On September 30, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth convened an extraordinary assembly at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, summoning nearly 800 generals, admirals, and senior enlisted leaders from across the globe. The event, billed as a major address on the future of the U.S. military, quickly became a lightning rod for controversy—both inside the Pentagon and beyond.
Standing before the nation’s most senior military brass, Hegseth delivered a blunt message: the era of "politically correct, overly sensitive, don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now." He called for an end to what he described as "woke" culture within the armed forces and announced sweeping changes to military standards, particularly targeting physical fitness and appearance.
"Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops," Hegseth proclaimed, according to The Atlantic. "Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon." He declared that, effective immediately, every member of the joint force—regardless of rank—would be required to take a physical fitness test twice a year and meet height and weight requirements on the same schedule. Hegseth, never shy about his own fitness regimen, boasted, "If the secretary of war can do regular, hard PT, so can every member of our joint force." On the day of his confirmation hearing, he said, he had completed five sets of 47 push-ups.
The new directives didn’t stop at fitness. Hegseth announced a ban on beards, long hair, and what he called "superficial individual expression," rolling out new grooming standards designed to enforce a uniform look across the ranks.
But it was Hegseth’s comments about women in the military that sparked some of the sharpest backlash. He claimed that standards had been lowered to accommodate female service members and that his new policies would restore those standards to a "higher level." He was unapologetic about the potential consequences: "If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it."
Reaction from veterans—especially those from Arizona—was swift and scathing. Derek Duba, an Army veteran who served as a linguist and intelligence collector in Germany, Morocco, and Poland, described the event as "a dog and pony show" and "a huge waste of time, effort, and attention to make a couple of people feel important." For Duba, the gathering was little more than "a show of aesthetics and symbolism" for Hegseth and President Donald Trump. "Veterans deserve better than that," he told The Copper Courier.
Joanna Sweatt, a Marine Corps veteran who deployed to Iraq and later worked as a recruiter, was even more direct. Watching the speech, she found herself yelling at the television, calling the ceremony "a real sh*tshow" and "a huge, egregious waste of taxpayers dollars." Sweatt, who served for a decade, pushed back forcefully on Hegseth’s claim that women receive accommodations in the military. "We had to perform the exact same from physical testing to combat fitness testing to shooting on weapons," she said. "I’ve never heard that from any other president in my lifetime, my father’s lifetime, my grandparents. You just don’t hear that rhetoric. It doesn’t make sense. This is not what the United States military’s mission, purpose and will is. This is terrible."
Melissa Cordero, an Air Force veteran from Tucson, echoed Sweatt’s frustration. "I worked so hard to outperform men. You’re not only out in a combat zone trying to survive that, but you’re one out of [many] men," she said, describing the pressure women face to prove themselves in a culture that can be "toxic at times." Cordero said Hegseth’s new direction for the military was "so hard to take seriously. This is not the military. That is not how good military leaders lead."
Selina Cardenas-Lemley, a former Marine, said the mood in the room spoke volumes. When Hegseth finished his speech, she recalled, "everyone was just stone faced. It was just a waste of time, a waste of taxpayer money."
Beyond the immediate fallout from the speech, many veterans expressed alarm at President Trump’s recent suggestion that the military use U.S. cities as "training grounds." Duba described such a proposal as "an abdication of leadership," recalling that service members are taught to follow orders only if they are legal, ethical, and moral. "Any instruction from Trump to turn on fellow citizens does not meet those qualifications," he said, urging service members to remember their oath is to the Constitution, not to any individual leader. "These are young people who want to serve their country. They didn’t sign up to bully or harass their fellow citizens. They didn’t sign up to step on people exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble."
Hegseth’s emphasis on physical fitness was met with skepticism—and outright mockery—by commentators nationwide. The Atlantic observed that Hegseth’s "dream world is the world of Ranger school—not the actual world of complex military operations involving land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace." On "The View," Joy Behar questioned his "very retro vision for our armed forces," while Sunny Hostin wondered aloud about his "obsession" with fitness. Critics accused Hegseth of fat-shaming and argued that his priorities were out of step with the realities of modern warfare.
Yet Hegseth and his supporters pointed to historical precedent. The New York Post cited the legendary World War II general George C. Marshall, who insisted that physical strength was foundational to military leadership. In 1940, Marshall testified before Congress that only leaders with "positive characteristics of leadership, with the physical stamina that goes with it, can function under those conditions." The argument: combat, even in an age of AI and drones, remains an intensely physical activity, requiring strength, stamina, and resilience.
Still, the facts on the ground tell a more nuanced story. Women now make up 20% of the U.S. military, and female recruitment has surged by 18% from 2023 to 2024—more than double the 8% increase among men. According to Elisa Cardnell, president and CEO of the Service Women’s Action Network, "physical requirements for infantry school, special operations, or any other combat role are already gender-neutral." She emphasized that women in these roles are held to the same standards as men, regardless of age or gender.
Hegseth’s critics worry that the new policies could undermine progress and morale at a time when the military is already struggling to recruit enough qualified men. The emphasis on aesthetics and symbolism, they argue, distracts from the complex, multidimensional challenges facing the modern armed forces.
As the dust settles from Hegseth’s Quantico address, one thing is clear: the debate over the future of the U.S. military—and what it means to serve—remains far from settled. Veterans, service members, and civilians alike are left to ponder whether the basics are truly back, or if the military’s mission is being reshaped by politics and spectacle.
