Hegseth Lays Out New Culture at Pentagon: No DEI, No Identity Months
“As I’ve said before, and we’ll say again, we are done with that s*it.”
Secretary of War (Defense) Pete Hegseth laid down the law during a meeting at Quantico with the top generals and admirals.
Shorter Hegseth: The military gets back to its high standards.
No More Social Justice
The Pentagon will eliminate all that leftist “debris” instilled by the Biden administration:
This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department, to rip out the politics. No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship, no more division, distraction or gender delusions, no more debris.
As I’ve said before, and we’ll say again, we are done with that s*it.
SECRETARY OF WAR HEGSETH: “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses."
"No more climate change worship, no more division, distraction, or gender delusions."
"We are done with that s***.” pic.twitter.com/rTBRjfzUSa
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 30, 2025
From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: War. Fighting, preparing for war, and preparing to win, unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit. Not because we want war. No one here wants war, but it’s because we love peace. We love peace for our fellow citizens. They deserve peace, and they rightfully expect us to deliver it.
Our number one job, of course, is to be strong so that we can prevent war in the first place. The President talks about it all the time. It’s called peace through strength, and as history teaches us, the only people who actually deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war to defend it. That’s why pacifism is so naive and dangerous. It ignores human nature and it ignores human history. Either you protect your people and your sovereignty, or you will be subservient to something or someone. It’s a truth as old as time.
At Quantico, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reveals to a room full of top military leaders the SOLE mission the newly restored Department of War.
This is a course correction.
No more DEI or identity games. That era is OVER.
“From this moment forward, the ONLY mission of the… pic.twitter.com/XpjEGO4cU3
— Overton (@overton_news) September 30, 2025
Physical Standards
Yes, you need to meet certain physical standards. Hegseth stressed that the move is not aimed at eliminating women, because if they meet the standard, then that’s great!
Hegseth said:
I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat unit with females who can’t meet the same Combat Arms physical standards as men or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons platform or task or under a leader who was the first but not the best. Standards must be uniform, gender neutral, and high.
If not, they’re not standards. They’re just suggestions, suggestions that get our sons and daughters killed when it comes to combat arms units, and there are many different stripes across our joint force.
The era of politically correct, overly sensitive, don’t hurt anyone’s feelings leadership ends right now at every level. Either you can meet the standard, either you can do the job, either you are disciplined, fit and trained, or you are out.
And that’s why today, at my direction, and this is the first of 10 Department of War directives that are arriving at your commands as we speak and in your inbox.
Today, at my direction, each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated Combat Arms position, returns to the highest male standard only because this job is life or death. Standards must be met and, not just met at every level, we should seek to exceed the standard, to push the envelope, to compete.
It’s common sense and core to who we are and what we do. It should be in our DNA.
Today, at my direction, we are also adding a combat field test for combat arms units that must be executable in any environment at any time and with combat equipment, these tests that look familiar, they’ll resemble the army expert physical fitness assessment or the Marine Corps Combat fitness test.
I’m also directing that war fighters in combat jobs execute their service fitness test at a gender neutral age normed male standard scored above 70%.
It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War can do regular, hard, PT, so can every member of our joint forces.
Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country in the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are. So whether you’re an Airborne Ranger or a chair born Ranger, a brand new private or a four star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass the PT test.
And as the Chairman said, yes, there is no PT test. But today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight requirements twice a year every year of service.
Also today, at my direction, every warrior across our joint forces is required to do PT, every duty day should be common sense. I mean, most units do that already, but we’re codifying it, and we’re not talking like hot yoga and stretching real hard. PT, others, either as a unit or as an individual at every level, from the joint chiefs to everyone in this room to the youngest private leaders, set the standard. And so many of you this do this already active Guard and Reserve.
.@SecWar announces new directives to ensure that every military Combat MOS and Combat Arms position will return "to the highest male standard only — because this job is life or death."
"Standards must be met… it's common sense and core to who we are and what we do." pic.twitter.com/diAHWfKOBY
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2025
Gender neutral:
This, and I want to be very clear about this, this is not about preventing women from serving we are we very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world, but when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral.
If women can make it excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be it. It will also mean that weak men won’t qualify because we’re not playing games.
This is combat. This is life or death, as we all know. This is you versus an enemy hell bent on killing you. To be an effective, lethal fighting force, you must trust that the warrior alongside you in battle is capable, truly, physically capable of doing what is necessary under fire. You know, this is the only standard you would want for your kids and for your grandkids. Apply the War Department golden rule, the 1990 test and the e6 test. And it’s really hard to go wrong.
.@SecWar: "If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is… It will also mean that weak men won't qualify — because we're not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death." https://t.co/mxkLUwvnDg pic.twitter.com/sUm0DmvfvC
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 30, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I hope in wrapping up his remarks he told them that if any of them were in disagreement they should submit their resignation immediately before departing the room.
As long as the person receiving the orders submits, they should not be required to resign.
However, if the person intentional drags their feet, they should be shown the door.
Anyone undermining this effort should be given a dishonorable discharge and lose all pension and benefits. Elections have consequences. Enough with the attempts to subvert the will of the voters. You have been warned and no explanations for your insubordinate actions will be accepted.
Hegseth said something like ‘if your heart sank then you need to bow out’
I see a lot of fat stars being processed out. Next comes all the political whining from the politicians that pushed these clowns to get stars in the first place.
When I was in an Airborne Unit at Bragg I didn’t really need to see Generals that could run a marathon but I sure as hell thought they should be able to do morning PT with the troops
PT standards need to be MOS and age appropriate.
They are adjusted for age.
Amen.
Killing people and breaking things are the two mandates for a functioning military.
Anything other than that dilutes the military’s ability to accomplish the former.
By far the finest Secretary of War in my lifetime.
“Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war” — Publius Vegetius Renatus (aka Vegetius)
Enemies attack when a nation is perceived as weak.
Peace Through Superior Firepower has always been a thing whether that Firepower has been men or equipment.
“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak”
Sun Tzu
I voted for this.
This is wrong on so many levels
and we ask that you reconsider this move
and think of all the feelings you are hurting
and how this alienates people
sincerely
mao chung fktardo
I seldom post here but that post deserves some recognition!
thanks
Bro, I spit out my beer on that one. Well done
LONG past due. This farce has been going on for far too long.
I left active duty in the Marines in 2012. A man performing the exact same standard that would have given a woman 100% score, would have been placed on remedial PT for being low standards. It’s long past time we stopped pretending that this ‘strong woman’ crap applies to combat arms where it is incredibly physically difficult and a very large number of MEN can’t perform to the standard necessary.
Rear billets? Pilots? Fine. But frontline combat arms its so idiotic that only leftists could have believed it possible.
I had the misfortune of joining the Army immediately post-Vietnam. (My first 7 or 8 months were the last months of the official Vietnam War period.) During my four years in service, I saw many instances of changed standards, standards that were lowered for an inability to get the troops to meet the higher standards. This also extended to tactical doctrine, which insisted on using less effective techniques because the level of training did not permit the use of more advanced tactics. For instance, the DePuy foxhole was abandoned because it required highly-trained troops who were confident in the ability of their buddies to defend them. (A DePuy foxhole didn’t permit the occupants to fire to their front, only obliquely. This meant the foxholes had interlocking fields of fire and the troops occupying them had cover and concealment to their fronts, provided by a raised berm, said berm also blocking their ability to see and to shoot to their front.) What I saw disgusted me so much that I abandoned my plan to make the military a career.
I got drafted during Viet Nam and was subjected to the lowering of standards and the ‘let’s not offend anyone’ crap.
There are a ton of MOS’s that women can fill to serve and all are needed, my daughter has one now. Nurses/doctors, pilots, administrative, cooks ( the most important IMHO) etc. A modern army can not run without all of them.
Many non-combat MOS’s don’t require peak physical strength, but many or most combat ones do. The Marines have the goal of “every marine a rifleman” so historically in war if they have to send a (say) cook into combat they could. Theoretically the other services pay this concept lip service – but they’re much less dedicated to it.
If you want closer to exactly equal “representation” of the ladies in the military you’d have to have lower physical fitness standards for a (say) clerk-typist than a bog-standard combat infantryman. It may not be DEI to notice, but ON AVERAGE the ladies are less physically capable than the men. This is true just as much in combat as it is in sports – unfortunately for feminist doctrinaires there is no Title 9 or gender-segregated leagues in war.
I would go so far as to say it’s not a bad idea to have slightly lower physical standards for some non-combat MOS’s – if only to meet recruitment numbers overall – but slightly lower physical standards for gender (genetic, definitely not “identify as”) is imho a good way to lose wars.
Addendum : Not to say physical fitness shouldn’t be encouraged even for non-combat recruits. However initial assignment to MOS’s required to meet X standards should be closed off for new recruits who only meet <X standards during initial training. Further, failure to meet or maintain higher than base standards for a non-combat MOS – should be a bar to any further promotion within or reassignment to a given MOS.
IE – if you want to (say) make E-4 (or O-3 or W-3) you need to be better than base standards.
You want the promotion – do the exercise, lose the weight.
In most Army IN, AR and FA Battalions everyone, regardless of MOS, performs to the same standard for pre deployment training and certification. When I retired in ’14 this was still prevalent. Cooks, S1, mechanics …everyone ran the same events, evolutions, courses. Many times they’d get to theatre and go on patrols to fill out numbers. In theory this continues with the combat arms performance testing on a go/no go basis to serve in a combat arms unit; IN, AR, FA. Given the little pep talk today I suspect there is some pencil whipping occurring in some units.
BobM, since you brought up the “every Marine a rifleman”, I would like to posit something I would like to see in all services. I am a retired AF Lt Col from both an active duty and active reserve career from the 1970s (including ROTC) through 2002. I would like to see all the services institute something similar to the Marine Basic Officer Course. As I understand it, every 2nd Lt goes through the course before going on to their specialty school. I was a pilot during my career; I think that going through that training would be invaluable. I was an airlift pilot and trained for Contingency Nuclear Airlift Force (emergency hauling of nuclear weapons). During our annual loading training we ran a scenario to defend the weapons against a hostile force. All I was given was a pistol as we were not qualified on rifles. It would have been much more comforting to have an M-16 and a couple of 30 round clips.
The Army instituted BOLC (Basic Officer Leader Course) to achieve this. It was conducted post commissioning for 7 weeks before attending the Branch specific Officer Basic Course. It was discontinued around 2010. I suspect due to the Branches bitching about screwing up their training pipeline as well as cost. The training was supposedly ‘merged’ into what was BOLC phase 3 (aka OBC) now called BOLC phase B, with Phase A being pre commission.
That is good to know. I figured the Army did something like that. The Air Force has not to my knowledge ever had anything like that and I would like to see it instituted. As a matter of fact, I would like to see minimal combat training for all Air Force personnel because if you are at a forward base you might have to fight even if you are a maintenance person, a support person, or a pilot. And it would be for both women and men.
Good and he’s right: high standards must be applied and maintained when it comes to our military. Combat is no joke, if you can’t perform mentally or physically you are a danger not only to yourself but to every member of your unit as well.
Spartans, what is your profession?
It appears the once again the role of the infantry is to close with and to kill the enemy! 🏋️🤌
I’ve always wondered how anyone figured women could crew a tank. Throw a track in the mud somewhere, and it takes all four male crew all their strength to put that puppy back on. If even one of the crew is a woman, that task may be impossible.
I also wonder how some militaries deal with tanks with autoloaders, because that means the tank only has three crew. Doing a lot of common tasks with a tank is hard enough with four men, and some are impossible with only three. So what does an immobilized, three-crewman tank crew do, wait for maintenance personnel show up to lend a hand?
to advance their agenda
they would sacrifice their babies, their families,,our country
f the left
“So what does an immobilized, three-crewman tank crew do, wait for maintenance personnel show up to lend a hand?”
Die in place, I’d imagine.
I served in a Mechanized Infantry unit at one point. Breaking track on an M113 or a Bradley sucked with a squad of male soldiers involved.
Breaking track on an M-60 or an Abrams with three soldiers?
Un-possible.
I think all positions in the military, combat or not, need to be based on physical ability to do the job. I was medical and worked with probably the highest number of women anywhere in the military. Every time lifting or carrying had to be done it was the few guys available doing all the work. Didn’t ever see a woman help lift a 1 ton x ray machine down from the back of a 4 tonner in the mud.
I was in cryptologic intercept. There were several CT ratings. One of them was maintenance. One evening, one of the women CT maintenance people came in to change out a receiver for calibration. She had a spare one on the cart ready to switch in. She was the second class petty officer and she ordered me a third class to help her change out the set. I was not maintenance. I told her that I was not qualified to do it. She tried ordering me again. My first class supervisor walked up and told her to do the job on her own. She freely admitted she could not change out the step by herself if she didn’t have the strength.
I just looked at her and said if you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t be in the position in the first place. She threatened to write me up until my first class supervisor threw out of the spaces. I should note that my supervisor stood just shy of 5 feet tall, was a woman, and was probably by far the best supervisor I had in my four years in the Navy. She was no nonsense from the word go. I also think that she could’ve changed out one of those receivers by herself.
Bear in mind this was over 40 years ago and we still had a lot of equipment with vacuum tubes in it. This meant heavy power transformers. All of the equipment was heavy.
If you listened to the Left, you would have thought this meeting was the End of the World, mass casualties, certain attacks by foreign powers, MAGA extremists conspiring to overthrow the government, etc…
Instead, it’s a dose of sanity the military needed *badly* so good work, Pete.
Morning KFI … Gary and Shannon asked one of the staff with Vietnam experience what he thought of the meeting…. He called Trump “Der Furher“…. I’d ask him if he was a bud of Kerry or just a doper. That ocean of gold braid was “defeated” by goat herders under the command of their bud.
Someone will sue, and some federal district judge somewhere will put a TRO on Hesgeth’s requirements.
And Hegg, Seth, Will, and all likelihood told them to do something that’s anatomically impossible.
Probably. And SCOTUS will toss it like the other injunctions. I would think these changes are fully at the discretion of the Commander in Chief.
Funnily enough I was talking about leadership with my boss this afternoon in how very few people in leadership roles are leaders. Very few of our bosses lead by example but thank f88k for Hegsworth and the other adults that are now back in charge of War Fighting ™ in America!!
They are once again a beacon for the free world!!
In one of my daughters units “deployment pregnancy” became such a problem ( if your pregnant you can’t go on deployment so are useless to the unit” that the Brigade General had to step in and order any deployment pregnancy would be immediately separated. The practice came to a quick halt.
I was in the Amphib Navy and when we were deployed, a daily sight was the Marine units assigned to our ship going on their runs. You appreciate immediately their determination, strength and unity watching them in action. It was reassuring to know that they were our front line, with no qualifiers or excuses.
Oh, you mean the military will focus on Readiness for National Defense rather than being a big social experiment? Whoever came up with such a radical idea?
I approve 100% of this direction. This is what I pay my taxes for.
I voted for this.
Imagine that — a SecDef who is properly focused upon warfighting and lethality, instead of prostrating himself in deference to the vile, evil and stupid Dhimmi-crats’ innumerable, subversive, destructive and national security-compromising leftist/Marxist/”DEI”/”climate change”/tranny orthodoxies and assorted garbage agitprop antics.
Not far enough. Too chicken shit to say women don’t belong in combat roles-period.
They are adjusted for age.
It was 49 years ago that I entered service with the Navy as a Corpsman. I spent my entire time with the Marine Corps. Daily 3-5 mile runs 7 days a week. Along with calisthenics. Many forced marches 10-20 miles with a 70lb pack along with a weapon. I never saw an overweight officer, including Generals. On board ship we ran the deck of the LHA. If you have ever seen R Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket then you know the type of Gunny Sargents I was around.
Now the sad part is my first thought was; “So you are going back to the standards that I had to meet back in 1991? Good.
“The era of politically correct, overly sensitive, don’t hurt anyone’s feelings leadership ends right now at every level.”
“Attention all personnel. All rainbow and unicorn decals are to be removed from the 16=inch guns before 1800 tomorrow. That is all.”
Yes, many comments. But I’d like to share this: Dad and uncle, WWII; brother and husband, VietNam (as well as a number of HS friend)s; Son, Iraq.
I’ve known Pete for a couple decades. Sovereignty has ALWAYS been his goal. He will make it happen, now. Thank God for him and Trump.
I could have passed the Army fitness test in my prime. But military was not on my agenda. My female police office friend could have passed that test.
Standards are VERY IMPORTANT. Giving people positions b/c of sex (real or not), race, faith – results in a lot of stupid mistake, lack of team work, etc.
You rock, Pete, and man, some of us have wanted to see this for a LONG time!!!!
Will history books say Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump removed the handcuffs from the military?
Can someone please explain why it’s OK to norm standards for age but not for sex? What’s the difference?
Is it simply because older people are just not doing the same jobs as younger people, so they don’t need to be as fit as them? If so, why not do the same for women?
If you are going to serve at the FEBA ( forward edge of the battle area) you have to be able to lift, carry, dig often and that requires upper body strength. Carrying a soldier or dragging one is not for the weak. Some MOS require more rigorous fitness tests. Those are mostly ground pounders at the front, As well as armored crews.
Dad was Army corporal in WWI and enlisted in WWII in the Marines and went through boot at age 41.
Because everybody gets old and less capable physically. If the fitness standards weren’t changed to adjust for age, the services would be forced to continuously discharge experienced NCOs and officers as they become too old to pass the tests. It’s critical to keep these people in service as they form a stable backbone upon which the warfighting capability depends (as private soldiers and junior NCOs regularly leave the service because they aren’t in it as a career, the experienced personnel who remain are careerists, and you don’t want to loose them).
Most people don’t understand the near-necessity of getting armed forces involved in a conflict every few years. Doing so gives the lower enlisted and officer ranks combat experience. Those lower rank personnel (officer, NCO, and private soldiers) who remain as careerists will carry their combat experience into the next (probably minor) combat theater, and that will help more lower rank personnel survive in combat to repeat the cycle. When the “big one” comes along, the military will have a cadre of platoon sergeants and company/battalion commanders (and up) in which many of them will have combat experience, which is invaluable. We call that “good training” and there’s no other way to get it. Like there’s no better training for hiking than hiking, there’s no better training for fighting than fighting. This is why you want to retain these people – they know how to fight. The value of this acquired knowledge outweighs the loss (over time) of physical ability.
Here’s a 45-year-old officer. He can’t compete with the young’uns any more, but he’s fit for an old man. You say we can’t afford to lose his expertise so we must keep him, so long as he’s fit for his age.
Here’s a female officer. She can’t compete with the young men, or even with men her age, but she’s fit for a woman. Why can we afford to lose her expertise?
What’s the difference between the two cases?
Are you Woke? The different physical standard norms cannot be changed for sex as there needs to be a certain minimum as MoeHowardwasright alluded to. Hegseth stated that whomever could pass the physical standards for combat arms specialties, adjusted for age, at 70% would be allowed into those specialties, male or female, and that meant that some males would not pass.
Are you stupid? It’s a simple question, a perfectly reasonable question, and you didn’t even attempt to answer it but somehow discerned some kind of wokeness out of your third eye, which seems to be located inside your pants.
Hegseth says the same standards will not apply to everyone. He says they’ll be normed for age. So I want to know why that is acceptable, but norming for sex is not? If we can have different standards for a 45-year-old than for a 20-year-old, then why can’t we have different standards for a woman than for a man? Either you have the same standards for everyone, or you don’t. Whatever justification you give for age-norming, why does that justification not equally apply to sex-norming?
I’ll simply say, this is great!
IMHO, in my first ever comment on any platform, at the tender age of 80, I come to the comments sections of articles at LI for the most insightful, intelligent, witty and cogent comments to be found anywhere on the web. God bless you all.
Matt Van Swol
@matt_vanswol
I watched the entire speech by Hegseth.
He was railing against fat, stupid, and lazy people in the military.
John Harwood heard that and immediately thought of “Black people”.
Now tell me… who is the racist here?
9:17 AM · Oct 1, 2025
Who’s John Harwood?