Author Topic: US Army hits 2026 recruiting goal four months ahead of schedule (this message from Hegseth is a HUGE  (Read 100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 190,343
US Army hits 2026 recruiting goal four months ahead of schedule (this message from Hegseth is a HUGE reason why)
 


So weird.

I thought all of the young people in the country were anti-war and have turned on Trump because of Iran. I was told that Trump's foreign policy would push young people away.

Anyways, here's what's happening in the US Army:


Here's the US Army's announcement of one of their best recruiting years in recent memory:

The U.S. Army has met its fiscal year 2026 recruiting goals for active duty, signing contracts with more than 61,500 future Soldiers - four months before the end of the fiscal year. This achievement is [a] testament [to] the continued efforts by U.S. Army Recruiting Division Recruiters to attract the best and brightest to join America's most lethal fighting force.

Through innovative outreach, enhanced career incentives, and a focus on critical technical skills, the U.S. Army has successfully met its enlistment targets, ensuring a fully manned and highly capable force ready to meet complex global security challenges.

With four months left in the fiscal year ending September 30, I think it's not crazy to think that they're going to smash their estimated number by a whole lot.

https://notthebee.com/article/us-army-hits-2026-recruiting-goal-four-months-ahead-of-schedule-this-message-from-hegseth-is-a-huge-reason-why/
« Last Edit: Monday, May 25, 10:11 am by rangerrebew »
“An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.” ~ Sun Tzu

Online rustynail

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,211
A federal appeals court panel ruled on Monday, June 1, 2026, that the Trump administration's policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, finding it likely violates constitutional protections.  The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit largely upheld a lower court injunction, determining the policy appeared driven by a "desire to harm a politically unpopular group" rather than legitimate military readiness concerns.