The 55th Logistics Readiness commander inspects a shaving waiver during an inspection at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a sweeping, military-wide review of physical fitness and grooming standards with the apparent aim of making the military a stricter and less accommodating environment for troops.

In a memo released late Wednesday, Hegseth ordered Darin Selnick, the man who is performing the duties of under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, to review "existing standards set by the Military Departments pertaining to physical fitness, body composition, and grooming, which includes but is not limited to beards."

While the memo itself doesn't offer insight into what Hegseth and the Pentagon would do following this review, the rhetoric from Hegseth, as well as the results of similar reviews within the military branches, suggests that many of the recent policies put in place to make serving easier for women and minorities may soon go away.

Read Next: VA to Step Up Rollout of New Electronic Health Records System in 2026[1]

Within the memo itself, Hegseth argued that the military is "made stronger and more disciplined with high, uncompromising, and clear standards" and largely stuck to more elevated rhetoric about the need to maintain "the world's most lethal and effective fighting force."

Online, however, he was more direct.

"Our troops will be fit -- not fat," Hegseth wrote in a post on social media[2] late Wednesday.

"Our troops will look sharp -- not sloppy," he continued, adding that the Defense Department "will make standards high and great again -- across the entire force."

Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot, in a rare statement, went after weight standards while also personally attacking the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs[3], Gen. Mark Milley.

"Unfortunately, the U.S. military's high standards on body composition and other metrics eroded in recent years, particularly during the tenure of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, who set a bad example from the top through his own personal corpulence," Ullyot said in a statement provided to Military.com on Thursday.

A Personal Fight for Hegseth

However, neither Hegseth nor Ullyot offered any evidence to back their claim that standards -- especially weight standards -- have been decreased or eased in recent years.

In fact, in some cases, the services have been tightening the rules around how body composition -- whether someone is overweight or not -- is measured.

In June 2023, the Army[4] moved to assessing body fat using a tape measurement[5] around the waist only. It was part of an effort to move away from more outdated and inaccurate methods of measuring body fat and was seen as being less forgiving than the previous method of measuring both waist and neck.

In other cases, the services have tried to make those measurements more accurate.

In 2023, after completing a medical study[6], the Marine Corps[7] started using far more precise methods[8] of measuring body fat -- dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, known as DEXA, or bioelectrical impedance analysis, known as BIA -- before officially declaring a Marine overweight and assigning them to the remedial body composition program.

The Navy[9] has had the same body composition standards since 2015.

The exemptions to those tests[10] are also aimed at troops who are high performers on fitness exams and struggle to meet the body standards because of their muscle mass.

The services have loosened the body composition[11] rules for recruits as a way to get more people[12] to enlist and as an acknowledgment of the fact that America as a whole is struggling with obesity. However, those recruits are still expected to conform to the same standard as everyone else in their service in order to graduate and serve.

Meanwhile, in his last book, Hegseth also took aim at the Pentagon's efforts to allow troops to sport different hair styles and offer exemptions for some troops to grow beards.

Citing a report that Defense Secretary Mark Esper commissioned during the first Trump term[13], Hegseth argued that these changes were a loosening of standards.

"When I was in the Army, we kicked out good soldiers for having naked women tattooed on their arms, and today we are relaxing the standards on shaving, dreadlocks, man buns, and straight-up obesity," Hegseth wrote.

"Piece by piece, the standards had to go ... because of equity," he added.

While the services have all allowed their troops to sport a growing variety of hairstyles over the years, many of those changes have been not only popular but hard fought and driven by female service members[14] advocating to their respective services.

They have also been in response to women suffering from conditions like alopecia, a type of hair loss[15] that comes from constantly wearing their hair in a tight bun.

Some of the changes were specifically aimed at Black service members, but those exemptions or changes were focused on easing their life within the military or addressing medical concerns.

When the services began to allow styles like twists and cornrows, it was because female service members pushed them to do it, arguing that the styles were easier to manage in adverse circumstances[16] and cheaper to maintain[17].

Similarly, the conversation around loosening beard restrictions and issuing permanent exemptions is one that is rooted in medical issues that disproportionately affect Black men.

The frequent ingrown hairs and skin irritations caused by regular shaving known as pseudofolliculitis barbae, or PFB, occur in about 45% of Black service members, according to a 2021 study[18].

In 2022, Black sailors told Navy Times[19] they found the service's efforts to push them to shave was causing medical problems -- and its haphazard approach to dealing with the issue discriminatory.

While waivers were available, since they were just that -- exemptions and not policy, Black sailors have repeatedly said in various venues that they felt their only choice was to pass up job opportunities or face scarring and discomfort.

"It certainly felt discriminatory to the folks I talked to," John Cordle, a former Navy captain, said in a 2021 article[20]. Cordle added that, while he was in the Navy, he was "woefully misinformed" on the issue and its effect on his Black sailors while in command.

And the issue isn't confined to the Navy.

A 2021 study in the Military Medicine journal[21] found that some airmen with shaving waivers progressed slower in their Air Force[22] careers and weren't promoted as fast as their peers. The findings showed a bias "against the presence of facial hair which will likely always affect the promotions of Blacks/African Americans disproportionately."

Hegseth's argument to turn back the clock on the limited exemptions to the military's insistence on shaving can have ramifications on who ends up choosing to serve.

Cordle's article notes that one former Black naval officer told him that his "father's face was a scarred mess" from shaving over the course of his Navy career and "lots of talent is lost to this policy in my view."

What a Renewed Push on Standards Could Look Like

The Air Force began a renewed focus on standards just prior to Hegseth's arrival, and it could offer an example of what all the services might be seeing soon.

In early January, ahead of Trump beginning his second term, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin released a video and memo to the entire service in which he called on commanders to review and enforce existing standards, ranging from following safety regulations and calling formations during which troops' uniforms[23] and appearance would be inspected.

At the beginning of this month, the Air Force surgeon general tasked every airman with resetting their shaving profile -- a move that means they would need to re-justify the medical need for a shaving exception to a doctor.

In 2020, the Air Force surgeon general made it so that any shaving waivers for PFB would last for five years, but the new changes forces all airmen to undergo more scrutiny to separate shaving irritation from a PFB diagnosis.

While previously 60 nail colors were allowed, the service recently ordered that nail polish must be only "clear or French or American manicure."

Additionally, the service reaffirmed that hair must "not touch the ears," and it made a renewed push for a "gig line" when in dress uniform -- or purposely lining up the front button edge of the shirt, belt buckle and fly of the pants.

Notably, the Air Force's recent reinforcement of standards comes across as being at odds with the swath of more progressive dress, grooming and tattoo policies.

Related: Air Force to Put Renewed Emphasis on Safety and Uniform Standards[24]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[25].

Read more

Elon Musk arrives for President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress in the House chamber of the U.S. Capitol.

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon leaders plan to roll out their recommended cuts to military spending alongside their budget request for fiscal 2026, the Defense Department indicated in a newly released letter to Congress.

The letter, addressed to House Armed Services Chair Mike D. Rogers, R- Ala., and dated March 5, states that Congress will be informed of the results of the so-called budget relook -- which called for an internal realignment of 8% of the Defense Department's budget -- as the president's spending request is made public in the coming weeks.

Obtained by CQ Roll Call on Wednesday, the letter came after Rogers and ranking member Adam Smith, D- Wash., last month asked the military service chiefs to identify infrastructure, programs and processes "that are no longer a priority" for their branch "and could be divested, right sized, or made more efficient."

"We are committed to eliminating waste, reforming our acquisition processes, and ensuring each dollar within the defense budget is spent wisely," Rogers and Smith wrote in their Feb. 14 missives. "We have a unique opportunity at this time to make quantifiable progress toward these goals."

But rather than each service chief responding with a list of their low-priority initiatives, Dane Hughes, the acting assistant secretary of Defense for legislative affairs, opted to weigh in "on behalf of the Department," his letter said.

Hughes noted that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously tasked senior department leaders, combatant commanders and others to review the fiscal 2026 budget estimates, with an intent "to reallocate resources away from low-impact areas, such as DEI and climate change programs, to capabilities focused on lethality and readiness."

The line is a reference to Hegseth's Feb. 18 memo seeking a list of recommended reductions to the budgets for each of the next five fiscal years. The request is tied to the department's development of a list of "offsets" that Robert G. Salesses, who is performing the duties of the Pentagon's deputy secretary, said in a mid-February statement "are targeted at 8% of the Biden Administration's FY26 budget, totaling around $50 billion."

It's not clear yet which capabilities or accounts could be caught up in the DoD review or the Department of Government Efficiency's assessment of the Pentagon, which is underway as the entity spearheaded by Elon Musk looks for fraud and waste in federal departments and agencies. Hegseth's memo exempted 17 categories of programs from consideration, including operations at the U.S. southern border, Virginia-class[1] attack submarines, missile defense, munitions, one-way attack drones and more.

Rogers' and Smith's letters were an early sign that finding efficiencies within the military is shaping up to be a clear priority for them as they begin assembling the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill.

The two previously touted the value of spending dollars "smarter" and overhauling the way capabilities are purchased and fielded.

© 2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., all rights reserved.

Visit cqrollcall.com.[2]

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

© Copyright 2025 CQ-Roll Call. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

Trump Ireland

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump's administration to reinstate thousands — if not tens of thousands — of probationary workers let go in mass firings[1] across multiple agencies last month, saying that the terminations were directed by a personnel office that had no authority to do so.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ordered the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior and the Treasury to immediately offer reinstatement to employees terminated on or about Feb. 13 and 14 using guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and its acting director, Charles Ezell.

Alsup directed the agencies to report back within seven days with a list of probationary employees and an explanation of how the departments complied with his order as to each person.

The temporary restraining order came in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions and organizations as the Republican administration moves to dramatically downsize the federal workforce[2].

The White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Alsup expressed frustration with what he called the government's attempt to sidestep laws and regulations governing a reduction in its workforce — which it is allowed to do — by firing probationary workers who lack protections. He was appalled that employees were fired for poor performance despite receiving glowing evaluations just months earlier.

“It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie," he said. “That should not have been done in our country.”

Lawyers for the government maintain the mass firings were lawful because individual agencies reviewed and determined whether employees on probation were fit for continued employment.

But Alsup has found that difficult to believe. He planned to hold an evidentiary hearing Thursday, but Ezell, the OPM acting director, did not appear to testify in court or even sit for a deposition. The judge encouraged the government to appeal.

There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers across federal agencies. They include entry level employees but also workers who recently received a promotion.

About 15,000 are employed in California, providing services ranging from fire prevention to veterans’ care, according to the lawsuit filed by the coalition of labor unions and nonprofit organizations.

The plaintiffs said in their complaint that numerous agencies informed workers that the personnel office had ordered the terminations, with an order to use a template email informing workers their firing was for performance reasons.

© Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

More Articles …