No fat generals, says Hegseth
Of course, that’s hardly all he said. The basic thrust of the speech was to turn back the clock to the time before Obama’s Hope and Change and Wokeness transformed the military (at least, the Obama years are when I noticed the change). I would guess plenty of those assembled were happy about what they heard, and plenty were not; I couldn’t even begin to say what the proportion of each group might be.
More:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the military’s top generals and admirals ahead of Trump, rolling out a 10-point plan to overhaul the culture of the military.
At the unprecedented meeting that pulled leaders from posts around the globe, he announced a shift to a merit-based culture with a return to “the highest male standard only.” And Hegseth emphasized the need to stick to strict fitness standards, calling it “completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
Hegseth said a lot more about that male/female thing. Here’s his actual speech; it’s worth looking at. For example, he mentions 2015 (which is during Obama’s term) as being one turning point in that regard:
I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men, or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons platform or task or under a leader who was the first but not the best. Standards must be uniform, gender neutral and high. If not, they’re not standards. They’re just suggestions, suggestions that get our sons and daughters killed. …
Today, at my direction, each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only. Because this job is life or death. …
Any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms standards were changed to ensure females could qualify, must be returned to their original standard. Other standards have been manipulated to hit racial quotas as well, which is just as unacceptable. This too must end; merit only. …
Because war does not care if you’re a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy, nor does the weight of your rucksack, the size of an artillery round or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried. This — and I want to be very clear about this. This is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world.
Seems completely reasonable to me. But the left always counts on the idea that you can’t turn back the clock. They believe once the Overton Window has shifted, the public accepts the new standard as the way it should be.
As for those fat generals, 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.
So, whether you’re an airborne Ranger or a chairborne Ranger, a brand new private or a four star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass your PT test. And as the chairman said, yes, there is no PT test. But today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight requirements twice a year every year of service.
It sounds a bit as though, with the generals in particular, this is about esthetics. I also wonder where they draw the line at “fat.” As people get older, it can get more difficult to be really slim, and if a slightly overweight general is brilliant, do we want him on a starvation diet to meet the standard?
I asked Google “were there any fat US generals in World War II?”, and its AI replied, helpfully (and I assume factually?):
Based on historical accounts, photographs, and the health standards of the time, there were no notably overweight or “fat” U.S. generals during World War II. However, it is important to remember that physical standards and perceptions of weight were very different in the 1940s compared to today.
Reasons why U.S. generals in WWII were typically not overweight:
Rigorous physical standards: While enlistment standards for average soldiers had some flexibility for those who could correct their weight through training, military leaders faced intense pressure to maintain peak physical condition. Many of the top generals were lifelong military officers who had been shaped by a culture that valued athleticism and physical fitness. For example, General George S. Patton was a dedicated athlete who competed in the 1912 Summer Olympics.
Operational demands: Generals commanding troops in the field often faced demanding conditions that would make significant weight gain difficult.
Wartime stress and lifestyle: The intense stress, long hours, and constant movement involved in commanding a war effort contributed to a lean physique for many senior officers.
Medical standards: Unlike today’s strict body fat standards, the regulations of the era were primarily concerned with ensuring weight did not interfere with a soldier’s physical activities and proper training. The average American soldier in WWII was also much leaner than modern soldiers, weighing around 144 pounds and standing 5’8″ tall.
One reason people were thinner then: smoking was very common. Of course, there were other reasons, but that’s one difference people don’t often mention.
So expecting generals to be lean is another case of turning back the clock. Of course, the rules don’t apply to commander-in-chief Trump, who’s not a member of the military.
Trump and Hesgeth are bringing back a “Patton” style military; which I think is very needed. Meanwhile the DNC chair is actually labeling the administration a “fascist regime”, and I see comments like this from the left minions:
“Trump is outdoing Idi Amin.
There will be consequences from this insanity.
I’m listening in real time. (the Trump/Hesgeth speeches, note added by physicsguy)
This is literally insane.”
The left is going bonkers over this military change.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dnc-chair-calls-dc-puerto-rico-statehood-filibuster-elimination-says-trump-admin-fascist-regime
I, for one, don’t accept the new standards. Just this morning my husband showed me a sad video of two female police officers attempting to, and failing to, subdue a short, skinny male offender. Jobs that require full physical strength for acceptable performance should not make exceptions for “woke” reasons. As Hegseth said, for troops in combat this can mean life or death.
I can see the problem for older commanding officers, but if these guys will hit the gym and make readiness improvements, respect from their troops may increase.
Cutting body fat yet cutting even more the overwhelming brain fat. Both matter.
sdferr – body and brain fat are related.
My guess is that sedentary generals also feel less connected to their troops.
We’ve even got a word for the brain-mush stuff of the Wokesters: fatuous!
Flag Officers must retire at age 62, with limited exceptions to age 64. Officers in their 40’s and 50’s should not be Fat, they are not really old.
One thing that should be done is to have rigorous standards and insist men and women in the regular service meet the same standards. We should revive the women’s auxilliaries for women with skills who do not meet the standards.
800 flag officers and 95% got to their respective rank by being Woke and bowing to Obama and Biden.
There are 1,100,000 enlisted men in the military right now and 225,000 officers.
Of those officers there are 900 generals and admirals.
At the end of WWII there were 14 million enlisted men and women and only 2,000 generals and admirals.
There is huge bloat in our military today.
Never met a staff sergeant with a cup of coffee in his hand
I would be wary of cutting brain fat:
Oh ha-ha-ha, like you didn’t know what I meant.
sdferr:
Fat brains good, skinny brains bad.
Good brains good, bad brains bad! There we go a-seeking. Materialism still hasn’t gotten us what we seek.
I seem to recall Rep. Pat Schroeder, on the Armed Services Committee, making demands to push quotas for women in increasingly combat oriented branches, and some male service members groaning as a result. I doubt there were very big changes during her time, but I believe she got the ball rolling.
A friend of mine made the switch from a Naval officer serving on carriers, to a military instructor. He told me stories:
Around the year 2000, give or take a couple years, he told me about a Naval Academy incident. The demand to get more women into the Academy was being met, but the vast majority of the women could not meet the required fitness obstacle course requirement. So they created another parallel fitness course for the women that was much easier. Many of the men were upset, and late one night a group of them went out and painted the women’s course pink. There were rather severe sanctions of some sort for the pranksters.
Having served on combat ships, my friend was chagrined that one of the standard tests was the “two man carry” and it got modified. The old test required two men to be able to carry a 190 lb. (guess) man on a stretcher. With women being trained for ship duty, this was changed to a four person carry requirement. Again, I think was around the year 2000.
Frankly, I’d rather be led by a fat person who’s smart instead of a skinny person who’s an idiot.
There are 1,100,000 enlisted men in the military right now and 225,000 officers.
Of those officers there are 900 generals and admirals.
At the end of WWII there were 14 million enlisted men and women and only 2,000 generals and admirals.
John Galt:
Good info!
Officers tend to be ambitious. Some will take shortcuts over principle. In the military going woke, didn’t mean going broke … until now.
John Galt III @ 5:02
Bingo!
Cut the fat and bloat. If they can’t meet the standards… adios.
BJ,
In a military that promotes solely on merit, idiots would never arise to positions of command. Whereas in a woke military, by definition idiocy is the order of the day.
I call Hegseth’s program a return to form. I’m reminded of the national fad for 50 mile hikes which JFK inaugurated. It was a beautiful thing.
_____________________________________
The JFK 50 Mile was first held in the spring of 1963. It was one of numerous such 50-mile events held around the country as part of President John F. Kennedy’s push to bring the country back to physical fitness…..
Although open to the public, the JFK 50 Mile is in spirit a military race. It always has been and always will be. In 1963, the initial inspiration behind the event came from then President John F. Kennedy challenging his military officers to meet the requirements that Teddy Roosevelt had set for his own military officers at the dawn of the 20th Century. That Roosevelt requirement was for all military officers to be able to cover 50 miles on foot in 20 hours to maintain their commissions.
When word got out about the “Kennedy Challenge,” non-commissioned military personnel also wanted to take the test themselves as did certain robust members of the civilian population.
https://www.jfk50mile.org/history/
_____________________________________
It was inspiring. I was only 11 and a freshly minted Boy Scout. I signed up for the Hiking merit badge which entailed four 10-mile hikes and a 20-mile hike.
I did it!
Great job on the merit badge, huxley!!
@Geoffrey Britain,
Tell that to Emperor Claudius, who never marched a step (because he was considered a stammering, dribbling cripple by the court, in spite of his many books) yet led the successful conquest of Britain, while the lean, mean Caligula* Sejanus, and Germanicus were all killed in the prime of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius
*Caligula liked to claim he conquered King Neptune, but since he had his soldiers gather seashells on the beach, that was hardly worth a triumph.
RTF,
The BSA definitely promoted hiking. It was a requirement for either a second class or first class rank…can’t remember which one. And the hiking merit badge was required for Eagle. Growing up in Colorado, all my camping and hiking for my Eagle was at 8000ft or higher.
Puts a new light on the epitaph “Fat Head”!
It was a requirement for either a second class or first class rank…can’t remember which one.
physicsguy:
In my day (1963) one couldn’t apply for a merit badge until one was Second Class.
My scoutmaster allowed me to take the Hiking merit badge although I was only a Tenderfoot. I thought that was cool.
I would have gotten Second Class soon enough, but we moved.
Props for your Eagle!
Orwell commented that US troops in WWII did not look as physically impressive as in WWI. My guess is that they were not as well fed during the depression, my Dad gained 30 lbs in training because he finally got enough to eat.
Well, here’s General Groves with Oppenheimer (who was anorexic). Being director of the Manhattan project was a desk job, so modest tubbiness wasn’t a problem.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=general+groves&t=ipad&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fc8.alamy.com%2Fcomp%2FHRNT29%2Foppenheimer-and-groves-ground-zero-1945-HRNT29.jpg
In my entire time in the Army National Guard – 1992 – early 2007, the Physical Fitness test had less rigorous requirements for females than males in both the pushups and 2 mile run portions of the test. The female soldiers at 20 years of age were only required to do what the males at 40 years old were required to do in the running portion – approximately. As I recall, the situp portion was the same or nearly the same for males vs females each age group. The pushups requirements for male verses female were not even close.
I did a 42 mile day walk on a Saturday when I was 22, so probably could have passed, but I couldn’t have done it at 50, especially if the terrain was a bit rough. Doing 4 miles on a trail counts as a long walk these days 🙂
The media/Democrats screamed at and mocked the Hegseth choice in January. I guess he wanted to learn the ropes first before he became what his detractors were terrified of him becoming. I think he’s got a lot more surprises in store. Good! I’m also glad he took a not-so-subtle shot at Milley.
Kate on September 30, 2025 at 3:45 pm said:
“I, for one, don’t accept the new standards.” From the rest of your comment – did you perhaps mean you do/did accept the new standards?
@ Jon Baker: “The female soldiers at 20 years of age were only required to do what the males at 40 years old were required to do in the running portion – approximately.”
Back when I was about 44, and still jogging 2.2 or so miles a morning, the Orlando Sentinel had a story about a fitness test. Time yourself running a given distance (2 miles?) or gage the distance you could run in (30 minutes?) — don’t recall the details, except that per their tables I was able to keep up with a 20 year old woman. I thought that would be good enough.
Sometime during my Army Basic/Infantry training, I overhead a woman civilian mention that the drill instructors were doing the same physical work as the recruits, and on the surface she was right. But with maturity I can now recognize they were really dedicated professionals essential to the conversion of misfits and normal folks into soldiers. I am not positive, but it might have been considered a somewhat prestige assignment for a period of time. It is not normal for someone to be able and willing to scream into the face of a recruit to align their thinking in the desired direction. You have to work at it.
The Fox New report Selfy linked on the open thread, was barely sufficient, so I was glad to be able to read the entire transcript of Secretary Hegseth’s speech that Neo linked.
Some of it was redundant, but necessarily so (tell them what you are going to say; say it; tell them what you said) to get the point across that the new standards are being applied across all the boards, top down and sideways.
I think this line should be engraved on his business card, if Cabinet Secretaries have those:
“Lethality is our calling card and victory our only acceptable end state.”
The Fox post said at the end “He closed the address with a prayer.”
It was this one:
That first sentence should be the prayer of all of our leaders, no matter what Deity they pray to.
I looked on-line for “A Commander’s Prayer” and didn’t find anything with those lines; perhaps there is one known to the military because he clearly expected the assembly to know it.
However, all of these have worthy expressions of a similar nature.
https://newoxfordbible.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/the-commanders-prayer/
https://www.christendom.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/A-Soldiers-Prayer.pdf
https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/your-words/poetry/a-soldiers-prayer
Obama’s application of “Hope Change and Wokeness” to the military reminds me of Hugo Chavez’s gradual transformation of the Venezuelan officer corps. Chavez retired those not agreeing with Chavismo and promoted those who agreed with Chavismo. Letting the officer corps partake of drug money bribes and traffic increased officer support for the regime.
As there has been over a decade of Wokeness applied to the military, getting rid of its military supporters will not happen overnight.
huxley
Which reminds me of Vaughn Meador’s First Family comedy albums.”50 Mile Hike” from a Vaughan Meader “First Family” album.
There are many jobs in the military. As a general rule there are four or five support troops for every trigger puller. Or on an aircraft carrier there are four thousand sailors doing the necessary work to get the aircraft into the air to engage the enemy. For the support troops, good health and sharp minds are necessary, but not the type of fitness you would expect from a Ranger, SEAL or even an infantry dogface.
To have to pass a physical fitness test twice a year is not unreasonable as long as they are realistic about the type of mission the soldier, sailor, or airman is involved in. Being physically fit is being healthy. Having a healthy military that does its various missions superbly is the goal.
The women’s movement will shriek about the requirement for women to pass the same test as men. If it’s infantry, Rangers, or SEALs; they should pass the same test. Those missions require strength and super fitness – no exceptions.
@ Shirehome > “Officers in their 40’s and 50’s should not be Fat, they are not really old.”
True. And there are plenty of men, and women, well into their 70s and even 80s who are as fit as our GOFOs ought to be (love that acronym!)
@ BJ > ” I’d rather be led by a fat person who’s smart instead of a skinny person who’s an idiot.”
And since we’ve been led by fat idiots we are really in trouble.
I suspect the Department of War will still have places for hefty geniuses, just not on the combat side.
@ BJ > “Tell that to Emperor Claudius, who never marched a step (because he was considered a stammering, dribbling cripple by the court, in spite of his many books) yet led the successful conquest of Britain”
All I know about Claudius I learned from the books by Robert Graves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius
It’s …. complicated.
As Emperor he was not a general officer.
They usually get a pass from the regulations.
Especially if they make them.
@ chazzand > “The media/Democrats screamed at and mocked the Hegseth choice in January”
Not unlike the position of Claudius at the beginning of his reign, although Hegseth does meet the fitness standards.
Hereditary rulers, after a few generations, are usually the ultimate in non-meritorious commanders.
Claudius and Alexander of Macedon are rare exceptions.
This is great! May God bless Secretary Hegseth and President Trump!
@AesopFan: Good point. If you have read Graves’ novels, you doubtlessly remember that Claudius had a hard time walking, even when he was a child. (a bout with polio, perhaps, which he barely survived). He was never described as slender, much less physically fit. However, this later worked out to his advantage, as his extra fat kept him buoyant enough to survive being thrown into a river on the orders of his nephew Caligula. Perhaps we ought to substitute swimming for push ups for recruits. 😉
@ BJ > “Perhaps we ought to substitute swimming for push ups for recruits.”
Better yet, do both!
I’ve been looking for some pundit to explain why Secretary Hegseth, and President Trump, wanted all the brass in one room face-to-face, to see if anyone was on the same wave-length I was.
Beege Welborn of Hot Air checks the box (and I didn’t know she was a Marine veteran!)
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/09/30/that-day-when-the-secretary-got-the-big-brass-band-together-n3807352
Hegseth said at the beginning that all of the objectives he was laying out were already in their inboxes.
TommyJay
Regarding the two-man carry. I was told the reason for that was when a ship was in action, many doors, or whatever the Navy calls them, in internal passages are closed to contain damage and flooding. For movement, a smaller opening in the middle is used, opened and closed as you go through. Two men carrying a litter can get through the smaller opening. Four cannot. The issues are obvious; wrestle the casualty through the door (hard enough to do especially with the unconscious or severely wounded) and then replace him on the litter. Or open the main “door” which has its own downside. So four women with a casualty are pretty much a catastrophe. But you won’t want to be discriminating against women.
When I was in Basic, Feb of 69, there were still a few cadre who recalled trying frantically to show cooks and clerks how to load a rifle when the Norks invaded South Korea. Everybody has to be a soldier.. In Viet Nam, when helicopter door gunners were killed, clerks and cooks would volunteer to take their places. You have to be a soldier, no matter what size chair you’re polishing with your oversized posterior.
Graves relied on Suetonius and Tacitus, unreliable narrators, because they were partisons of the Senate, which Claudius clipped severely, for his tale,
Admittedly invading Britain was a fool’s error, but larger errors have been entertained, like the Syracuse expedition under Alcibiades,
https://donsurber.substack.com/p/trumps-war-and-peace
Didn’t want to give anybody any ideas by writing this at the time, but what an ideal setup for a massive, crippling “decapitation attack”–when every U.S. military service’s highest ranking military leaders and their senior enlisted advisors, plus the Secretary of War, and the President are all in one location at the same time.
P.S. I thought that Secretary of War Hegseth’s speech was pretty Pattonesque, especially when compared to the rhetoric and ideas of his recent sub par predecessors.
Hegseth was crystal clear about how he wants the U.S. military to be structured, what it’s mission is, and what it’s only focus should be; war fighting, not “nation building.”
Now, let’s see how many of those attending actually take his directions to heart, and perform according to them.
They can’t say they haven’t been told.
I like the clarity and honesty of Hegseth’s realistic, non-sugar coated approach, when he says that the fundamental purpose of our military is not to be all touchy-feely but, rather, to apply force and violence, “ to break things and to kill people.”
This situation reminds me of a scene from “Blue Bloods”.
For those who are unfamiliar with the show, it’s about a family most of whose members are in law enforcement in NYC. A feature of the show was the family dinners, during which various issues would be discussed (IOW argued about).
In one episode the issue in question was a fitness test for police officers.
Danny, a detective, says something like : “You might have one officer who’s good at this thing, and other who’s good at that thing, and a third who’s good at something else. You don’t want to lose any of them because they’re a little overweight”.
His sister-in-law, a beat cop, says : “Maybe, but in a perfect world all three of them would be able to run up a flight of stairs”
“But the left always counts on the idea that you can’t turn back the clock. They believe once the Overton Window has shifted, the public accepts the new standard as the way it should be.”
Well, they believe that the arc of history bends toward them, and progress is inevitable. Of course, they are always wrong, but that never stops them.
” For the support troops, good health and sharp minds are necessary, but not the type of fitness you would expect from a Ranger, SEAL or even an infantry dogface.” -J.J.
What happens on the flight line when during a hot turnaround, a bomb loader malfunctions. How do you get it on the rack? It’s gonna take strong support troops, that’s how. Everyone has to pull their weight.
It has often been reported that Obama cashiered a lot of war fighting officers (and probably drove out a lot of enlisted men as well) and replaced them with his own soft, woke, squishy people, and this scheme of replacement probably continued during the Biden Administration.
I’m assuming that in addition to the few officers who have been fired, there are also a lot of officers and enlisted men who hold the same Obama type views, but who have been more canny, and much less publicly vocal about them.
So, my question is, just what percentage of the officers and their senior enlisted advisors in that audience do we think are likely to actually accept, to perform according to, and to strive to implement the mindset and priorities which Secretary of War Hegseth so very clearly delineated.
P.S. I’m also wondering just how Hegseth is going about identifying the people who need to be pushed out of his type of military?
If these Woke/DEI people don’t come to Hegseth and his staff’s attention by their public statements or actions, do fellow soldiers just point them out?
Geoffrey Britain on September 30, 2025 at 6:30 pm said:
In a military that promotes solely on merit, idiots would never arise to positions of command. Whereas in a woke military, by definition idiocy is the order of the day.
We have tended to have problems developing good military leadership throughout our history.
Recently read a book on the series of naval battles that occurred during the Guadalcanal campaign. We suffered a lot from poor leadership. Generally the men on the ships did a good job and often so to the ship’s captains, but higher ranks tended to fuck. up.
Don,
You may be referring to “Neptune’s Inferno” by Hornfischer? Great book, as is his “Last Stand of The Tin Can Sailors” (Leyte Gulf)
I generally look at Monday Morning Quarterbacking skeptically in military matters. The enemy has a vote and his options may not be limited.
There are screwups and some should have been avoided. But when you do Plan A, the enemy is not required to respond as anticipated. Perhaps you planned for seeing Plan B come at you. But Plan C? Didn’t know he had the….ships…capacity….intel. Could you have known? Should you?
@ Richard Aubrey – “Perhaps you planned for seeing Plan B come at you. But Plan C?”
There’s where you get into the Known Unknowns, and sadly often the Unknown Unknowns.
Hard to make contingency plans for the first, almost impossible for the second, unless you are a mad genius or prophet.
https://www.theuncertaintyproject.org/tools/rumsfeld-matrix