Toys are shown at a military child development center

It started when Jennifer Glick, an Army[1] criminal investigator, was told her nearly 2-year-old daughter Evie had tripped, fallen and hit her head at the Navy[2]'s Ford Island, Hawaii, child development center in late summer 2022.

Glick and her military husband were getting ready to leave Hawaii the following year when she said the Navy Family Advocacy Program called with troubling news: Evie may have been physically abused at the CDC. But that was all they were told, Glick told Military.com[3] in a recent interview, and when they requested details of the alleged abuse, videos and information on how and whether the incident was being investigated, they got few answers.

The case provides yet another revelation after Military.com reported[4] over a year ago that nearly a dozen families were stonewalled by the military from getting basic information about alleged abuse of their children. The report triggered outrage from Congress[5] and an immediate inspector general probe[6]. That IG report, released on Monday[7], found that inconsistent military disclosure policies could potentially leave parents in the dark about reports of their children’s abuse or neglect.

Read Next: Tweaks to Army's Physical Fitness Test Are Relatively Modest[8]

Evie began to show troubling signs of social withdrawal: thumb-sucking that has lingered far past when a child was supposed to stop the habit, which led to a speech issue, and aggression. She had never been a good sleeper when she was a baby, Glick said, but after day care at Ford Island, she would lie in her crib and stare listlessly, holding on to a blanket for comfort.

"Was she conditioned to do that?" Glick said. "It scares me. Was she hurt as a baby? Was she smothered? We'll never know, because no one has answered for it."

The IG report recommended that the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness revise and reissue policy requiring all military branches to uniformly identify, notify and report child-abuse allegations to parents; “maintain all notification” documentation of child-abuse allegations; and that each service should update its own policies in line with the Pentagon's policy.

The under secretary agreed with the recommendations, as did the services, according to the report, and the Pentagon said it will issue an updated and revised policy by Sept. 30. The IG report did not address specific information, such as videos, to be made available to parents concerned about abuse allegations at a CDC, a main point of frustration for parents.

“The service members keeping our country safe shouldn’t also have to worry about their kid’s safety,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a statement to Military.com[9] on Thursday. “The inspector general’s report makes clear that it’s Secretary [Pete] Hegseth’s job to fix this pattern of incompetence and ensure military families have access to high-quality, affordable child care. I won’t stop fighting for military families to get the answers and accountability they deserve.”

It wasn't until March -- nearly three years after Evie had supposedly fallen -- when Glick and her husband Matthew, an Army senior noncommissioned officer, began to understand what had really happened at the CDC.

The mother of a child who was abused at the same facility, Kaitlin Kuykendall, had posted a video -- one she herself waited months to receive from the CDC -- on social media showing day-care workers, two of whom were convicted and jailed for assault, abusing then-15-month-old Bella Kuykendall.

And while her face was blurred, Evie was there, too, being hit, shaken and pulled around by day-care workers, Glick said, recognizable by her hair, clothing and gait.

"I've taken it really hard, because I've been able to help a lot of other people in my 20-plus years in law enforcement," Glick said, "but I couldn't help my own child."

Glick's case represents another troubling instance of opacity for the military's child development centers -- facilities at bases around the world charged with caring for children up to the age of 5 -- and parents trying to find out what happened to their children within their walls.

In an August letter from the Department of Defense in response to Warren's office, which Military.com[10] obtained, the department said policies required child-care facilities to notify parents "either verbally or in writing" about abuse but did not specify a timeline in which those notifications should occur.

The IG report released Monday said the department issued a memorandum in December 2024 requiring child-care staff to notify parents of alleged abuse and neglect no later than 24 hours after staff were made aware of the incident.

Recently publicized policy[11] revisions from the services following that update still require parents to request video footage of alleged child abuse through the Freedom of Information Act, a transparency law typically used by lawyers and journalists. The IG report said the DoD's current policy "does not include methods of communication, the type of information to provide to parents, how often to provide updates or the methods for tracking and managing parental notifications."

As late as February of this year, the Glicks had requested video footage of Evie's alleged abuse from the Ford Island CDC, but were told to "go through legal and not the CDC," according to emails shared with Military.com[12].

The Kuykendalls received the IG report with mixed feelings. In one sense, it validated the concerns they had experienced firsthand with the lack of transparency and communication from the military on its policies.

And while "this is a great first step" in recognizing those shortcomings publicly, Jeremy Kuykendall, an Army officer, told Military.com[13] on Thursday it has not assured them that the cultural, leadership and systemic changes needed to deliver that transparency have or will be fulfilled.

They said they were never interviewed as part of the IG report, the military has not offered an acknowledgment of their plight, and the director of the CDC who oversaw the facilities when the abuse occurred is still in her job position despite the family’s allegations she failed to adequately inform them of Bella's abuse. The base overseeing the facility said policies were properly followed. The Kuykendalls pursued a legal claim against the Navy last year[14], alleging negligence, poor oversight and mishandling.

"I have zero trust," Kaitlin said. "It just seems everyone's still left in the dark."

Kaitlin said dozens of families have reached out, including the Glicks, whose stories align with theirs after they started "Operation Mei Mei," an advocacy effort to prevent abuse at the CDCs and urge transparency from the military. Glick saw the videos of Evie at Ford Island through Operation Mei Mei's Facebook page, which posts updates on the ongoing CDC abuse issues.

Regarding the CDC director, a spokesperson for Joint Base Pearl Harbor[15]-Hickam, Chuck Anthony, declined to "address questions about the performance of individual federal employees," citing the Privacy Act, but added that "every review and inspection conducted in the last several years has found CDC management has consistently acted in accordance with established guidelines, procedures and instructions."

Anthony added that mistreatment is “extremely rare” and if uncovered it is met with immediate corrective action. He said CDCs at the base have increased training, “real time observations of trainers in action,” created a position for senior teachers in the classrooms, and instituted random checks of CCTV video.

Military.com[16] asked Anthony about the Glick case and the perception of mistrust on Thursday afternoon, but did not hear back before deadline.

In an email on Wednesday, Jennifer Glick said she agreed with and is encouraged by the recommendations outlined in the IG report, "but the harsh reality is that they come at a significant cost -- one that should have been avoidable."

"My hope is that this report serves as a catalyst for lasting cultural and procedural change within the Department of Defense," Glick said. "Safeguarding vulnerable individuals should always remain an uncompromising priority, with proactive systems and clear lines of responsibility in place to ensure such failures do not happen again."

Related: 'Betrayal': Family of Toddler Abused at Navy Day Care Launches Claim that Service Negligently Mishandled Their Case[17]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[18].

Read more

Judge hears arguments on President Trump's order banning transgender people from serving

The Trump administration's ban on transgender troops will be allowed to take effect after the Supreme Court on Tuesday paused a lower court's block against the ban.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court said it was granting the Trump administration's emergency application to stay a preliminary injunction issued by a federal court in Washington state.

The order doesn't end the court battle against the ban, but will allow it to take effect while an appeals court more thoroughly considers the Trump administration's request to nullify the injunction.

Read Next: Investigation into Gaza Pier Mission Finds Funding Cuts, Poor Planning Hindered the Operation[1]

The order offers no details on the court's reasoning, but notes that the three liberal justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- dissented.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media after the ruling that there will be "No More Trans @ DoD." The Defense Department offered no further comment on Tuesday afternoon.

In January, President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to craft a policy that reflects the administration's position that being transgender is "not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

The resulting Pentagon policy, released in February, said troops with a history of gender dysphoria, who "exhibit symptoms" of gender dysphoria or who have transitioned to their gender identity would be disqualified from service. On paper, the policy allows transgender troops to apply for a waiver to avoid being discharged, but advocates say the criteria for a waiver are impossible to meet.

Trump's order and the Pentagon policy were almost immediately hit with lawsuits from transgender service members and recruits.

In response to the lawsuits, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., and another in Washington state issued preliminary injunctions that blocked the ban from taking effect while the cases work their way through the legal system.

The preliminary injunction in the D.C. case was later paused by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, though the appeals court also warned the administration against taking "any action ... that negatively impacts service members" while it considers whether to fully overturn the injunction.

But in the Washington state case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's emergency motion to lift the injunction.

The Trump administration appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that any delay in implementing the policy would cause "irreparable" harm to the military.

"The district court's injunction cannot be squared with the substantial deference that the department's professional military judgments are owed," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the application[2] to the Supreme Court last month.

But the lawyers who filed the lawsuit argued that allowing the ban to take effect is what would cause irreparable damage by "ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units."

"The loss of well-qualified service members like respondents will necessarily negatively impact military readiness, lethality and unit cohesion -- essential components of a strong and effective national defense," the lawyers wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court[3] last week. "Transgender service members hold key positions throughout units, and the military's success depends on mutual trust between leaders and members."

While the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency motion, it is still considering the administration's non-expedited request to lift the injunction.

The Supreme Court's order Tuesday put the case back in the hands of the Ninth Circuit by staying the injunction until the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling on the regular motion.

The case that made it to the Supreme Court was filed by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on behalf of six transgender service members, one transgender person seeking to enlist and an LGBTQ+ advocacy group called the Gender Justice League.

In a statement Tuesday, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation vowed to continue fighting.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation's defense," the groups said in a joint statement. "By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice. Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down."

Related: Trump Takes Fight over Transgender Troops to Supreme Court[4]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[5].

Read more

Judge hears arguments on President Trump's order banning transgender people from serving

The Trump administration's ban on transgender troops will be allowed to take effect after the Supreme Court on Tuesday paused a lower court's block against the ban.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court said it was granting the Trump administration's emergency application to stay a preliminary injunction issued by a federal court in Washington state.

The order doesn't end the court battle against the ban, but will allow it to take effect while an appeals court more thoroughly considers the Trump administration's request to nullify the injunction.

Read Next: Investigation into Gaza Pier Mission Finds Funding Cuts, Poor Planning Hindered the Operation[1]

The order offers no details on the court's reasoning, but notes that the three liberal justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- dissented.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media after the ruling that there will be "No More Trans @ DoD." The Defense Department offered no further comment on Tuesday afternoon.

In January, President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to craft a policy that reflects the administration's position that being transgender is "not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

The resulting Pentagon policy, released in February, said troops with a history of gender dysphoria, who "exhibit symptoms" of gender dysphoria or who have transitioned to their gender identity would be disqualified from service. On paper, the policy allows transgender troops to apply for a waiver to avoid being discharged, but advocates say the criteria for a waiver are impossible to meet.

Trump's order and the Pentagon policy were almost immediately hit with lawsuits from transgender service members and recruits.

In response to the lawsuits, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., and another in Washington state issued preliminary injunctions that blocked the ban from taking effect while the cases work their way through the legal system.

The preliminary injunction in the D.C. case was later paused by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, though the appeals court also warned the administration against taking "any action ... that negatively impacts service members" while it considers whether to fully overturn the injunction.

But in the Washington state case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's emergency motion to lift the injunction.

The Trump administration appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that any delay in implementing the policy would cause "irreparable" harm to the military.

"The district court's injunction cannot be squared with the substantial deference that the department's professional military judgments are owed," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the application[2] to the Supreme Court last month.

But the lawyers who filed the lawsuit argued that allowing the ban to take effect is what would cause irreparable damage by "ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units."

"The loss of well-qualified service members like respondents will necessarily negatively impact military readiness, lethality and unit cohesion -- essential components of a strong and effective national defense," the lawyers wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court[3] last week. "Transgender service members hold key positions throughout units, and the military's success depends on mutual trust between leaders and members."

While the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency motion, it is still considering the administration's non-expedited request to lift the injunction.

The Supreme Court's order Tuesday put the case back in the hands of the Ninth Circuit by staying the injunction until the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling on the regular motion.

The case that made it to the Supreme Court was filed by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on behalf of six transgender service members, one transgender person seeking to enlist and an LGBTQ+ advocacy group called the Gender Justice League.

In a statement Tuesday, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation vowed to continue fighting.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation's defense," the groups said in a joint statement. "By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice. Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down."

Related: Trump Takes Fight over Transgender Troops to Supreme Court[4]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[5].

Read more

Tony Tata. North Carolina Department of Transportation screengrab

Anthony Tata, whose past Islamaphobic and conspiratorial statements doomed his nomination for a top Pentagon job in the first Trump administration, was grilled by senators on Tuesday in his bid to become the Pentagon's personnel chief in the second Trump administration.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to be under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, Tata distanced himself from his past comments by saying they were "out of character." But he also defended more recent comments calling for purging military officers seen as disloyal to President Donald Trump and supporting using military force for law enforcement on U.S. soil.

If confirmed, Tata would oversee the health and well-being of the more than 3 million uniformed and civilian personnel working for the Defense Department. The under secretary for personnel is charged with advising the defense secretary and crafting policies on issues ranging from recruitment[1] to child care to medical standards to pay[2] and benefits.

Read Next: Military's 4-Star Officers to Be Reduced by 20% or More Under New Order by Hegseth[3]

While Tata faced enough bipartisan opposition five years ago to sink his nomination for a different Pentagon job, Republicans, who can confirm Tata on their own, indicated Tuesday they've come around on him. But Democrats expressed grave concerns about his judgment, citing inflammatory social media posts.

In a post shortly after Trump's election[4] in November, Tata said Trump should "review every 4 star appointed by (then-President Joe) Biden and thank many for their service before firing them." Tata was responding to a CNN report that said Pentagon officials[5] were having informal conversations about how to respond if Trump were to issue an unlawful order.

The CNN article did not say four-stars were participating in the discussions, nor that military officers were considering defying legal orders, but Tata's social media post claimed that the lack of public condemnation from top generals shows that it is "under their leadership that these mutinous discussions are taking place."

Asked about the social media post Tuesday, Tata mischaracterized the CNN story as being about generals and admirals discussing disobeying lawful orders and argued the point of his post was to reinforce the Constitution.

"I was actually talking about defending the Constitution," Tata said. "The admirals and generals don't get to choose which lawful orders they follow. The admirals and generals work for the civilian leadership, and that civilian leadership is codified in Article 2 of our Constitution."

Tata later added that he "would not support any kind of blatant purge," but that "if an officer is not following the Constitution, has committed some kind of breach of his or her duty, then that should be investigated and the investigation should tell us what to do."

After several instances of Tata’s mischaracterizing the CNN report, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., read the article into the congressional record and told Tata that "I think you're missing the point."

"I respect and appreciate your military service, but your record of public statements and behavior toward individuals with whom you disagree politically is disqualifying for a position of this significance," Reed said in his opening statement.

Democrats also pressed Tata on a social media post from January[6] where he encouraged Congress to "suspend posse comitatus" so that "elite and conventional forces" could patrol Trump's inauguration and "conduct direct action if necessary." Posse comitatus is the law that prohibits the military from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil in most cases.

Tata on Tuesday claimed that his reference to posse comitatus was in relation to U.S. border security despite the fact that the post was about the inauguration and included conspiratorial musings that elements of the National Guard[7], Defense Department and other agencies are "compromised at a minimum by hatred of the incoming administration."

Tata said he stood by "the idea that we need better border security," though he added he does "not know" if posse comitatus should be suspended. He also acknowledged that he had "no information" to support his allegations that members of the National Guard and Pentagon were compromised despite publicly saying so.

Tata is a retired Army[8] brigadier general whose post-military career includes serving as a school district administrator in Washington, D.C., and North Carolina and as North Carolina's secretary of transportation, a job he abruptly resigned from.

More recently, he has been a steady presence on Fox News as a political and military commentator.

During the first Trump administration in 2020, he was nominated to be under secretary of defense for policy, essentially the No. 3 position in the Pentagon.

But his nomination was withdrawn after the Senate Armed Services Committee, also controlled by Republicans at the time, abruptly canceled his confirmation hearing amid a mounting controversy over incendiary past statements. After the nomination was withdrawn, Trump installed Tata as a Pentagon adviser[9] who didn't need Senate confirmation and later appointed him acting[10] under secretary for policy.

Among the statements that doomed Tata's previous nomination were social media posts that called former President Barack Obama a "terrorist leader," said California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi "have always been the same violent extremists" and floated a conspiracy theory that former CIA Director John Brennan used a coded tweet to order Trump's assassination.

"Those were out-of-character comments," Tata said Tuesday, noting that he submitted an apology letter to the committee in 2020. "I regret making those comments."

While the apology letter was not enough to save his nomination back then, Republicans brushed off the past controversy on Tuesday.

"The thing I've learned about Tony is that he takes responsibility for his words and actions, he learns from his past mistakes, which is a testament of a good leader, and I think you'll see that on display today," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said in introducing Tata at the hearing.

Tillis no longer sits on the Armed Services Committee, but he did in 2020, and he has been seen as a potential swing vote on some Trump nominees this year.

Related: Senators Voice 'Deep Concerns' About Trump's Pick for Air Force Under Secretary[11]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[12].

Read more

More Articles …