Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is worried the military doesn't have enough testosterone. On Wednesday, he announced a plan to begin screening service members to make sure they have adequate levels. NPR's Will Stone has more on the plan.
WILL STONE, BYLINE: In Hegseth's view, testosterone is a matter of national security and wartime readiness.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PETE HEGSETH: This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement.
STONE: That's the secretary in a video posted on social media yesterday.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
HEGSETH: It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity, and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.
STONE: According to Hegseth, service members 30 and older will have their testosterone levels checked annually. Those who are younger will have the option, too. If levels are indeed low, they could pursue testosterone replacement therapy. The guidelines from major medical groups do not recommend this kind of routine screening unless a man has symptoms. Dr. Martin Miner codirects the Center for Men's Health at Brown University.
MARTIN MINER: I think it's very aggressive. But it depends on how it's implemented. It's a little frightening to me.
STONE: His primary concern? The policy could encourage young men to reach for testosterone replacement therapy before trying to correct the underlying drivers, like poor sleep and obesity.
MINER: If you just tell men, your level is low and we need to optimize it to make you a better fighting machine, to me, that's not really doing them a service.
STONE: Especially since taking testosterone does affect fertility. But other experts think it's an entirely reasonable proposal, including Dr. Mohit Khera, a urologist at Baylor College of Medicine.
MOHIT KHERA: Men who have low testosterone levels will suffer from decreased energy, decreased muscle mass, some form of depression and poor mood. Those three in themselves, for someone who's in combat, is a significant disadvantage.
STONE: He says checking for low T and bringing it back to a normal range is very different than advocating that it should be boosted to unnatural levels. And there's an ongoing discussion in his field about whether most men should be screened. Khera says it can be a powerful marker of overall health. He acknowledges most men in their 30s will ultimately not screen for low T and require treatment.
KHERA: However, we are seeing that younger and younger men are having lower and lower testosterone levels. Why? Every decade? Because we're becoming more unhealthy as a general population.
STONE: This latest initiative fits into the Trump administration's broader push, spearheaded by figures like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to promote men's health and expand access to testosterone.
As some have observed, offering testosterone supplements is gender-affirming care, which the Trump administration opposes when it comes to the transgender population.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who heard the news and thought of Dr. Strangelove's ultraconservative General Jack D. Ripper, insecure and obsessed about his virility, and paranoid that the Soviets have been polluting the "precious bodily fluids" of him and other Americans.
Meanwhile, in late January this year, the documentary Melania was released, a puff piece on First Lady Melania Trump that was pretty transparently a bribe by Amazon's Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump. Back in April, Variety summarized most of the issues:
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is accusing Amazon MGM Studios of committing "bribery in plain sight" after the media giant spent lavishly to land a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. However the company disagrees with that assessment and maintains it has done nothing wrong.
In March, the Massachusetts senator and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) led an investigation into whether Amazon MGM's investment in "Melania" was "part of a corrupt pay-to-play arrangement with the Trump administration."
That's after Amazon MGM paid $40 million to acquire — and another $35 million to market — "Melania," an unprecedented sum considering documentaries aren't box office juggernauts. Warren pointed out that Amazon MGM's offer was $26 million above the next-highest bidder, Disney. After "Melania" opened theatrically in January, the film ended its run with $16.6 million at the global box office. It's an impressive result for the genre but nowhere near enough for Amazon MGM to break even on the film since exhibitors keep half of ticket sales. To note, plenty of films (especially in post-pandemic times) fail to turn a profit in theaters.
"The fact that Amazon is seeking favorable treatment from the Trump Administration while paying a far-above-market sum to produce and promote the Trump family's film raises questions about Amazon's exposure under federal anti-bribery law," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Amazon on March 15. "The American people deserve assurance that powerful corporations are not using their financial resources to gain political influence or favorable treatment at public expense — and that these corporations are not violating federal bribery laws."
Warren and Johnson asked Amazon to explain its $40 million payment for the documentary and clarify whether the company discussed its bid with Melania Trump directly or with anyone in the administration. In response, Amazon pushed back against the notion that its financial commitment was a bribe. The company said its decision to license "Melania" was based on "the access, the story, and its cultural and historical relevance." . . .
"If there's nothing corrupt about this deal and the bidding process was truly 'competitive,' why won't Amazon explain why it reportedly paid three times as much as the next highest bidder?" Warren said in a new statement. "The logical explanation is that Amazon is trying to buy the President's favor by dumping millions into the Trump family's pockets. This looks like bribery in plain sight, and Amazon must give Congress — and the American people — answers now."
The letter notes that since President Trump's 2024 election, Amazon has donated $1 million to his inauguration fund, along with an unknown sum to the construction of the White House's new "gold-encrusted" ballroom. The lawmakers also argue that Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos have financial stakes in several matters before the administration ranging from an antitrust lawsuit it recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission to foreign trade deals and federal contracts.
"When we saw the oligarchs and tech bros gather in front-row seats at Trump's second inauguration — some of whom gave him millions for his re-election campaign — it raised the specter that the rich and powerful were going to wield dangerous levels of power and influence on the nation through their largess to this transactional and corrupt president," Johnson said in a new statement. "Amazon's 'nothing-to-see-here' response makes this fear even more of a reality. If there were truly nothing to see, then Amazon would have answered these basic questions."
The corruption behind Melania shouldn't be ignored. Meanwhile, looking at the film as pop culture and conservative culture war fodder, the conservative faithful predictably praised the movie, although independent critics were much less impressed. As of this writing, Melania is rated an abysmal 1.6 of 10 on IMDb, 5 of 100 on Metacritic and 10% of 100% from critics at Rotten Tomatoes (where conservatives have bombarded the fan ratings to rate it 99%, higher than many bona fide classics, but conservatives don't really get the whole "art" thing). To be fair, I haven't seen the movie yet myself (and wouldn't want to give it any money). I suspect I'll largely agree with the zero star reviews, although historian Rick Perlstein has argued that while the film has been reasonably mocked, it is interesting to see it for "how the pageantry gets staged."
In addition to the Trumps pocketing $40 million for the movie, Donald Trump joined with other conservatives in praising the film itself and his wife:
"She has a very successful movie out right now, like number one. Can you believe this?" Trump said.
"Big movie star," he continued of his wife. "I always say it's trouble, because I always say there's not room in one family for two stars. I told her that we can't have two stars in one family ... The theaters are all packed. Women, especially, they go back, and they see it two or three times, four times."
A powerful man pushing a woman into the limelight, which she's ill-suited for, and insisting she's great? I found myself thinking of Charles Foster Kane.
No comments:
Post a Comment