Fact check: Are there separate physical fitness tests for women and men in the militeay

1. What people are claiming — clear, competing assertions that matter

Reporting has four core claims circulating: that the Defense Department is instituting gender-neutral fitness standards requiring identical minimums for men and women; that some services or roles historically used sex- and age-based standards which are now being replaced; that the change will reduce the number of women who qualify for certain combat jobs; and that commanders will enforce daily training under the new rules. Each claim appears across outlets but with different emphasis—some stress formal orders from the secretary, others stress Army-specific test rollouts and expected impacts on female participation ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The policy shift — orders, timing, and stated goals

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly ordered the military to standardize fitness requirements for combat jobs and make them gender-neutral, framing the change as a readiness and lethality measure; media accounts date this guidance to spring and early October 2025 depending on reporting and follow-ups. The Army announced a concrete rollout of a sex-neutral fitness test for 21 combat-related occupations and described specific events including deadlifts, runs, and sprint-drag-carry components, with broader services directed to align standards where appropriate ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

3. How this changes long-standing practice in practical terms

Historically, many military physical fitness assessments used sex- and age-graded scoring—pass/fail thresholds adjusted by demographic group—especially for accession and routine fitness tests. Recent policy replaces those differential scoring tables for selected combat roles with one uniform benchmark intended to reflect battlefield physical demands, eliminating some events while keeping others to better match combat tasks. The Army’s test redesigns indicate a shift from comparative scoring to an absolute standard based on task performance ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Evidence and projections on who will be affected most

Analysts and reporting project that fewer women are likely to meet identical combat physical thresholds, particularly for strength- and load-bearing tasks, and that some roles could see marked declines in female qualification rates. Sources cite the Army’s own modeling and program design, and Secretary Hegseth’s remarks that existing standards sometimes allowed women into combat roles without meeting the same physical demands, a claim that opponents say simplifies complex selection and training histories. The factual basis is that identical pass marks will, mathematically, select fewer candidates from groups with different population-level physical performance distributions ^{[4] [6]}.

5. Implementation mechanics: which tests, who enforces them, and when

The Army has published specifics for a new test for 21 combat jobs—events include deadlifts, push-ups, planks, a two-mile run, and a sprint-drag-carry—while DoD direction from leadership aims to standardize across services with rollout phases into 2026. Commanders are being tasked to enforce daily physical training and adherence to the new standards, shifting enforcement from individual qualification cycles to ongoing unit readiness oversight. Exact timelines and waivers, and whether accession screens (entry into service) will mirror occupational standards universally, remain described differently across reports ^{[5] [7]}.

6. How sources frame motives and possible agendas behind the change

Coverage varies: supporters frame the move as a readiness and mission-focused correction aligning standards to battlefield tasks, while critics see a political or cultural agenda that could reduce diversity in combat arms. News outlets attribute the directive to Secretary Hegseth’s leadership and priorities; some reports emphasize his rhetoric about standards and “passes” for women, which fuels contention. Each source carries framing choices—some emphasize operational data and Army tests, others highlight gender equity and retention consequences—so readers should weigh both readiness rationales and equality impacts ^{[2] [6]}.

7. What remains unclear or omitted in public reporting that matters

Public coverage to date leaves gaps: precise timeline for service-wide harmonization, detailed pass-rate forecasts by occupation and demographic category, planned accommodations or transitional training programs, and whether accession standards will diverge from occupational standards. Reporting also rarely quantifies mitigation measures such as dedicated strength training pipelines, waivers, or phased implementation to preserve talent pipelines. Those omissions are material to understanding operational impacts and workforce planning across the services ^{[7] [3]}.

8. Bottom line answer to the question: Are there separate tests for women and men?

As of the latest reporting, the military is moving away from separate male/female scoring tables for many combat occupations and implementing gender-neutral (sex-neutral) physical benchmarks that both men and women must meet; however, legacy sex- and age-adjusted tests have existed and some non-combat standards may still vary by sex and age. The substantive change is a targeted replacement of separate standards in combat roles with identical performance requirements enforced by commanders, effective through staggered rollouts into 2026 and guided by DoD direction ^{[1] [4] [3]}.