Will Diminishing Female Military Members Make America "Great Again?"

Lily Jacobs 

(Sgt. Angela Lorden for the U.S. Army)

Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently held a gathering of military officers to discuss the new mission for the US military. Among a plethora of complaints and calls for reforms, Hegseth argued that those who train for physical fitness must be held to the “highest male standard.” Hegseth told the crowd: “If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.” As a novice defense secretary, Hegseth’s comments reflect a level of inadequacy, sending our foes a message that we are willing to do whatever it takes to diminish our legitimacy on the global stage.

This recounting of partisan complaints is unprecedented in US history, drawing backlash from former and current military personnel. Hegseth repeatedly admonished women’s role in the military, claiming that women were able to serve in the military because physical fitness standards had slipped in recent years. While men and women meet different basic fitness standards for admission to the military, both meet the same standard requirement for higher-level positions. Furthermore, the word “male” implies that women are not fit to be in combat, whether it’s a more physically demanding career or not. Hegseth also directed the Department of Defense to “execute their service fitness tests at a gender-neutral, age-normed male standard.” The words “gender-neutral” and “male” contradict one another – what are the standards then?

The military is meant to be apolitical. Hegseth's comments undermine the history of the US military, accusing generals of not enforcing "Basic standards" and contributing to the losses faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hegseth’s speech may further discourage people from joining the military. The armed forces already have trouble recruiting people, as the nature of warfare is changing. While combat still plays a critical role in conflicts, much of it is being replaced by drones, hackers, and other cybersecurity issues; warfare is becoming more autonomous.  Having female personnel doesn’t make the US military “weak.” Instead of preparing the military to fight these issues, we are stuck in this cycle of attempting to go against “wokeness.”

Hegseth’s goal is to build the ‘strongest and most physical military’ the US has ever seen. He wishes to go back to a time when the US continuously won wars, but he fails to admit that there are other issues besides inclusion that contribute to it, the main being arrogance. By underestimating the difficulties of establishing the rule of law in countries where they did not understand the culture, insurgent groups were able to regroup and sustain their campaigns, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, for instance. The people who have served for 20 to 30 years in uniform certainly do not need someone to berate them about “warrior ethos.” This attention came at the cost of respect.

In November 2024, Hegseth said in a podcast that women do have a place in the military, just not in “special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.” According to Hegseth, women in combat roles haven’t made us more effective or more lethal but have made fighting more “complicated.” Despite admitting to women performing well in dangerous support roles during active conflict, he still argues that women in combat is a different story, such as claiming, “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.” Hegseth's comments in particular are demoralizing to women. It is poorly matched to senior officers who have experience in complex operations, such as nuclear submarines or management of America's global alliances. As best-selling author and former Marine Raider Elliot Ackerman said: "That's like an insane insult to his senior officers... Those guys have got a lot more dust on their boots than he does." Women can do the job – they have always been able to do the job.

Consequently, Hegseth's comments at this military gathering shape the future of the US defense strategy. How will "demoting" DEI initiatives lead to success, if at all? Hegseth's comments only provide a pathway for adversaries to take advantage of issues within the US defense complex. Demoting DEI initiatives and renaming the Department of Defense will not correlate to the US winning more conflicts. Losing the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War correlate to a single issue: arrogance. When top military officials bemoan social issues, instead of combat issues, it signals a warning for the country ahead. The US needs to shift its resources to sustaining its defense infrastructure if the country wants to “make America great again” instead of blaming female military officials for issues that are out of their control. The focus on conflicts rather than peace only promotes a dangerous ideology that is ill-suited. Fighting culture wars instead of focusing on the decline of democracies globally is merely another form of propaganda – one that tends to be spewed by our adversaries, not our allies.