In a speech last week, newly sworn in Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth revealed his plan. His proposal to change military culture and standards has set off a firestorm of controversy. Hegseth indeed prided himself on creating a risk-taking culture. He pushed the agency for a rollback to 90s era physical and aesthetic standards and called for major revisions to long-standing diversity and public engagement policies. His remarks, delivered at a military gathering, resonated with a wide audience, including political figures and service members.
Nevertheless, Hegseth has made a very significant proposal. He wants to roll back permission for all military personnel to have beards, restricting this exception to just special forces troops. He maintained that the military needed more conformity and discipline in their appearance, as well as in physical fitness. War is not worried about your gender,” Hegseth claimed. He strongly signaled that more traditional military values must come to the fore.
Hegseth’s speech featured a strong defense of the recent navy actions to shoot down Venezuelan boats that were trafficking drugs. In doing so, he defended the decision to sink these vessels rather than go after them under international law. He defended it as a targeted and needed step to safeguard U.S. interests.
“It’s nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people helped create or even benefited from that culture.” – Pete Hegseth
As for education, in his opening speech, Hegseth attacked the alleged “woke department.” He made a huge show about wanting to turn the military away from wokeness, particularly diversity, progressivism, all those things. He disputed the entire notion that “diversity is our strength” as the “insane fallacy” that it is. He announced that he’d fired other generals before for being too obsessed with these woke ideas. His position has already sparked worries among critics about what such a move might mean for inclusivity in the military’s ranks.
To advance this agenda, Hegseth announced intentions to test new promotion standards and policies—but just not with racial quotas. Oh, he claimed that racism has been illegal in military formations since 1948. This points to the need to reconsider policies that are causing inequities and squeezing meritocracy out of our system.
Hegseth’s policy vision was more radical than even the training overhaul he championed. He gave power to drill sergeants to develop a “healthy fear” in new recruits through more strenuous routines, similar to “shark attack” approaches. He asserted that these reforms would encourage a more professional and efficient fighting military to emerge.
“We’re empowering drill sergeants to instil healthy fear in new recruits.” – Pete Hegseth
In his initial moves as Secretary of Defense, Hegseth rattled the establishment’s cage. Of particular note, he has fired or reassigned the dozen military lawyers who advise senior military leaders whether operations they’re planning are legal—in order to expedite decision-making processes in the armed forces’ chain of command. This extremely controversial decision raised serious questions about oversight and accountability in often-shadowy military operations.
Of course, Hegseth’s speech had its political undertones. Specifically, he went after former Chief of Staff Mark Milley. He argued that his predecessors were absent in addressing the issues he is now hell-bent on tackling. His rhetoric was heavily skewed with jingoistic undertones designed to rally support from service members and conservative audiences across the board.
“If the words that you hear today make your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.” – Pete Hegseth
Hegseth is looking for far more sweeping changes. He wants to reform the processes for inspector general and equal opportunity offices to reduce the number of complaints. This proposal from his plan has struck a chord with defenders of military workers’ rights. Others worry it will leave the law more vulnerable to challenge and ultimately weaken protections against discrimination.
Hegseth’s possibly naive proposals have indeed opened up a firestorm of debate in military and civilian circles. Supporters contend that we must return to traditional standards and values in order to sustain the most effective fighting force in the world. Critics argue that his focus puts inclusion of diverse groups in the military at risk and threatens to undo years of work.
As the military braces for these significant changes under Hegseth’s leadership, the implications for service members of all backgrounds remain uncertain. The Secretary’s promise to thoroughly examine rules of engagement and systems of command will without question determine the course of military culture in the years ahead.