has not heard from anyone with the Navy in recent weeks.

Lincoln’s roughly 5,000 sailors and Marines remain on a deployment that began Nov. 21. The carrier has been deployed for more than eight months while supporting U.S. military operations in the Middle East against Iran.

The deployment, which was anticipated to end in May, has been extended with no publicly announced return date.

In a separate incident aboard Lincoln, a sailor on watch saw a shipmate preparing to go overboard, and he intervened, according to the sailor’s wife, Maria Rodriguez.

Rodriguez said her husband called out to the sailor before reaching the individual and grabbing their arms, pulling them onto the deck. Her husband told her the sailor had not yet gone over the side when he got there. Three other sailors heard the commotion and came running to help.

Rodriguez’s husband told her about the incident several days after it happened.

“He said he hadn’t felt adrenaline like that in his life, and he was just so thankful he was able to get to [the sailor] in time, to stop them from going overboard,” Rodriguez said.

She did not know what happened to the sailor afterward.

Separately, Stars and Stripes reported Tuesday that sailors described an incident in which watchstanders stopped a crew member from jumping overboard. Stripes reported that the crew was informed about the incident through a shipwide announcement.

More than 200 family members attended a meeting in San Diego last week with acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao. During a separate virtual meeting later that evening, families raised concerns about sailors’ mental health, exhaustion and safety, according to recordings of the meeting reviewed by MS NOW.

Vice Adm. Joseph Cahill, commander of Naval Surface Forces, acknowledged the strain on sailors and their families during the virtual meeting.

“We hear you loud and clear [regarding] the impact this has on families, on service members and the long-term ability of us to stand, sustain our forces’ health,” Cahill said, according to MS NOW.

Cahill described deployment-resilience counselors and chaplains aboard warships, along with Human Factors Councils designed to review factors affecting sailors’ well-being and identify related risks.

The Navy has said Lincoln’s leadership is continuously assessing sailors’ psychological readiness and that the carrier has access to counselors, chaplains, medical professionals and other support services.

The Navy did not provide a precise number of sailors who have attempted to go overboard or engaged in self-harm aboard Lincoln during the current deployment.

Shelby Sanders, whose mother is serving aboard Lincoln, said connecting has been difficult over the past eight months. When her mother does manage to send a note, Sanders said, she can tell she’s struggling.

“When she can email me, she’s definitely down,” Sanders said. “I think they’ve had five weeks of non-stop combat operations or something like that, so that makes it really tough to communicate consistently or even know if we’ll be able to. It sucks.”

Sanders is preparing to begin her senior year of high school without knowing whether her mother will be home for the milestones that normally mark the year.

“I don’t know how to enjoy starting my senior year when my mom isn’t here, you know?” Sanders said. “Will she be back before homecoming? My birthday? Christmas? I have no idea, and that’s all that I think about.”

Manuel Guevara, whose son is serving aboard Lincoln, said he sounded exhausted, down and worried the last time they spoke.

“Us being out there keeps wars out of our country, but it sucks having your family away. It makes the homecoming that much sweeter, but the uncertainty of when that day will come starts to eat away at you,” Guevara said.

The Navy father said it is difficult to stay focused when he hears about problems aboard the ship and knows his son is worried about day-to-day circumstances, such as eating, doing laundry and having adequate living conditions.

“I don’t want to worry that the circumstances of this deployment will get the best of my son, and he doesn’t make it back home,” Guevara said. “That’s an unbearable burden on my heart.”

The Navy is preparing the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group to relieve Lincoln, Cao told families at the San Diego meeting. Officials have not provided a timeline, however, citing operational security.

Meanwhile, Loma is caring for the couple’s three children, and her husband remains in medical hold.

“I’m trying to keep a happy face for our three kids,” she said. “They’re little, they miss their daddy, they just want to know mommy and daddy are okay. So I can’t just worry and break down, even though I want to — every single day.”

Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command, directed the activation Tuesday, describing Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, or JTF-WHEM, as a purpose-built joint task force that will provide unified command and control at the tactical and operational levels, while integrating military capabilities with the 18 partner nations of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, or A3C.

SOUTHCOM Media Relations Officer Steven McLoud told Military Times the activation of JTF-WHEM “represents an evolution from Operation Southern Spear,” reinforcing the command’s whole-of-government, multinational approach to defending the homeland while building on the successes of Operation Southern Spear.

McLoud said JTF-WHEM serves as SOUTHCOM’s “action arm,” focused on what he described as imposing “total systemic friction” against threats across the hemisphere.

He said the task force builds on Operation Southern Spear, which employed “precise kinetic strikes and maritime interdiction operations” to disrupt illicit trafficking and undermine entrenched criminal networks, by advancing efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat narcoterrorism networks.

According to McLoud, JTF-WHEM coordinates U.S. military actions targeting cartels and narcoterrorist networks while leveraging the commitment of Americas Counter Cartel Coalition member nations through expanded bilateral and multilateral cooperation in border security, countering threats and protecting critical infrastructure. He said enhanced cooperation and information sharing support the president’s national security strategy, the defense secretary’s national defense strategy and SOUTHCOM’s theater priorities.

According to SOUTHCOM, JTF-WHEM will serve as the command’s operational headquarters for executing missions across the region.

The command said the headquarters integrates intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, operational planning and multinational coordination while supporting intelligence sharing, combined training, interoperability, partner-capacity building and humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

SOUTHCOM said the task force is intended to increase operational effectiveness against transnational criminal organizations and other threats affecting the United States and partner nations.

“JTF-WHEM strengthens our ability to work alongside trusted allies and partners, synchronize military capabilities and apply sustained pressure against the networks that threaten our collective security,” Donovan said in a statement. “Together, we are increasing security across the hemisphere and protecting our homeland.”

Donovan also said, “Together with the 18 nations of A3C, we are changing the way we confront these threats.”

Gen. Donovan selected Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Kevin Jarrard to command the new task force. Jarrard most recently led U.S. military support to U.S. Department of State-led disaster relief operations following the June earthquakes in Venezuela.

In a letter shared exclusively with Military Times, the oversight committee’s ranking member, Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., ranking member of the Military and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide a complete record of every change made to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS, involving Operation Epic Fury, “Overseas Operations” or any other category used to track casualties from hostilities with Iran. The lawmakers requested a response by Aug. 18.

The investigation follows questions raised after three U.S. soldiers killed in Jordan and one killed in Iraq were initially included in the Pentagon’s Iran war casualty total before being removed. Days later, the deaths reappeared under a new “Overseas Operations” category.

The new category has a stated start date of July 7, the same date the Trump administration said renewed military operations against Iran started a new 60-day period under the War Powers Resolution.

The lawmakers are seeking records explaining why those changes were made, the rules governing casualty classifications and any legal analysis underlying those decisions.

Garcia and Subramanyam also requested records documenting every change made to DCAS, the policies governing how deaths and injuries are assigned to operational categories and legal analyses related to a proposed expansion of the Defense Department’s authority to withhold certain controlled unclassified information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Taken together, the requests seek to examine how official casualty records are created, revised and publicly disclosed.

“The Pentagon appears to be lying about the casualties of fallen soldiers to continue justifying Donald Trump’s war of choice with Iran,” Garcia said in a statement announcing the investigation. “The American people deserve the truth about every life lost and soldier wounded in this illegal war.”

Subramanyam said the lawmakers are seeking transparency because the four service members “were killed in action during Trump’s war of choice in Iran” and “the Department of Defense should not play games and try to hide the true cost of this war.”

Unlike a July 29 letter led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that primarily focused on force protection and medical care following the March 1 attack at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, this inquiry seeks actual records related to the Pentagon’s casualty accounting process and public reporting.

The Defense Department declined to comment on either letter.

In a July 29 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., joined by four other Senate Democrats and eight House Democrats, requested answers by Aug. 12 to 23 questions concerning medical care, casualty reporting, force protection and ongoing investigations related to the attack.

Lawmakers say the Pentagon has not fully responded to an April letter raising concerns about force protection before the attack and has not provided Congress with the Army’s investigative findings.

Recent reporting has raised new questions about the medical care provided to injured service members after the attack, which killed six U.S. service members and wounded more than 30 others.

A Pentagon official declined to comment about the letter to Military Times.

The letter cites CBS News reporting that soldiers requested additional medical personnel and supplies before the attack and that those requests were ignored. It also cites reports that, after the strike, some wounded troops drove themselves to a hospital in Kuwait City before later being evacuated and that about two dozen service members were not flown to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany until nine days after the attack.

Lawmakers also referred to reporting that some wounded service members arrived in Germany without being identified as medical evacuees or seriously injured patients in Defense Department Casualty Analysis System, which the lawmakers said resulted in only limited treatment at Landstuhl. Deeper reporting cited reveals that some troops waited weeks after returning to Fort Hood, Texas, before being evaluated by physicians qualified to diagnose and treat traumatic brain injuries.

Among other questions, the lawmakers asked why requests for additional medical support before the attack were reportedly denied, how the Defense Department classifies serious and very serious injuries and how many service members have sustained traumatic brain injuries since Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28.

The request from lawmakers also asks the Pentagon to explain changes to publicly reported casualty figures during the conflict, provide updates on force protection measures at military installations across the Middle East, release the Army’s investigation into the Port Shuaiba attack and disclose whether additional Inspector General investigations are underway.

The March 1 attack at Port Shuaiba remains one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. forces during Operation Epic Fury. Reporting by The Washington Post, CBS News, The War Horse and Military Times have described concerns expressed by survivors and family members about force protection, casualty reporting and medical care following the attack.

The War Horse recently reported that medical records documented injuries including traumatic brain injuries, skull fractures, burns, broken bones, hearing loss and shrapnel wounds among those wounded in the strike.

Semaglutide is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat Type 2 diabetes and chronic weight management, but not alcohol use disorder.

VA researchers are studying whether the GLP-1 receptor agonist may affect parts of the brain involved in reward, potentially offering a new treatment option for veterans with moderate or severe alcohol use disorder if proven safe and effective.

The department cautioned veterans not to self-medicate or replace evidence-based alcohol use disorder treatments with GLP-1 medications without first consulting a health care provider.

The study, known as the Cessation or Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Veterans (CRAVE) trial, will enroll more than 600 veterans ages 18 to 80 at 18 VA medical centers nationwide.

Participants with moderate or severe alcohol use disorder will receive weekly injections of either semaglutide or a placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a safety evaluation. Researchers will measure changes in alcohol consumption, overall health and quality of life.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine have increasingly studied whether GLP-1 medications, originally developed for diabetes and later approved for obesity, could also help treat substance use disorders.

VA cited an analysis published in March that found patients taking GLP-1 medications experienced lower rates of alcohol use disorder and other substance use disorders than similar patients taking other diabetes medications.

The department said larger, controlled clinical trials are needed to determine whether semaglutide is safe and effective for treating alcohol use disorder.

In an official statement, VA Secretary Doug Collins said, “By exploring emerging treatment options like the use of a GLP-1 for AUD, we aim to expand the tools available to help Veterans take control of their health and recovery.”

Recruitment began July 28. Veterans interested in participating can contact their local VA medical center or search for the trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby announced on X Tuesday that the Defense Department had “kicked off” the review Hegseth unveiled during the NATO defense ministerial in Brussels on June 18. Hegseth described the effort at the time as “a real review” of America’s force posture and basing in Europe.

Neither Hegseth’s announcement nor Colby’s statement announced troop reductions, unit movements or installation changes as part of the review. The Pentagon also has not said when the review’s recommendations will be released.

The review follows repeated calls by Trump administration officials for European allies to assume greater responsibility for NATO’s conventional defense as the administration reassesses U.S. force posture worldwide.

Hegseth said the review is expected to take up to six months, but it “could be less.” He shared that the review will include input from U.S. European Command as well as consultations with Congress and U.S. allies.

Colby said the review is designed to ensure NATO is “moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe taking primary responsibility for its conventional defense.” He explained the outcome of the review is intended to accelerate NATO’s transition to what he described as “a stronger, more equitable, and sustainable alliance.”

The Pentagon review aims to ensure U.S. force posture in Europe reflects the 2025 National Security Strategy and the 2026 National Defense Strategy. Colby said the department will develop a range of options based on “strategic rigor, a strong empirical baseline, and a clear sense of the geopolitical and military realities.”

Colby also said he looks forward to working closely with Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, on the review. He noted that the Defense Department plans to have “extensive consultations” with European allies, Congress and other parts of the U.S. government throughout the process.

The COMPACT Act allows eligible veterans and certain former service members to receive Veterans Affairs-funded emergency suicide crisis care at VA and community hospitals, even if they aren’t enrolled in VA healthcare. New data obtained by Military Times show 49,341 veterans have used the benefit since 2023, but veteran advocates and suicide prevention professionals say many eligible veterans still don’t realize it exists until they experience a crisis.

In 2025, retired Navy Master Chief David Hull’s life unraveled after he lost his job during the government shutdown.

The transition from military service had been difficult, but he had rebuilt his life. Then when his paycheck disappeared, so did his ability to provide for his three children.

“I didn’t always consider taking my own life,” Hull said. “It wasn’t until I felt like I had no one and nowhere to go.”

“It’s easy to sink into feeling nothingness when you can’t see your value anymore or you become disconnected from your purpose,” he said.

After putting his children to bed one night, Hull searched online for combinations of pills that promised an easier way to end his life. As he poured medication into a single bottle, he accidentally knocked the empty container onto the floor.

His 6-year-old daughter picked it up.

“She looked up at me with her big brown eyes,” Hull recalled, his voice breaking. “It cracked me wide open.”

Hull left his children with a neighbor and drove to Garrett Regional Medical Center, a community hospital in Oakland, Maryland.

He wasn’t enrolled in VA healthcare. He didn’t have health insurance. Until that night, he had never heard of the COMPACT Act or that eligible veterans could receive VA-funded emergency suicide crisis care at a community hospital.

“I just needed someone to help clear my head and get me straight again,” Hull said. “I was circling the drain. On the precipice of having no home, no food, no money and no job with a promise of a better tomorrow. Nothing.”

About 40 minutes after arriving, Hull was evaluated by an emergency physician, who assured him he would be taken care of. A hospital social worker then explained that the Department of Veterans Affairs would cover the cost of his emergency treatment and follow-up care.

“I was shocked to find out that I could be seen for free after they identified me as a veteran,” Hull said.

In 2020, Congress signed the COMPACT Act Emergent Suicide Crisis Benefit into law to remove financial and administrative barriers to emergency suicide crisis care. Three years later, it was implemented by the VA, but many eligible veterans remain unaware of the benefit until they need it, veteran advocates and suicide prevention professionals told Military Times.

A lifeline beyond VA’s doors

The Emergency Suicide Crisis Benefit was established under the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act, or COMPACT Act. Coverage includes emergency evaluation, treatment, inpatient or crisis residential care when clinically appropriate, and up to 90 days of outpatient follow-up care.

According to data provided by VA, nearly 50,000 veterans have received the Emergency Suicide Crisis Benefit since fiscal 2023, including just over 10,000 in fiscal 2023. 14,666 receieved the benefit in fiscal 2024; 15,218 in fiscal 2025; and 9,434 during the first half of fiscal 2026.

“The number of Veterans receiving the COMPACT Act’s Emergent Suicide Crisis Benefit has grown steadily since its inception in FY23,” VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven said.

VA spent a record of nearly $110 million on acute suicide crisis care during fiscal 2025.

Slaven said VA reviews eligible cases to ensure veterans receive the benefit, educates veterans and community emergency department staff about its availability and works with providers so eligible veterans do not receive unexpected medical bills after crisis care.

According to VA, 72% of veterans who have used the benefit have since enrolled in VA healthcare.

Misconceptions persist

Despite growing use of the benefit, the Disabled American Veterans, or DAV, organization says many eligible veterans still misunderstand who qualifies for emergency suicide crisis care.

“DAV believes awareness of the safety net created by the COMPACT Act remains lower than it should be,” Jon Retzer, DAV’s national legislative director, said.

Retzer said DAV service officers routinely meet veterans who believe they must already be enrolled in VA healthcare, have a service-connected disability rating or seek treatment at a VA medical center before the benefit applies.

“Many veterans remain uncertain whether an emergency room visit will generate medical debt or whether VA will ultimately cover the care,” Retzer said. “That uncertainty can discourage veterans from seeking treatment during a crisis when immediate intervention is critical.”

Retzer urged veterans experiencing a suicidal crisis to seek emergency care first and allow VA to determine eligibility afterward.

Army Reserve Prevention Integrator David Arthur said those same misconceptions continue to surface in his work, particularly among older veterans.

He said distance from a VA medical center can create uncertainty because many rural veterans live an hour or more away, while nearby outpatient clinics do not provide emergency services.

“When they are in a crisis, in my experience with suicidal soldiers and vets, they are not even thinking about that,” Arthur said. “But those thoughts are huge barriers, especially the cost.”

“I want every vet to know they can go to any ER or hospital,” Arthur continued.

Returning to care

Hull completed the full 90 days of follow-up care available through the benefit before enrolling in VA healthcare.

“I don’t know if I could have afforded the treatment I received after that night without the VA,” Hull said. “And I don’t know that I’d be enrolled with the VA now without the care I experienced.”

“I wish so many of my brothers and sisters knew that this was an option,” Hull said. “It doesn’t matter if you have insurance. It doesn’t matter if you’re a patient in the VA system. None of that matters. There are no strings attached. No barriers to being seen. This is a gift that every veteran needs to know they’re eligible for.”