Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’

News

In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stands at attention at the Pentagon on September 22, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called hundreds of generals and admirals stationed from around the world to convene in Virginia on Tuesday — with about a week’s notice. He announced 10 new directives that would shift the military’s culture away from what he called “woke garbage” and toward a “warrior ethos.”

“This administration has done a great deal since Day 1 to remove the social justice, politically-correct, toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department,” Hegseth said. “No more identity months, DEI offices or dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction of gender delusions. No more debris. As I’ve said before and will say, we are done with that shit.”


The secretary largely covered old ground during his 45-minute address to an audience that he has been reshaping. The commanders were already predominantly White men, and there were even fewer women in those ranks for today’s speech than there were when Hegseth took office.

He abruptly fired Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the second Black man to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Adm. Linda Fagan — two of the highest-ranking women in the Armed Forces — were also ousted. Franchetti was the first woman to lead the Navy and the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fagan led the Coast Guard and was the first woman to lead a branch of the military.

Hegseth eliminated DEI programs on his first day on the job, later saying that “Our diversity is our strength” was the “single dumbest phrase in military history.”

Hegseth on Tuesday said that he has made it his mission to “uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal.”

“The new War Department golden rule is this: Do unto your unit as you would have done unto your own child’s unit,” Hegseth said, using the Trump administration’s preferred title for the department, though it has yet to be changed by Congress. “Would you want him serving with fat or unfit or undertrained troops? Or alongside people who can’t meet basic standards? Or where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance and war fighting?”

Military experts and researchers have repeatedly voiced concern with the premise of Hegseth’s argument that the military has become less successful since it embraced diversity; that standards were lowered to include women in combat roles; and that diverse leaders did not have merit.

What Hegseth said about women in combat roles and gender-neutral standards

“Today at our direction, we’re ensuring that every service, every unit, every school house and every form of professional military education conducts an immediate review of their standards — any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms were changed to ensure females could qualify,” Hegseth said. “They must be returned to their original standard.”

Hegseth announced that every service fitness test will now be gender-neutral and age-neutral, and returned to the “highest male standard only” in an effort to “restore a ruthless, dispassionate and common sense application of standards.”

“I urge you to use the 1990 test, which is simple: Ask ‘What were the military standards in 1990?” Hegseth said. “And if they have changed, tell me why. Was it a necessary change based on the evolving landscape of combat or was the change due to a softening, weakening or gender-based pursuit of other priorities?”

“I want to be very clear about this, this is not about preventing women from serving,” Hegseth said. He later added, “Physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.” Every member of the joint force at every rank — from new privates to four-star generals — is required to meet the height and weight standards and pass physical training tests twice a year. He acknowledged that this change might disqualify some men, too.

“It all starts with physical fitness and appearance,” Hegseth said. “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 and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.”

More context:

Despite Hegseth’s remarks, it is against the law to lower standards for women when compared with men in the same role. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 established that every occupation in the military — from medics to Catholic priests to people in combat — there are standards that must be gender neutral.

Hegseth has long argued — without substantive evidence — that women’s participation in the military has weakened the country’s war-fighting capabilities. He published a book in 2024 called, “The War on Warriors,” in which he argued women in combat roles made the country less effective and less lethal and more complicated. Women veterans, national security organizations and military historians have pushed back and argued that the future of national security calls for more technological skillsets.

What Hegseth said about diversity quotas and promotions

“For too long we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons — based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on so-called firsts,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth acknowledged that he fired several military leaders — including people of color and women — as part of his first actions as secretary. His decision making was “more of an art than a science,” he added but his rationale in ousting those leaders was because it’s “nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people who helped create or even benefited from that culture.”

“An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that ‘Our diversity is our strength,’” Hegseth said. “Of course, we know our unity is our strength. They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQI+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females are totally normal.”

Hegseth announced that from now on, the entire promotion process is being thoroughly examined and promotions will only go to top-performing officers, regardless of race and gender.

“My job has been to determine which leaders simply did what they must to answer the prerogatives of civilian leadership and which leaders are truly invested in the ‘woke department’ and therefore are incapable of embracing the War Department and executing new, lawful orders,” Hegseth said. “More leadership changes will be made.”

More context:

There is no “gender quota, goal or ceiling” in the infantry or at the military academies, as established by law in the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994. In fact, it was the opposite for years when there was a cap on how many women could be allowed in certain roles (Women could only account for 2 percent or less among generals and admirals in the force before 1967).

What Hegseth said about woke culture and ‘toxic leadership’

“Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way,” Hegseth said. “We became the woke department, but not anymore. … We just have to be honest. We have to say with our mouths what we see with our eyes.”

Hegseth said that Military Equal Opportunity policies will be overhauled to disempower “complainers” and make sure commanders are no longer “walking on eggshells.”

He also said the department is reviewing its definitions of “bullying” and “hazing” to make sure leaders can properly train new recruits.

“Basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough and disciplined,” Hegseth said. “We’re empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future war fighters are forged. Yes, they can shark attack. They can toss bunks. They can swear. And yes, they can put their hands on recruits.”

In a lot of ways, Hegseth’s message to commanders was a call to get on board or get out: “If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service.”

More context:

The Military Equal Opportunity program and the Defense Department’s civilian equivalent allowed personnel to report discrimination and harassment. Policy changes and cultural shifts will likely impact service members, including victims of sexual assault and harassment, who already face obstacles when reporting bad actors. Nearly 1 in 4 women in the military report having experienced sexual assault and more than half report harassment — though researchers found the vast majority of incidents go unreported altogether.

In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’ was first published on The19th and republished with permission.

Mariel Padilla is a General Assignment Reporter for The19th.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less