Hegseth’s Crusade – a more White, Male, Alt-right US Military

Carl Conetta, 15 Oct 2025

Pete Hegseth wears his masculinist panic on his sleeve when declaring that henceforth all US military personnel will be tested to the “highest male standard” for physical strength and endurance. Why not simply test and talk about a requisite “combat standard.” What does male have to do with it? Everything…in Hegseth’s calculus.

Army standards for combat roles were already supposed to be gender and age neutral before he arrived. Exceptions would sometimes be made, however – as should be the case. “Should be” because no team wants to lose its smartest recruit, best shot, or strongest leader because, for instance, they fall short of the stated standard for throwing a heavy medicine ball backward over their head. Or some such. My point: To gain in some areas you may accept a slight deficit in some other. Discretion and flexibility builds the best team.

There are important areas of combat skill were men and women test equal – riflery, for instance – and others were women on average out-perform men, such as standing alert watch or exercising fine-motor control. The armed forces test for a variety of skills: General intelligence, cognitive aptitude, visual acuity and tactical awareness, motor control under stress, social and communication skills, leadership skills, and teamwork. In most areas men and women on balance test within range. Not, however, in most areas of brute physical strength. Women may need to train harder – and still fall short of the “highest male standard.” That’s Hegseth’s game. Not “standard,” but “male.” Balance and discretion be damned.

A critical gain in opening the armed forces to women has been that it doubles the recruitment pool. This is especially beneficial for a professional (or voluntary ) military. Overall it can mean less “settling,” not more – assuming a balanced and realistic sense of what is needed. You don’t need to believe that one sex is smarter than the other to appreciate that doubling the recruitment pool increases a recruiter’s chance of filling slots with high achievers.

Hegseth intends not only to strictly apply the so-called “highest male standard” in physical tests for combat roles, but to raise the bar. Make it more difficult. Again, why? What’s the problem that piques him?

Tests of physical strength and stamina are meant to mirror combat requirements, although neither tests nor exercises can adequately do that. But what about the “test” of actual experience in the field? Have actual combat failures inspired Hegseth’s campaign regarding standards? There certainly have been serious, repeated US military failures at the strategic level. But what and where are the supposed causal links to woman in combat? There aren’t any.

A similar inquiry is due regarding his decision to ban beards (except for Special Operations personnel). How does this purportedly improve performance? When promoting it he cites the practice of “broken windows” policing, once extolled as a means to generally lower urban crime rates. But this just shows him ignorant of current assessments of that practice. It also still begs the question: What’s the problem he’s hoping to solve?

Is it relevant that 60% or more of Black men suffer pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) – a painful inflammatory condition caused by ingrown hairs and aggravated by shaving? Hegseth will allow temporary exemptions, but the condition is a chronic one. Beard growth is also common among Muslim and Sikh men.

Whatever else it does, banning beards may reduce the prevalence of Black and Muslim men in the US military. And the exception for Special Operators won’t affect this outcome much. While Black Americans currently comprise ~20% of the US armed forces, they comprise only a few percent of Special Operators.

Returning to the issue of strength testing: Hegseth also aims to end the practice of taking age and gender into account when setting standards for filling occupational specialties other than combat – areas where physical requirements are significantly less demanding (and where other attributes are more important). This will have an even greater impact on women in the military because 90% or more serve in non-combat areas. Moreover, it may also precipitate the early departure of many current male leaders.

A 50-year-old male colonel serving in Cyber Command may struggle to meet physical standards geared to test young infantry soldiers – which his role does not demand at any rate. So why pursue such a “cleansing” of the guard?

By pushing the old guard out and selectively moving new leaders up Hegseth can change not just the complexion of the US military, but its culture and orientation. Hegseth has shown no compunction about tossing out years of military experience, telling the hundreds of officers assembled at his Sept 30 sermon, “If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.”

Although some reporting suggests that Hegseth’s brusque and presumptuous manner has alienated many service people, he probably also commands a significant following. Trump certainly does, probably havinng won about 60% of the active and retired military vote. What’s earned Hegseth in particular an audience is his earlier leadership (albeit troubled) of veterans’ organizations and causes, his best selling books on US military policy, and his seven-year stint as weekend co-host of “Fox & Friends.”

Some significant numbers of service people may agree with Hegseth that efforts to oppose sexual assault, racism, and extremist activity in the ranks have been overwrought (even though the opposite is true). Indeed, DOD Workplace and Equal Opportunity surveys show that as many as 30% of white male service members believe equal opportunity efforts are overdone. Some may also affirm his defense of soldiers accused or found guilty of war crimes. About 40% of Americans did support a series of related pardons in Trump’s first term.

These are among the issues that animate Hegseth’s crusade and they affirm its ideological nature. So does the diatribe against earlier administrations that appears in his 2024 book, “The War on Warriors.” There he avers that an “unholy alliance of political ideologues and Pentagon pussies has left our warriors without real defenders in Washington.” Well, the man is nothing if not vile.

Where Hegseth hopes to lead goes beyond transforming America’s armed forces. He emphatically asserts that his oath of service is to defend the constitution “against all enemies — both foreign and domestic.” In this light, it’s portentous that President Trump, speaking at Hegseth’s Sept 30 meeting of top military leaders, said that the administration’s effort to straighten out cities “run by radical left Democrats” will have “a major part for some of the people in this room.”

How far and how fast can Hegseth turn the Pentagon? Well, what might impede him is the value that the armed services place on professionalism. Against this, Hegseth seems more ideological and disruptive than the policies he rails against. He may also convey as too zealous and histrionic – more like a right-wing militia chief than an armed forces commander. Polls of US service people find that they do not, in fact, see themselves as crusaders. But Hegseth? He’s wears a large Crusader’s Cross tattooed on his chest.

Background

Secretary of War [sic] Pete Hegseth Addresses General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia, 20 Sept 2025,