Pete Hegseth says women aren't strong enough and don't belong in combat.
Executive summary
Pete Hegseth has repeatedly said women "should not" serve in combat and has pushed fitness standards he says should return to a presumed "highest male standard," remarks that reignited debate about women in uniform [1] [2]. Reporting shows he has both articulated a public record against women in combat and sought policy changes—while critics say those moves mischaracterize existing gender-neutral standards and aim to push women out [3] [4] [5].
1. What Hegseth has said, in his own words
Hegseth has at times been blunt: before his confirmation he said “we should not have women in combat roles” and in speeches has said any standards allegedly altered to allow women to qualify “must be returned to their original standard,” even adding “if that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it” [1] [6] [2].
2. What he has proposed and done as a policymaker
As defense secretary he has announced moves to tighten physical fitness requirements and directed services toward what he described as the “highest male standard,” and he disbanded or eliminated mechanisms that promoted gender equity such as the Pentagon’s gender advisory committee—actions that observers interpret as operationalizing his earlier rhetoric [2] [4].
3. The factual context about military standards
Multiple outlets and veterans point out that occupational combat standards have been gender-neutral since the 1990s and that the Defense Department’s 2015 directive opened combat roles to any service member who met the standard, meaning physical requirements are applied universally rather than split by sex—a line of fact critics use to challenge Hegseth’s claim that standards were relaxed to favor women [4] [6] [5].
4. Reactions inside and outside the military
The remarks and policies provoked sharp pushback: female veterans and lawmakers called his framing inaccurate and insulting, arguing women have always met a single standard and that the measures appear designed to exclude them; veteran supporters counter that universal, high standards benefit unit lethality and safety [7] [5] [6]. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the National Women’s Law Center explicitly characterize his agenda as a campaign to reduce women’s roles in uniform [4] [8].
5. The debate over motive, messaging and hidden agendas
Analysts see two overlapping motivations in Hegseth’s posture: a stated emphasis on “lethality” and readiness framed as objective, and a political-cultural agenda that critics say is aligned with broader efforts to roll back gender integration—an implication bolstered by his past writings and the timing of policy rollbacks that disproportionately affect women’s career tracks [3] [8] [2]. Hegseth and some veterans argue the changes are about preserving standards and safety, while opponents argue the claims about lowered standards are inaccurate and function as a pretext to purge women from certain roles [6] [9].
6. What can be concluded from the reporting
The record shows that Hegseth has repeatedly expressed that women are unsuited for combat roles and has pursued policies that could exclude women by raising or reinterpreting standards; reporting also documents credible factual pushback that current combat occupational standards are gender-neutral and that many women have met them—so the central contention is less about whether standards should be high than about whether the stated problems actually exist or are being manufactured to achieve a gendered personnel outcome [1] [6] [4]. Reporting does not establish that every claimed motive is proven, but it does show a consistent pattern of rhetoric and policy moves that critics say will reduce women’s opportunities in combat roles [2] [10].