After the Speech: An Outside View on Standards
An Inadvertent Bait and Switch
In September 2025, Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth delivered a controversial speech to America’s flag and general officers. In the wake of the Biden Administration’s emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, Hegseth signaled a renewed emphasis on the high standards associated with reliable lethality.
The speech proved popular with the veteran community, many of whom maintain that the declining enforcement of traditional standards has damaged morale and compromised American combat prowess. Conversely, progressives criticized the speech as a thinly-veiled excuse to exclude women and minorities from elite units.
In the context of warfighting, the importance of standards should go virtually without saying, though in some recent cases, battle cries of “standards!” have often distracted from other relevant factors. In the context of the speech itself, most of the subsequent commentary has ignored a point that should be vital to the conversation at hand: the hackneyed, arbitrary manner in which many of the military’s modern standards have come to be adopted.
Beardos Beware
One such example of an arbitrary, poorly-conceived standard –
highlighted in Hegseth’s speech – was a renewed emphasis on facial hair.
“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 do this already, active, guard, and reserve. This also means grooming standards. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards… If you want a beard, you can join Special Forces. If not, then shave… We don’t have a military full of Nordic pagans. But unfortunately, we have had leaders who either refuse to call BS and enforce standards, or leaders who felt like they were not allowed to enforce standards. Both are unacceptable. And that’s why today, at my direction, the era of unprofessional appearance is over… No more beardos. The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done. Simply put, if you… don’t want to shave and look professional, it’s time for a new position or a new profession.”
Today, this particular standard has little to do with restoring lethality, and much to do with constraining America’s military to antiquated fashion sensibilities. There is nothing inherently unprofessional about facial hair, though fashion moves in cycles – incomprehensibly, mustaches appear to be back in style! In fact, prior to mid-1915, beards were common throughout the ranks of the American military. In many Western militaries, they still are. Officers from the Nordic states – all of them now NATO members – commonly wear beards, including on deployment. The French Foreign Legion’s Pioneers are famous for their large beards, grown as a distinct symbol of their unit. As Hegseth himself noted, special operations forces (SOF) are allowed to grow beards. In each of these cases, to call these troops’ appearance “unprofessional” would be inaccurate.
From whence does this particular standard derive? In 1915, on the Western Front, the French introduced tear gas, then the Germans introduced xylyl bromide, and later phosgene and mustard gas. These debilitating innovations forced the Great War’s belligerents to distribute primitive gas masks that struggled to achieve airtight seals. Adolf Hitler’s “toothbrush mustache,” for example, was worn as a public indicator of his service in the First World War, as this was a style of mustache that could be kept while wearing a gas mask. Simultaneously, the Industrial Revolution’s provision of inexpensive, mass-produced shaving supplies brought the “clean shaven look” into fashion.
In recent years, military leaders granted previously unprecedented waivers that allowed some soldiers outside the SOF ranks to grow beards. In many cases, this was a recognition that ethnic minorities, most notably African Americans, tend to develop uncomfortable and unsightly skin damage when shaving daily. Hegseth’s comment about “Nordic pagans” reflects the number of Caucasian troops who have claimed a religious exemption in order to grow beards.
Hegseth’s emphasis on the importance of “grooming standards,” and his indictment of “leaders who refuse to call BS and enforce standards,” may put him on the wrong side of this particular issue. Arguably, the volume of Biden era shaving profiles reflects a force that has “called BS” on an antiquated “standard” that no longer reflects operational reality. Notably, the “promask” of 2026 isn’t the primitive gas mask of 1916: ample testing has proved that neither a big, bushy beard, nor a short, well kempt beard, corrupts an airtight seal. Today, nary a recruit is more than three degrees of separation away from someone who has successfully tested their promask with a beard –the primary practical justification for this particular “standard.” The infamous satirical Duffel Blog has even joked about beards being directly proportional to combat effectiveness.
Senior non-commissioned officers who have spent their careers enforcing “the Army way” with regard to facial hair may experience inconsolable apoplexy, but as it regards lethality and a “back to basics” philosophy, one is hard-pressed to identify a modern, warfighting-related basis for this particular standard.
Sweet Ink, Bro
Conspicuously absent from Hegseth’s speech was any mention of an evolving, permanent fashion feature in which Hegseth himself has partaken: tattooing.
When the 9/11 attacks initiated the Global War on Terrorism, tattoos were rare in America’s military ranks. Some sailors were known to get anchor tattoos and Marines might occasionally choose to permanently decorate themselves with the coveted Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. However, even these modest expressions were discouraged and scrutinized by senior leaders. Excessive or unauthorized tattoos were grounds for discharge.
As with so many other trends, tattooing seems to have escalated first among SOF troops – the high demand for whom made them difficult to discharge on such seemingly trivial grounds as tattoos. Today, even personnel whose mainstream military occupations make them unlikely to see combat, or perhaps even to deploy, are every bit as likely to undergo extensive tattooing as the average Navy SEAL.
However, unlike facial hair, a 2003 study of military recruits established that “tattoos were associated with predictable adverse health-risk behaviors.” A 2019 study associated tattoos with “risky behaviors… which may lead to health consequences” and cautioned health practitioners to recognize that tattoos are “a potential marker for mental health issues and risky behaviors.” Another study indicated that participants with visible tattoos were “present-oriented,” as opposed to “future-oriented” – this is to say, prone to decision-making that failed to take longer-term consequences into account. Reporting on that particular study, one journalist noted that “the older generation… from which hiring managers and people in positions of power disproportionately comes from” still count visible tattoos as “one of the ‘best ways not to get hired for a job’.”
On the one hand, “adverse health-risk behaviors” and “present-oriented” thinking, both of which are associated with “health consequences,” are part and parcel of many military occupations –the very reason why risk-tolerant teenagers, rather than risk-averse quadragenarians, are recruited for enlistment. And, in fairness, correlation is not causation: tattooing results from risk tolerance, rather than causing it. Conversely, if the Secretary’s priority is to restore the military’s adherence to standards and end “the era of unprofessional appearance,” then his own “1990 Test”…
“The 1990 test is simple. What were the military standards in 1990? And if they have changed, tell me why.”
… would necessarily default to a restoration of the same institutional aversion to tattoos as was enforced in 1990. Right?
Do You Even Lift?
Perhaps Hegseth’s most controversial pronouncement –presumably on the grounds that it would reverse Obama and Biden era policies by excluding virtually all female candidates from several categories of elite warfighting occupations – is a renewed emphasis on physical fitness.
“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 force. 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.”
If America’s military has struggled with any standards in recent decades, it has been physical fitness standards. These went virtually unchanged for decades: distance running for all services; timed push-ups and sit-ups for the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the substitution of pull-ups in lieu of push-ups for Marines, presumably owing to their amphibious history of climbing up and down cargo nets into landing craft. The Navy ostensibly allows the substitution of swimming for distance running, while the Air Force offered various substitutions for the same. In recent years, several services have replaced sit-ups with forearm planks. SOF units have employed testing specific to their unique missions: extensive rucking for Green Berets, relentless swimming for Navy SEALs, and such. In most cases, absent a waiver, troops are still subject to “rope-and-choke” measurements to determine body composition, even though this method has been largely discredited.
Several years into the Global War on Terror, the Army and Marine Corps recognized what might have been obvious to the casual observer: that running in a T-shirt, shorts, and athletic shoes, plus a combination of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups, wasn’t a particularly useful test of combat readiness. In 2008, the Marines implemented the Combat Fitness Test, incorporating additional combat-related assessments such as repeatedly lifting an ammunition can and hauling a simulated casualty. In 2013, the Army began the lengthy process of developing their own Combat Fitness Test, which replaced the Army Physical Fitness Test as the fitness test of record in 2022, only to be superseded by the Army Fitness Test in 2025.
Stated politely, this is to say that military physical fitness standards have also evolved over time. Stated more bluntly, the military began the century with antiquated physical fitness assessments that failed to reflect actual wartime conditions, and military leaders have continued to struggle to adjust those “standards” to reflect modern operations.
I Almost Enlisted
These matters are further compounded by their impact on recruiting and retention, these being some of the factors that Secretary Hegseth presumably sought to address with his “back to basics/standards” philosophy. Conversely, some of the Secretary’s focus on standards could complicate the military’s talent management efforts.
With regard to tattoos, when a Secretary of Defense openly displays Jerusalem cross, “Deus Vult,” and “Kafir” (Infidel) tattoos, the legions of heavily inked troops and recruits should expect few barriers to entry and advancement. Conversely, Hegseth’s own tattoos allegedly impacted his service as an Army National Guard officer. One might argue that those who claimed that his tattoos were associated with white and/or Christian nationalism lacked any expertise in mainstream Christian iconography; but, as the sayings go, “perception is reality” and “seasons change.
And beards? Western society has moved on from the moment wherein chemical weapons and affordable shaving supplies led senior sergeants and the general public alike to deem beards “unprofessional.” Heightened enforcement of grooming standards and the curtailing of a growing trend of shaving waivers may not significantly impact recruiting, but will certainly impact retention. Talented, qualified adults are far more likely to end their service prematurely when faced with a litany of arbitrary, antiquated rules that make them feel like children being babysat.
And physical fitness? In many cases, Hegseth has current personnel dead to rights: no general should feel entitled to skip an age-adjusted physical fitness test while their subordinates must undergo the same. Conversely, as many as 77% of Americans aged 17 to 24 – provided they wanted to join in the first place –would require a waiver to qualify for military service, mostly on the grounds of obesity. Even the elite Green Berets and Air Force special operations units face ongoing recruiting and retention challenges. Of course, this national security issue is far bigger than the military’s fitness standards. For better or for worse, the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative spearheaded by Secretary Hegseth’s colleague, RFK, Jr., seeks to address the root causes of this crisis. None of this is to suggest that the military should overlook obesity when recruiting; however, a revisitation of physical fitness standards to right-size them for modern warfare could provide the requisite wiggle room to onboard promising troops who could meet revised fitness standards on a reasonable schedule.
In summary, whenever possible, standards should not be relaxed for the sake of recruiting and retention. Simultaneously, those same standards should reflect the realities of modern warfare, such that antiquated or obsolete standards are not allowed to unnecessarily deter or prevent otherwise qualified personnel from pursuing or continuing careers in uniform.
Standards are Dead; Long Live Standards
If all of this seems ridiculous, ask yourself: when was the last time a soldier shined a pair of combat boots, or ironed their utilities? In recent decades, no shortage of the military’s “standards” have been adjusted, or else eliminated entirely, even though they were once considered synonymous with good order and discipline. In 1996, the late Michael Herman noted:
“The needs of security combine with this background to make it important for the agency to be a particularly caring employer. Staff will be subject to special security restrictions and investigations as long as intelligence remains unusually secret. These are tolerable and effective only if known to be combined with managerial humanity.”
Originally directed at intelligence practitioners, Herman’s commentary remains broadly applicable to those who wear America’s uniforms. Military leaders, both civilian and uniformed, must toe a fine line between enforcing restrictions, standards, that serve tangible purposes and eliminating petty, arbitrary, or obsolete directives that make their subordinates’ lives less tolerable without contributing to operational effectiveness.
Should the military adopt either a more permissive, or else more nuanced, facial hair standard? Do visible tattoos reflect the culture of professionalism and strategic thinking that senior leaders seek to foster? Are ruck marches and deadlifts a better gauge of operational physical fitness than running and calisthenics? The preceding paragraphs could easily be misinterpreted as advocacy for or against these and other long-established military standards. Instead, they should be taken as advocacy for the aggressive enforcement of standards only after those standards have undergone a sober, and arguably long-overdue, re-evaluation to determine whether they still make tactical, operational, and strategic sense.
