Gravity is routinely considered a force in some contexts, and routinely not in others. No harm either way if the context is suitable.
If we want to consider gravity as not-a-force, then we are considering that “motion in a straight line” is a more complicated concept in general relativity. To wit –
In freshman physics you learn that an object in motion (through 3D space) will stay in motion unless acted upon by a force. We call that inertia. The object just chugs along in a straight line.
In special relativity, we cannot freely talk about space and time separately, as they are intimately linked into a single 4D spacetime. But the same inertia idea holds: an object moving through 4D spacetime continues on a steady, straight path if you don’t interfere with it. As @Chronos notes above, that motion can be purely in the time direction (for a spatially stationary object), or it can be in a mixed direction with some steady spatial and temporal progression. The idea of a “straight line” starts to get less visual now, and the technical term “geodesic” is used to mean the most direct path between two points in a more complicated geometry like this (here, 4D spacetime).
In general relativity, 4D spacetime can be warped. Now a geodesic is further from the idea of a “straight line”, and in fact if we try to insist that an object’s motion stays seemingly “3D straight”, we must apply a force since a 3D straight path in this case is not along the geodesic. Conversely, if we let an object move freely near a gravitational source without additional influence, it follows the appropriate geodesic which appears like a curved path when referenced to some rectilinear coordinate system.
You may be thinking of how the Higgs field relates to particle masses. This is often discussed in popular media as stemming from the Higgs field “dragging” on other particles or some such. This metaphor is terrible and provides no usable intuition (even if it provides comfort), but all the same you might find within it a statement that the Higgs field provides a “force” on the particles to imbue them with mass.
Alternatively, you may be thinking of how the Higgs field (or particle) can be involved in particle interactions in the same way that, well, any particle can. The idea of forces is relevant here, but the Higgs is not special in its involvement (even compared to, say, an electron.)
Alternatively alternatively, you may be thinking of how the Higgs field is part of the process by which the electromagnetic and weak forces are unified, although this is now quite far from the original statement.
I suspect it’s just the first item, since the other two are rather obscure while the first shows up in popular science writing.