The National Security Implications of Chinese Students Attending US Universities (and How the Washington Post Sees It)

These three below Washington Post article concerning the Trump Administration clamping down on foreign students attending American universities appeared in the WaPo 28-30 May 2025, and evolved from a story lamenting the loss of revenue foreign students bring to colleges to finally recognizing that some of these students, especially the Chinese, pose a serious National Security risk. Most of the Chinese students major in engineering, computer science and other hard sciences with direct application to military and economic uses. What they learn here they bringing back to China and apply to either advancing military weapons systems or infringing on our patents and copyrights so they can wage economic war on us in World markets.  By avoiding research and development costs, the Chinese can and do undersell us by copying and selling our proprietary products cheaper than we can even produce let alone develop them.

It’s possibly just a coincident but after I posted my below comment in the comments section of the first article is when the focus slowly shifted from purely the colleges’ economic loss to recognizing that there was a national security and national economic component to the loss. Although I had previously posted similar comments, this is the first time my concerns have appeared to gain any traction.

 

Although I only posted the headline and a few snippets from each article, I did include a link to the entire WaPo article and it is well worthwhile reading each of them. After reading the articles, read my comment that I hope had some role in evolving the story from one of economics on colleges to one of National Security.

Higher Education

Here’s how much international students contribute to the U.S. economy

 

International students contributed $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023-2024 school year. Their loss could hurt more than just universities’ bottom line.

 

By Vivian Ho 28 May 2025

 

As the Trump administration pauses new student visas in its battle to force change at the nation’s elite universities, economists warn that the loss of international students would affect not just the schools that depend on their tuition but local and state economies, as well.

 

The more than 1.1 million international students who studied in the United States last year contributed nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2023-2024 school year, according to nonpartisan nonprofit NAFSA, the Association of International Educators — from $10 million in Alaska to more than $6 billion in California — and supported more than 378,000 jobs.

 

“Students don’t just spend money paying tuition fees,” Nicholas Barr, a professor at the London School of Economics, said in an interview. “They pay rent, they go to restaurants, they travel.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/28/international-students-economic-impact-trump-harvard/?commentID=85ec1814-c41d-484d-96a2-8b8824328480

 

 

Immigration

Trump administration to crack down on Chinese visas, Rubio says

 

He said the State and Homeland Security departments will work to “aggressively revoke” visas of Chinese students in the United States, “including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

 

By David Nakamura and Katrina Northrop

29 May 2025

 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday announced plans to crack down on Chinese holders of student visas and ramp up scrutiny of new visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, escalating the Trump administration’s confrontational approach to Beijing.

 

He did not specify which areas of study would be targeted — of the 277,398 Chinese students at U.S. universities last year, more than 110,000 were pursuing math, engineering, science and technology courses ….

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/28/chinese-visas-applicants-trump-rubio/

 

 

 

Trump’s visa clampdown plunges 275,000 Chinese students into uncertainty

 

Chinese students make up nearly up nearly a quarter of all international students in the United States. Here’s who they are and what they’re studying.

 

By Kim Bellware and Angie Orellana Hernandez

30 May 2025

 

More than a quarter-million Chinese students attending college in the United States saw their futures plunged into uncertainty Wednesday when the Trump administration announced an aggressive clampdown on student visa holders from that country.

 

The majority of Chinese students study subjects related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics, according to the Institute of International Education. For the 2023-2024 academic year, nearly a quarter of students were pursuing math and computer science, while 17 percent were majoring in a form of engineering.

 

Nearly half of Chinese students in the U.S. — 44.3 percent — are seeking graduate degrees, while about 32 percent are enrolled as undergraduates, the IIE data showed. About 22 percent of students are participating in optional practical training, which offers temporary employment directly related to an F-1 visa holder’s field of study.

 

The IIE estimated that Chinese students in the U.S. have an economic impact of $14.2 billion. Its report listed New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois as the most popular landing spots for the students.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/29/chinese-students-data-visa/

 

 

The Old Colonel’s Take on Chinese Students Attending US Universities and the National Security Implications

 

I’ve been posting this below in the past and I’m absolutely delighted that the WaPo is finally echoing my concerns:

 

In the lead up to World War II the United States sold Japan huge amounts of iron so in essence we supplied them with the materials that enabled them to attack us. We are now in a similar situation with Communist China but instead of iron, we are selling them the intellectual capital to shoot back at us and with which to defeat us both economically and militarily. In the 2023-24 school year over 277,000 Chinese nationals were enrolled in U.S. universities, representing roughly 25% of all international students and they are mostly attending our top universities mostly majoring in engineering and computer science. The top universities with significant Red Chinese student populations include Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, the University of Southern California, University of California Los Angeles, Michigan State University and Ohio State University.

 

What the first article is touting as an economic negative is really a National Security positive. Although by reducing the number of foreign students attending, colleges may lose the tuition they would have paid but that money is a pittance compared to the intellectual “ammunition” they are taking away in knowledge. It is what these Chinese students learn here and bring back home that will someday enable China to challenge us both economically and militarily. Instead of us selling them the “iron” to defeat us on the battlefield, we are selling them what is now our intellectual “iron” so they can defeat us on both the economic and military battlefields of the future. Appears we have forgotten the lessons we learned 80+ years ago.

Washington Post Reporting on SecDef Hegseth's Dysfunctional Department of Defense and the Old Colonel's Take on His Performance

On 27 May 2025, the day after Memorial Day, this article appeared in the Washington Post.  

Within Pete Hegseth’s divided inner circle, a ‘cold war’ endures

 

At the Pentagon, personality conflicts persist and inexperience reigns, fueling speculation about Pete Hegseth’s long-term viability in Trump’s Cabinet.

 

By Dan Lamothe, 28 May 2025

 

An enduring rift among Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s cadre of senior advisers has divided the Pentagon’s front office and fueled internal speculation about his long-term viability in the Cabinet post after several episodes that attracted White House scrutiny, according to numerous people familiar with the matter.

 

The article goes on to describe a Pentagon in chaos and a dysfunctional Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although lengthy, Lamothe lays out a compelling argument that Hegseth’s inner circle is too busy fighting amongst themselves and playing one-ups-manship jockeying for position to carry out the business of keeping this country safe. Don’t take my word for it, it’s well worth your time to read Dan Lamothe’s entire article at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/27/hegseth-advisers-pentagon-trump/

As I often do, I posted my take on the article in the WaPo comments section and here is my evaluation of the former “FOX & Friends” personality, former Army National Guard Major and now present United States Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Peter B. Hegseth.

Of all of Trump’s Cabinet appointees, Hegseth is by far the least qualified. His ill advised dismissal of highly respected and performing senior uniformed leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Chief of Naval Operations; the Director of the National Security Agency; and the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy and Air Force has caused unnecessary chaos and dissension in the ranks. He has done more to degrade Military readiness in 100 Days than Biden did in 4 years and that’s saying something. His “Signalgate” blunder not only exposed him as incompetent but also called into question the competence of everyone on the call. I predict Hegseth will have worn out his welcome at the Pentagon by the end of the Summer and Trump will be forced to fire him.

As for “Signalgate,” I am a retired 30 year service Army Full Colonel with a Pentagon G-3 tour and combat battalion and brigade level commands and in my opinion anyone that can’t recognize this below exchange over non-secure communications as a serious compromise of highly classified operational information does not belong in any Government position responsible for National Defense. As a matter of fact, everyone participating in this forum that did not immediately intervene to curtail this serious Security breach is equally at fault. Heads should roll!

Judge for yourself, here is the exact text of SecDef Hegseth’s “Signalgate” Message:

"TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch. 1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package). 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s),"

"1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package). 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets). 1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched … Godspeed to our Warriors."

Waltz later wrote "The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance replied, "Excellent.”

The Washington Post (WaPo) Is Still Censoring Conservative Voices

 

The day after the 5 November 2024 Presidential Election I was reading the comments to a WaPo article about Trump’s victory and noticed a comment that hit home with me. It seems a commenter was complaining about one of his rather non-controversial comments being removed by the WaPo censors and because this often happens to me, I wrote the below “Comment I tried to post” supporting his contention that WaPo censors target conservative commenters to disproportionately censor conservative voices. When I hit the “Submit” button I found in the time it took me to write my comment the WaPo Censors had already deleted the comment I was replying to so I got this message: “This comment has been removed by the moderator.” Hence, I wrote this “Message I actually posted” and posted it but notice I predicted “Let’s see how long it takes for the WaPo Censors to remove my comment.” The WaPo Censors did not disappoint me because within 15 minutes they had removed my comment once again confirming the WaPo tagline: “Democracy Dies in Darkness and the WaPo Is Turning Out the Lights.”

If I were to post my original comment in the WaPo comments section I’m confident the WaPo Censors would just remove it again and probably suspend me from commenting so I’ll post it at my Blog here and anyone interested is seeing my 100% true comment that was so objectionable or “inaccurate” that it offended the delicate sensitivities of the WaPo Censors so they had to remove it can read it and judge it for themselves.

Message I actually posted:

I just tried to reply to a rather nebulous comment complaining about the WaPo censors deleting one of the commenter’s previous comments but when I tried to post the below comment I got a message: “This comment has been removed by the moderator.” Appears “Moderator” is the new WaPo euphemism for “Censor.” Let’s see how long it takes for the WaPo Censors to remove my comment.

Comment I tried to post

This happens to me all the time, especially when I post comments that include links to previous WaPo articles debunking all the misinformation and even outright lies contained in the article.

WaPo censors are quick to silence Conservative voices by deleting the comment and serving suspensions from commenting for posting 100% true and accurate comments that might not align with the false narrative the WaPo was trying to peddle to their majority Liberal-Left-Leaning readership.

In recent years I have been a frequent WaPo commenter gleefully pointing out and correcting their numerous errors but have noticed over time fewer and fewer comments from Conservatives have been showing up. I had assumed this lack of Conservative comments was due to fewer and fewer Conservative WaPo subscribers as the paper kept drifting further and further to the Left and losing readers but over time it has become apparent that the WaPo just censors, deletes and ultimately bans Conservative voices to avoid embarrassment from having their errors and biased coverage exposed. I know this because that is what has been happening to me.

At my Blog (https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com ) I have posted several of my 100% accurate comments that have been removed and even garnered suspensions to challenge anyone to point out what was so objectionable or inaccurate that it offended the delicate sensitivities of the WaPo Censors other than it confirms the WaPo has become nothing more than a Liberal-Left-Leaning Democrat propaganda rag.

Democrat VP Candidate Tim Walz & Dem Virginia -7 US House of Representatives Seat Candidate Yevgeny “Eugene” Vindman Both Telling the Same Lies -- Technique in the Democrat Candidate Playbook or Coincidence?

Because Democrat VP candidate Tim Walz and Dem VA-7 US House of Representatives Seat Candidate Yevgeny “Eugene” Vindman both used the exact same lie to misrepresent their Military records, I’m curious if the technique is taught in the Democrat Candidate Playbook or if both using the exact same lies was just a coincidence.

Despite being called out on it for years, MSG Walz continued to claim he was a “Retired Command Sergeant Major” (CSM/E-9) on his website and political campaign literature. Even MSG Walz's bio on the Harris-Walz campaign website described him as a "retired Command Sergeant Major in the Army National Guard” until they were forced to correct it by public ridicule. Although MSG Walz did serve as a CSM/E-9 for about 6 months, he did not qualify to retire in that rank so was demoted to Master Sergeant (MSG/E-8) to go on the retired rolls. The Harris-Walz website correction was artfully worded to be technically correct but to still give the false impression he retired as a CSM. The artful change was to say MSG Walz "served as a Command Sergeant Major."

MSG Walz also lied when he was caught referring to "weapons of war that I carried in war" despite him never having served in a combat zone let alone “in war.” When exposed for this “stolen valor” faux pas and his other lies like being present at the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, MSG Walz explained these “discrepancy”  by declaring "I'm a knucklehead at times."

Identical to MSG Walz’s misrepresentations, LTC Vindman served as a Colonel/O6 for five (5) months before being demoted to retire as a Lieutenant Colonel because he did not qualify to retire in the higher grade. That didn’t deter him from falsely referring to himself as: “Colonel Eugene Vindman, US Army Retired” and “Retired Army Colonel Vindman” on his campaign website and other campaign literature as well as in his stump speech. Like the Harris-Walz website correction, LTC Vindman’s was artfully worded to be technically correct but to still give the untruthful impression he is a retired Colonel. He now refers to himself as “a former Army Colonel” but he is still officially on the retired rolls as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Of course LTC Vindman and his surrogates have perpetuated the myth that his promotion was delayed so he was forced to retire by Trump before he had sufficient Time-in-Grade to retire as a Colonel but nothing could be further from the truth. He was considered and promoted to Colonel on time with no disruption to his career and he elected to retire on his own even though it mean being demoted. I suggest anyone that doubts this should read the official DA IG investigation of his treatment.

No one, not even Trump forced LTC Vindman to retire and in fact, he retired in 2022 when Biden was president. LTC Vindman did submit a waiver requesting to be allowed to retire in the grade of COL/06 but it was denied by the Biden administration. This was consistent with normal practice and precedent as there have only been two waivers of officer retiring in a higher grade without serving the required Time-in-Grade in the past 35 years and one was when President Obama allowed GENERAL Stanley McCrystal to retire as a 4 Star General.

Finally, like MSG Walz, LTC Vindman embellished his combat record. His campaign fund raising mailers contained the following statement: “In the Army, I used assault-style weapons on the battlefield. Now, I am running for Congress to ensure these weapons of war are not easier to get than a driver’s license.”

Although LTC Vindman served as an Infantry Officer for almost 10 years, he never had an Infantry command nor went into combat as an Infantryman but after becoming a JAG he did manage to spend 5 months in Iraq as a Captain Law of War advisor in the relatively safe Baghdad Green Zone. During his short stint in Iraq he was never in combat nor fired his weapon despite in his campaign literature he bragged about firing an assault weapon in combat. It should be noted that he received NO combat awards for his shortstay in Iraq and that almost all of his contemporaries had served at least three (3) combat tours/36 months between Iraq and Afghanistan.

To add insult to injury, LTC Vindman is running a campaign ad on TV accusing his VA-7 opponent Army National Guard Special Forces Major Derrick Anderson of lying when he calls him out for originally lying about his retired rank and about falsely claiming to have “used an assault-style weapons on the battlefield” when in fact it’s Vindman that is still lying. For the record, MAJ Anderson has had six (6) deployments to Southwest Asia including 15 months in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan and he has been awarded a Bronze Star and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

For a detailed comparison of the two VA-7 US House candidates, Vindman and Anderson, see:

The Race for the Virginia 7th District US House of Representatives Seat Between Conservative Republican Candidate Anderson and Liberal Democrat Candidate Vindman – A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Candidates

https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-race-for-virginia-7th-district-us.html?m=1

The Race for the Virginia 7th District US House of Representatives Seat Between Conservative Republican Candidate Anderson and Liberal Democrat Candidate Vindman – A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Candidates

This year the race for the Virginia 7^th District US House of Representatives seat being vacated by Abigail Spanberger pits two Army Veterans against each other in what is turning out to be a very competitive race.  On the Republican side Derrick Anderson is currently a National Guard Special Forces Major who spent 8 years on active duty as an Infantry and Special Forces Officer.  He was born and raised in the 7^th District and has deep roots in the community with local Conservative Republican values. he graduated from Courtland High School in Spotsylvania Courthouse and Virginia Tech. Anderson is a lawyer having graduate from the prestigious Georgetown University Law Center.

His opponent on the Democrat side for the seat is Yevgeny “Eugene” Vindman, a retired Army Judge Advocate General Corps Lieutenant Colonel who spent his early years as an Infantry officer before going to Law School and transferring into the JAGC. He was born in the Ukraine and grew up in New York City with local Liberal Democrat values. He graduated from FDR High School in Brooklyn and the State University of New York at Binghamton. Vindman only moved into the 7^th District in 2016 as a result of him being assigned to the Pentagon and then the White House. Vindman is a graduate of the University of Georgia Law School.

For a quick comparison of their background:

Since both Anderson and Vindman are touting their Military experience as their main attribute, let’s compare their Service.

Anderson is still a serving National Guard Army Special Forces Major with 8 years of active duty and multiple Southwest Asia tours including a 15-Month “Surge” tour in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. He is an Airborne Ranger with a Combat Infantryman’s Badge (CIB) and Bronze Star among other awards. He is also a graduate of the elite Special Forces Qualification Course and has had multiple SF commands and deployments to Afghanistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, and Lebaron. Between combat tours he served 2 years in the elite “Old Guard” at Arlington National Cemetery.

Although Vindman served as an Infantry Officer for almost 10 years, he never had an Infantry command nor went into combat as an Infantryman but after becoming a JAG he did manage to spend 5 months in Iraq as a Captain Law of War advisor in the relatively safe Baghdad Green Zone. While in Iraq he was never in combat nor fired his weapon although in his campaign literature he bragged about firing an assault weapon in combat. It should be noted that he received NO combat awards for his service and that almost all of his contemporaries served at least three (3) combat tours between Iraq and Afghanistan.  As a JAGC Officer, Vindman served mostly in Stateside assignments although he did have one overseas tour in Germany.

Vindman was promoted to Colonel before retiring but was demoted to retire as a Lieutenant Colonel because he did not qualify to retire in that higher grade.  He now refers to himself as “a former Army colonel” after being exposed to public ridicule for falsely referring to himself as: “Colonel Eugene Vindman, US Army Retired” and “Retired Army Colonel Vindman” on his campaign website and other and places.  He is officially on the retired rolls as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Contrary to the misinformation being circulated by Liberal sources that LTC Vindman was somehow "forced to retire," the fact is NO one, not even Trump forced Vindman to retire and in fact, he retired in 2022 when Biden was president. Vindman submitted a waiver requesting to be allowed to retire in the grade of COL/06 but it was denied by the Biden administration. This was consistent with normal practice as there have only been two waivers approved for officer to retire in a higher grade without serving the required Time-in-Grade in the past 35 years and one was when President Obama allowed GEN Stanley McCrystal to retire as a 4 Star General.

For a quick comparison of their career assignments:

A good indication of how successful an officer’s career was is by looking at the Awards, Decorations and Badges they amassed over their time in service. Here is a quick comparison of the recognition for both their service:

Again Washington Post Censors Silence a Conservative Voice for Exposing Their Misinformation About Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

On 8 October 2024 the Washington Post (WaPo) published this article mischaracterizing something as a “Congressional Report” when it was in fact, a “report” produced by a single member of Congress, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a notorious misinformation peddler and Kavanaugh hater.

FBI probe of Kavanaugh constrained by Trump White House, report finds

A congressional report finds new evidence of how the White House’s tightly controlled an FBI investigation into sexual assault claims against the Supreme Court nominee.

By Beth Reinhard

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/kavanaugh-trump-white-house-fbi-report/

I quickly posted the below comment including links to previous WaPo articles debunking all the misinformation and even outright lies contained in this article.

Once again, the WaPo censors were quick to silence this Conservative voice by deleting the comment and serving me with a one day suspension from commenting for posting the below 100% true and accurate comment that might not align with the false narrative the WaPo was trying to peddle to their majority Liberal-Left-Leaning readership. 

In recent years I have been a frequent WaPo commenter gleefully pointing out and correcting their numerous errors but have noticed over time fewer and fewer comments from Conservatives have been showing up.  I had assumed this lack of Conservative comments was do to fewer and fewer Conservative WaPo subscribers as the paper kept drifting further and further to the Left and losing readers but over time it has become apparent that the WaPo just censors, deletes and ultimately bans Conservative voices to avoid embarrassment from having their errors and biased coverage exposed. I know this because that is what has been happening to me.

Below is what garnered my latest suspension and I challenge anyone to point out what is so objectionable or inaccurate about this comment that it offended the delicate sensitivities of the WaPo Censors other than it confirms the WaPo has become nothing more than a Liberal-Left-Leaning Democrat propaganda rag. Although the links in my below WaPo comment thoroughly discredits this WaPo fairytale, here is a link to my January 2023 Blog posting about my previous comment the WaPo also removed that goes into far more detail proving the WaPo continues to peddle the same already discredited misinformation about Kavanaugh:

https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2023/01/dishonest-sundance-hit-piece-brett.html

 

Even the WaPo has thoroughly discredited both Ford’s and Ramirez’s stories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/24/new-kavanaugh-allegation-is-precarious-legal-ground-former-sex-crimes-prosecutors-say/

While Politico destroyed everything Ramirez said and the New York Times wouldn’t even publish it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/deborah-ramirez-attorney-kavanagh-fbi-841973

If you can handle the truth, suggest reading “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” by New York Times reporters Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin. These two ultra-Liberal NYT reporters thoroughly discredit every unfounded allegation against Justice Kavanaugh. Here was their bottom line according to the NYT:

“Pogrebin and Kelly spend significant time digging into Blasey Ford’s accusations and also those of Deborah Ramirez, a woman who says Kavanaugh put his penis in her face at a Yale college party. They track down any witnesses and friends willing to talk, comb through legal documents, do their best to find the house where Blasey Ford says the assault took place. They point out critical witnesses that the F.B.I., in its very limited investigation, did not have time to interview. In the end they turn up no smoking gun, no secret confession, no friend who comes forth to say Kavanaugh was lying all this time.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/books/review/the-education-of-brett-kavanaugh-robin-pogrebin-kate-kelly.html

And for more about this subject, see:

https://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.com/2024/03/washington-post-book-review-after.html

A Critique of Lucian Truscott Newsletter article: The convictions of Lt. Calley, dead at 80, by Lucian K. Truscott IV, 31 July 2024

This is a critique of an article that just appeared in a Newsletter published by Lucian Truscott IV that was prompted by the recent discovery that Lieutenant Calley of My Lai Massacre fame had passed away this past April. Lucian IV, a disgraced West Point Grad cashiered out of the Army “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” had been a reporter covering Calley’s Court Martial so used this opportunity to rehash his grievances against those superiors that found him unfit to serve as well as disparage ALL Vietnam era Army Officer Candidate School (OCS) produced officers.  During Vietnam almost half of all junior officers came out of OCS and the vast majority of them were exemplary.  Calley was an anomaly that slipped through.  Here is a link to Lucian IV’s website if you want to waste your time reading his garbage or you can just read my critique and see why he is full of shit!  As full disclosure, I was a Draftee that graduated from OCS and went to Vietnam as a Second Lieutenant, extended to come how a decorated Captain with a Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and remained in the Army to retire a Colonel.

https://luciantruscott.substack.com/p/the-convictions-of-lt-calley-dead?triedRedirect=true

Lucian K. Truscott IV was born in 1947 in Japan into a distinguished US Army family of West Point graduates.  His father was Army Colonel Lucian K. Truscott III and his grandfather was Lucian Jr., a US Army general during World War II who commanded the 3rd Infantry Division and later the Fifth Army in Italy. His father Lucian III served in Korea and Vietnam and young Lucian IV attended the United States Military Academy, graduating in 1969.  In that most of his West Point classmates and young Lucian IV were destined to do a tour in Vietnam, after completing only thirteen months of his four year commitment pay back for his free education and still a second lieutenant, he was found to be unfit for Military service and was cashiered out of the Army “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions." Truth be told, his “unfit act” was probably his way of avoiding the dangers of combat because he was a COWARD!

Without going into all the details, suffice to say First Lieutenant William “Rusty” Calley was the only soldier tried and convicted of the 1968 infamous My Lai Massacre.  He was found guilty of personally killing not fewer than 20 civilians and was sentenced to life in prison on 29 March 1971. Two days later, President Richard Nixon ordered him removed from the Stockade and placed under house arrest.  He eventually served three and a half years of house arrest before being paroled by Nixon in 1974.

Young Lucian IV having been drummed out of the Army Under Other than Honorable Conditions, the Village Voice deemed he was the ideal person for the hatchet job they wanted done on the Army, especially the officer corps, so they employed him and sent him to Fort Benning to cover the Calley trial that began in November 1970.  Needless to say young Lucian IV did not disappoint which brings us up to the present.

The death of former Lieutenant Calley had just became public on 30 July 2024 when it was discovered in a public record. He had died in a hospice at age 80 in Gainesville, Florida on 28 April 2024.  Now the not-so-young 77 year old Lucian IV decided to use this as an opportunity to ostensibly rehash the Calley story but actually it appears his real intention was to vilify the Vietnam era Army Officer Corps and especially Officers commissioned out of Officers Candidate School (OCS), as well as other senior officers he felt had “done him wrong.” This Officer Corps he obviously despised was the same one that found him unfit to serve in and booted him out of “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.” It seems this article was just another one of his efforts to “get even” with others that had recognized his unfitness to serve.

Without going into all the misstatements and outright lies contained in Lucian IV’s article, I’ll provide these few directly quoted passages to illustrate how ignorant he really is and especially ignorant about OCS produced officers:

“He (Calley) had been drafted into the Army as part of Project 100,000, a program initiated by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that lowered IQ standards and removed the requirement for enlistees to have a high school diploma.  It came out at dinner that when he was drafted, Calley had a high school diploma and one year at a junior college.  What we were not told was that he had flunked out.  When he was drafted, Calley was one of the better recruits in 1967, when opposition to the war had created a system of dodging the draft that was being employed by college students who dropped out or reached the end of their studies and became draft eligible.

The Army’s standards to become an officer had demanded a college education, but under Project 100,000, that went away, and a year of junior college was deemed sufficient, apparently even if you had flunked out.  Calley was sent to Officer Candidate School (OCS), a program at Fort Benning that lasted 90 days after soldiers graduated from Basic Training.  Calley, with only two months of Basic and three months of OCS, popped out a second lieutenant…”

First off, Calley was NOT drafted and he certainly was NOT part of McNamara's Project 100,000, a controversial Department of Defense (DoD) program to draft soldiers who would previously have been below military mental Category IV or medical standards. Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 and was ended in December 1971. Calley voluntarily enlisted in July 1966. Seems Lucian IV was also under the delusion that “The Army’s standards to become an officer had demanded a college education, but under Project 100,000, that went away.” In fact, a College degree was NOT required for an Army commission until the mid-1980’s and even today as an exception under the “Early Commissioning Program” graduates of the four Military Junior Colleges can be commissioned as second lieutenants with just two years of college.

During Vietnam about half the junior commissioned officers came from OCS with many being “College Ops” who were college graduates that enlisted with a guarantee of attending OCS but not necessarily graduating. Except for a very few NCOs that applied for OCS, the vast majority were voluntary enlistees and draftees that were identified during initial Reception Station testing as officer material. At the Reception Station new inductees were administered a series of tests called the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) (the predecessor of todays Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery [ASVAB]) to match aptitude with the needs of the Army. Inductees that scored high on the GT Test (the IQ Test) were given a series of other tests such as the Officer’s Leadership Inventory (OLI) to qualify to apply to attend OCS. Most of this latter group were not college graduates and Calley’s scores including his GT/IQ Test were high enough to qualify for OCS.

Seems Lucian IV was under the mistaken impression that “Officer Candidate School (OCS) was a program at Fort Benning that lasted 90 days after soldiers had graduated from just 8 weeks of Basic Training.”  In fact, OCS Lieutenants had attended 8 weeks of Basic Training, 8+ Weeks of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and 23 weeks of OCS “Hell” (with an attrition rate >50%). In fact, by 1968 there were three six month OCS courses, Infantry at Fort Benning, GA; Artillery at Fort Sill, OK; and Engineer at Fort Belovir, VA.  OCS was designed to put a candidate under the constant stress they would experience under combat conditions and provide the knowledge to keep a new lieutenant alive in Vietnam.  As a result, OCS Officers were the most sought after by commanders for Platoon Leader positions.

If Lucian IV was interested in finding out what he obviously didn’t know about Vietnam era OCS, I would recommend he read “Not a Gentleman’s War” by Ron Milan, a Professor of Military History at Texas Tech and a Vietnam Vet OCS Officer.

In 1967, Army Chief of Staff GEN Harold K. Johnson placed LTG Ralph E. Haines Jr. in charge of The Haines Board, an eleven member review board comprised of a 3-Star LTG, a 2-Star MG, two 1-Star BGs, and seven COLs and LTCs that examined the training of newly commissioned officers from all three of the major commissioning sources: the United States Military Academy (USMA) West Point graduates, Reserve Officers Training Course (ROTC) from colleges officer training programs, and Officer Candidate School (OCS) graduates comprised of  both college graduates guaranteed attendance but not graduation and Regular Army Soldiers and Draftees normally identified during Induction Stations testing as having officer potential.

The Haines Board Final Report contained the following “Analysis of Current Army System of Officer Schools” and especially OCS:

Ø  “The Board did reserve its highest praise in terms of providing officers ready to assume troop command and to this source of commissioning it could not have been more complimentary…. The OCS program produces well trained and well motivated second lieutenants … and probably the best prepared of all newly commissioned officers for immediate duty assignment are OCS graduates.”

Ø  “… it should be noted that of the graduates of the three major sources of commissioning it is the OCS graduate who is considered by senior commanders as the best trained for platoon-level troop duty, in the initial duty assignment …. The concentrated six-month program of training that comprises the current OCS schedule is able to focus instruction at the platoon leader level. As a result, the average OCS graduate is a technically trained leader, well qualified to assume an appropriate company level assignment.”

During the Vietnam War the Army contracted with George Washington University to conduct numerous studies of its activities under the umbrella name Human Resources Research Office or HUMRRO Contract and one of the studies was “An Analysis of U.S. Army Officer Candidate Schools.” The results of that study confirmed the findings of the Haines Board.

Finally, to get a comparison of proficiency of new second Lieutenants from the three sources, the Army Infantry School Analysis & Review Branch of the Director of Instruction at Fort Benning tested 1200 newly Branch Qualified Infantry Officers using the “Basic Officer Course Military Stakes Examination” and the results were shocking.  USMA Graduates scored 57.1% on the test while ROTC College Graduates scored 48.1% but OCS Graduates scored 70.3%.

Bottom line and to put it mildly, Lucian K. Truscott IV is full of shit!  Not only does he not have a clue about the quality of Officership in the US Army during the Vietnam War, he doesn’t even know how long OCS was during Vietnam or how potential officers were selected to attend it.  As a disgraced former officer cashiered out under “Other Than Honorable Condition” as unfit to serve, he has a lot of gall criticizing anyone that actually had the qualifications and guts to serve.  Lucian IV was simply an unfit COWARD and I suspect his father and grandfather were ashamed of him in 1970 and looking down from Heaven are still ashamed of him today.