Army recruiting is up, but data show trend began before the election, current and former Army officials say
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Sen. Tom Cotton attributed increased Army recruiting numbers to "America First" leadership and "the Trump effect." However, data indicates that recruiting numbers began to improve months before the U.S. Presidential election, according to current and former officials.
"You had some number of young men and women who didn't want to join the army over the last four years under Joe Biden and Christine Wormuth, the former secretary of the Army, when they thought it was more focused on Wokeness and DEI and climate change," Cotton told Fox's America's Newsroom. "That's not why young men and women join our military. They do it because they love the country."
The uptick in recruiting started months before the election on November 5.
"No, it did not all start in December," former Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, who served until Jan. 20, said in an interview with Fox News.
"Army's recruiting started getting better much earlier. We really started seeing the numbers, the monthly numbers, go up in February of 2024. We were seeing sort of in the high 5000 contracts per month, and that accelerated, you know, into the spring all the way into August, when the Army really hit a peak."
Starting in Oct. 2023, the Army put 1,200 more recruiters in the field. By Sept. 2024, before the election, the Army announced it had exceeded its recruiting goals.
The groundwork was laid that October when Wormuth and Gen Randy George, the Army chief, began a sweeping initiative to help those who did not meet academic standards or fitness requirements. The six-week pre-boot camp, called the Future Soldier Prep Course, helps lower-performing recruits meet enlistment standards. They also moved away from just recruiting in high schools to posting on job message boards. Recruiters got trained by Amazon, Wells Fargo and other industry leaders in talent acquisition. And the Army brought back the "Be All That You Can Be" branding campaign from the 1980s.
"We've been selecting soldiers who have personalities that are more suited to recruiting. We improved our marketing very dramatically in terms of being very data driven and very targeted. And then, of course, the future Soldier Prep course, which the Army established some time ago, has been a big success and has accounted last year for about 25% of the new recruits that came in," Wormuth said. "If you look at our Army ads, we show young people, you know, jumping out of helicopters. We show kids doing, you know, night patrols in the jungle."
Army data shows the Army has struggled with recruiting numbers since COVID, including a shortfall of 15,000 recruits in 2022.
It reported record-breaking recruitment in Dec. 2024, with nearly 350 recruits enlisting daily and the total number of active duty soldiers reaching 5877 recruits that month. Secretary Hegseth praised the recruiting numbers in a post on X:
"@USArmy: @USAREC had their most productive December in 15 years by enlisting 346 Soldiers daily into the World's greatest #USArmy!
"Our Recruiters have one of the toughest jobs - inspiring the next generation of #Soldiers to serve.
"Congratulations and keep up the great work!"
But August of last year, three months prior to the election, saw a higher number of recruits than in December – 7,415 recruits compared to the 5,877 in December. And January 2025 still has not surpassed August 2024 for the highest monthly count of the past year.
In other words, the positive recruiting trend began before the election.
The increased recruiting numbers resulted from more women joining. Women made up 19% of the recruits last year, the highest rate to date.
"For example, right now, 16% of the overall Army is women. And so, having a year where almost 20% of the new recruits are women is a notable increase," Wormuth said. "In 2024, we also had the highest ever recruiting year for Hispanics."
There is a lag of about 10–12 weeks from the time a recruit enters a recruiting office and actually signs up due to medical exams and other paperwork.
"The biggest reasons young people are hesitant to join the Army is because of fear of death or injury, fear of leaving their families, a sense that maybe somehow, you know, joining the Army will put their lives on hold for a period of time," Wormuth said. "Concerns about so-called wokeness are very low on the list of obstacles for most young people. And the last time the Army ran that survey, we didn't really see a change. That remains to be a small concern."
During its recruiting crisis, the Army had seen a drop in the number of families who typically send their children to serve, families whose members have served for generations. Many of those families tended to be white and from one of the 10 states that make up nearly half of the recruits: Texas (13.3%), California (10.5%), Florida (9.7%), Georgia (5.1%), North Carolina (4.6%), New York (4.3%), Virginia (2.9%), Ohio (2.8%), Illinois (2.6%) and Pennsylvania (2.4%).
There is no data suggesting a surge in white males joining the Army last year. In FY2024, 40% of the Army recruits were Caucasian, 25% were Black and 26% were Hispanic.
"From the data we saw, there was no discernible change in young white men joining the Army compared to the spring of 2024. The Army had about 7400 recruits in August, and in December it was about 5800," Wormuth said.
The Army is also set to expand its basic training capacity in the spring.
"U.S. Army Recruiting Command is on track to exceed the fiscal year 2025 recruitment goal of 61,000 new Soldiers and an additional 10,000 in the Delayed Entry Program," Madison Bonzo, U.S. Army Recruiting Command spokeswoman, said in a statement. "As of today, USAREC has contracted 59% of the current FY25 goal. Our success couldn't be possible without the hard work of our Recruiters, continued transformation of the recruiting enterprise and modernization initiatives to attract qualified talent into America's most lethal fighting force."
Wormuth said: "I would say we saw in the Army recruiting numbers, we started seeing us really get traction in February of 2024."
"And we continued to build those numbers up to about, you know, high 5,000, 6,000 a month in August. And the Army has continued that momentum going into the end of the year. And I think the winds are at the Army's back for coming into 2025," she continued.
Former Army officials warn that it is dangerous to link Army recruiting successes to the election cycle, since the military is supposed to be apolitical. Soldiers sign up not to serve a president or a party but to serve the Constitution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
The MeidasTouch Podcast Now Has 5 Million Subscribers
The MeidasTouch podcast just hit 5 million subscribers, cementing its status as a breakout force in ... More progressive media. Launched during the isolation of the pandemic lockdown era, a group chat between three brothers has transformed into one of the most influential voices in progressive media. The MeidasTouch Podcast — the flagship show of the MeidasTouch Network — has just crossed 5 million subscribers, a milestone that cements its place as not only a media juggernaut but a dominant force in independent political commentary. Founded in 2020 by Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas, MeidasTouch first made waves as an anti-Trump political action committee during the height of the COVID pandemic. At the time, all three brothers were generally frustrated by the state of the world and looking for a productive outlet for their time and talents. 'It felt like screaming into the void,' Brett recently told Vanity Fair. 'So we committed to doing what we could — writing articles, making videos, just getting our thoughts out.' The rise of the MeidasTouch podcast They've been doing that same work, just more of it, ever since. What began with viral videos evolved into a full-fledged media network, now home to a multiple shows including Leigh McGowan's PoliticsGirl, and the legal commentary series Legal AF. But it's the core MeidasTouch Podcast, hosted by the three brothers, that's leading the way and drawing major guests like President Biden and Senators Elizabeth Warren – and racking up viewership numbers that rival cable news. A celebratory tweet posted by the network's senior digital editor Acyn Torabi (@Acyn on X) marked the subscriber milestone, reading in part: 'As we hit 5 million subscribers, I want to say this: this is one small step for the MeidasTouch Network, but I think one giant leap for independent journalism and democracy generally.' As far as who the brothers are: Ben is a lawyer and Colin Kaepernick's business partner, Brett is a two-time Emmy-winning video editor, and Jordy is a top advertising executive in New York. Their network has seen explosive growth so far this year, with Podscribe data showing that the podcast jumped from 57.7 million downloads and views per month in mid-February to 115 million the following month. And even after that surge, the numbers remained strong, with April 2025 data showing 107.3 million downloads. The brothers' YouTube channel alone averages 33 million views every 48 hours, according to Acyn, while the podcast's momentum has been enough to briefly dethrone even The Joe Rogan Experience. In February 2025, MeidasTouch pulled in 57.5 million downloads, outpacing Rogan's 51.5 million for the month. While comparisons to right-wing media stars are inevitable, however, the Meiselas brothers push back on the idea that the left needs its own Rogan. 'Right-wing podcasters weren't cooked up in a lab,' Ben continued in the Vanity Fair interview. 'They developed audiences organically over time.' Brett added that the key isn't finding someone who mimics Rogan's tone or beliefs — it's the authenticity that matters. That's a major part of MeidasTouch's appeal. Brett Meiselas has said in the past that the goal is to make listeners feel like they're part of the same experience the brothers share in private. The vibe, in other words, is supposed to feel like a conversation among friends. As for what's next, Acyn made it clear in his message on X, adding: 'We use our platform for good: to always shine a light on the truth, to expose the injustices taking place, and to confront the authoritarian Trump regime head-on, where corporate news has utterly failed and betrayed us all.' Five million subscribers in, the MeidasTouch Network clearly isn't slowing down. Based on the trends this year alone, there's every reason to believe that this is just the beginning.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politico
With Iran Strikes, Trump is ‘Unchained'
Remember when Donald Trump was an isolationist? Yes, once upon a time, that's how many in the national security realm described this president. Plenty of his moves — from his digs at NATO to his use of the 'America First' slogan — seemed to justify the label. Officials, journalists and others, including myself, would sit around pondering questions like: 'Does America First mean America Alone?' In the years since he first took office, it has become increasingly hard to define the 'Trump Doctrine' for foreign policy. He has taken more and more contradictory moves while growing more confident in his Oval Office instincts. Foreign affairs luminaries have devoted many papers to trying to clarify the aims of a man who refuses to come into focus. He's a shallow transactionalist! He's a principled realist! He's an imperialist with a Western Hemisphere fixation! Trump himself once even said, 'I'm a nationalist and a globalist. I'm both.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites this weekend is the latest sign that he's now in a phase where he's willing to take enormous risks with little concern about the blowback. He has survived so much already — two impeachments, criminal convictions, two assassination attempts. He doesn't have to run for office again, and, as has been amply noted, his advisers won't restrain him the way they did in his first term. Even when Trump backs down (the TACO thing) he still redefines the parameters of the conversation. 'It's Trump unchained,' said Ilan Goldenberg, a Middle East specialist who worked for the Biden team, referring to the president's behavior. I've never been a fan of the race to define presidential doctrines. It feels unfair to try to box in leaders who face so many varying crises. But I sympathize with people who seek to impose coherence on Trump because, as humans, we all need some sense of order and clarity. When I asked several former officials and analysts what Trump's strikes on Iran meant about his foreign policy doctrine, their exhaustion at trying to understand the mercurial president came through. 'I have no idea what the doctrine is. Ask him,' an Arab analyst said. 'Seriously?' a Bush II administration official replied. I granted them anonymity to be frank about their uncertainty. Others took a shot. Trump 'stresses diplomacy but leaves little doubt that those diplomatic windows do not stay open indefinitely,' said Bill Cortese, a GOP operative close to the White House. 'The use of force is always on the table but the use of U.S. assets is limited, focused, and with an end goal — no more open-ended conflicts. And it must answer the ultimate question: Does this directly benefit the people of the United States?' Eddie Fishman, a sanctions expert who worked for the Obama administration, put it this way: 'Trump seems to believe that the quick and decisive application of U.S. power — be it economic or military — can achieve maximalist objectives. As Trump sees it, the disparity in power between the U.S. and other countries is so great that when we act boldly, others will capitulate.' Trump's decision to strike Iran will test these theories, as well as his risk tolerance. It also could determine how his 'doctrine' — as much as one can call it that — is ultimately defined. Trump has urged Iran not to retaliate and to use the U.S. strike as an opportunity to negotiate some sort of peace. But Iran has already threatened revenge, and nearly every U.S. official I spoke to expects it will fulfill that promise. On Sunday, there were reports that Iran may shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could spike oil prices and roil markets. The U.S. also has some 40,000 troops stationed across the Middle East, giving Iran many potential targets. If Trump's hope for a one-and-done strike devolves into an endless tit-for-tat, he will have led the U.S. into the very type of war he's long promised to avoid. So much for the 'isolationist.' For countries watching this from the sidelines, there are lessons to learn from how both Trump and Iran approached this conflict, which spiraled after Israel began striking Iranian targets more than a week ago. One is that Trump isn't bluffing about using force, even in an extreme way. While he carried out military strikes during his first term (on Syria, on an Iranian general who was in Iraq) those moves were arguably more calibrated than this weekend's bunker-buster bombing on Iranian soil. A second lesson is that he believes in diplomacy, but he doesn't have much patience for it. That's especially the case when it comes to an adversary he sees as much weaker than the United States. Iranian officials tried to use their usual delaying tactics as they negotiated with Trump's envoys. When Israel decided to strike Iran two days before Iranian and U.S. officials were due to meet, Trump, annoyed with Tehran's unwillingness to commit to zero enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil, didn't try very hard to stop the Israelis. 'They thought they were dealing with a different kind of leader, like the kinds of leaders they've been playing games with for the last 30 or 40 years. And they found out that's not the case,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. Another lesson is to be prepared for the worst-case scenario when it comes to Trump. He says he'll decide 'within two weeks' whether to bomb you? It probably means you'll get bombed, like, right now. 'Don't underestimate and dismiss when he says crazy things,' Goldenberg said. 'They might actually happen.' When it comes to Iran, Trump watchers can still revert to the phrase 'America First' in trying to capture his bedrock foreign policy belief. Trump naysayers can argue that he's abandoning 'America First' by entering a war that could lead to the loss of U.S. lives and resources. Trump supporters can say: What's more 'America First' than eliminating the nuclear threat from an avowed U.S. enemy? The great thing about 'America First' is that it is malleable, just like Trump himself.
