-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
During a recent visit to a Navy ship, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly became angry after seeing sailors with facial hair. The Navy requires sailors to be clean-shaven unless they’ve been given a medical waiver. America is at war. The ship and its crew were operating amid heightened tensions. Hegseth’s attention was on beards.
Pentagon officials subsequently held meetings in which subordinates were told that Hegseth was closely watching the services’ progress on grooming rules. Weeks later, the Navy limited medical shaving waivers — which let a sailor with a qualifying skin condition keep about a quarter-inch of trimmed facial hair instead of having to shave daily — to four consecutive 90-day renewals, a maximum of 12 months. Sailors whose condition hasn’t cleared by then can be pushed out through administrative separation, a discharge process that doesn’t require a court-martial, though the Navy says no one will be separated under the new rule before July 2027.
Then, this week, Hegseth announced another priority: Every service member age 30 or older, including women, will be screened annually for low testosterone. Younger troops may volunteer for these screenings. Those judged as deficient will be offered hormone therapy, part of what Hegseth called building a “High-T Department of War.”
Together, the two policies reveal something much larger than disagreements over grooming or medical care. They show that Hegseth is working to replace military standards rooted in mission with standards that better reflect his personal image of the American warrior.
There are legitimate reasons for doctors to test individual patients for testosterone deficiency. But Hegseth has offered no evidence that low testosterone has become a force-wide readiness problem requiring annual screenings of everyone over 30. The Pentagon hasn’t explained what standard applies to women or what purpose their results will serve. Instead, the policy arrived wrapped in language borrowed from the online “manosphere” and surrounding industries. “High-T” is not a clinical term here. It’s a declaration of what Hegseth believes toughness looks like.
His campaign against beards works the same way. The Navy says the standard protects the seal on respirators and gas masks. But the military’s own medical experts say that claim doesn’t hold up. In 2022, Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, an Air Force dermatologist who has studied the issue, called the seal claim unsubstantiated, resting on a handful of anecdotes rather than rigorous testing of the masks troops actually wear today. Canada’s military has permitted beards since 2018 without a single related equipment failure.
The same mask-seal logic is now being tested in court: Seventeen Black firefighters in Washington, D.C. are suing over a clean-shaven policy they say rests on the same unproven claim. What survives once the safety rationale is stripped away is aesthetics — a clean-shaven face presented as evidence of discipline, with little regard for the bodies on which the standard operates.
The condition behind most shaving waivers, pseudofolliculitis barbae, occurs when shaved hairs curl back into the skin, causing painful inflammation, lesions and sometimes permanent scarring. It can affect anyone with tightly curled facial hair, but studies estimate it can affect up to 83% of Black men. For many white service members, the clean-shaven standard means a few minutes with a razor each morning. For Black men with PFB, it means repeatedly injuring their skin, or seeking an accommodation their defense secretary treats publicly as evidence of collapsing standards.
The pattern extends beyond hormones and hair. Hegseth has questioned whether women belong in ground combat units at all and has blocked the promotions of women selected by boards of senior officers — decisions that have nothing to do with medicine. The Trump administration has also banned transgender troops based partly on the theory that hormone treatment would be too hard to sustain in the field, even as hormone treatment will now be available to other troops as a readiness enhancement.
The governing principle is not medicine. Hormone therapy becomes a readiness enhancement when it makes a man more masculine. The same category of treatment becomes grounds for exclusion when it’s a transgender American who needs it.
Where medicine isn’t even part of the equation, the preference shows itself just as plainly, in who gets promoted and which roles women are allowed to hold. Across all of these policies, Hegseth is selecting for one image of a warrior: male, conventionally masculine and clean-shaven. Because the beard policy falls disproportionately on Black service members, the force it favors becomes whiter as a result.
Military standards are supposed to answer a single question: Can this person perform the mission? Testosterone levels don’t measure judgment, courage, technical skill or the ability to lead under fire. A clean-shaven face doesn’t establish discipline, whatever the Navy claims about masks. Neither tell us whether someone can maintain a jet, defend a network, find an enemy submarine or command a platoon. These policies won’t reliably separate capable service members from incapable ones. They will sort service members by Hegseth’s prejudices, not their qualifications.
That has consequences beyond the people directly affected. Service members read signals from the top. Capable Americans who raised their right hands to serve shouldn’t have to spend their careers wondering whether they are being judged by their results or by characteristics unrelated to military performance. Some will leave. Many will decide never to join. The military will lose talented volunteers it should be fighting to keep because its leaders made clear that performance alone was no longer enough.
The people most comfortable staying will increasingly be those who already fit Hegseth’s preferred archetype.
The United States is engaged in a consequential war. Its military faces real questions about strategy, weapons production, operational strain and civilian deaths. Hegseth is entitled to demand standards. He is also obligated to show they serve a military purpose. Nothing about these policies makes it more likely that the military will prevail in its next war. They make it more likely that capable Americans will conclude they no longer belong in uniform. Instead, the force entrusted with defending the nation will become smaller, narrower and ultimately less capable.
Jon Duffy is a retired Navy captain. He writes about leadership and democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that at a time when the United States is engaged in a serious war, Hegseth’s intense focus on facial hair and testosterone screenings reflects distorted priorities, emphasizing culture-war symbolism and appearance over pressing questions of strategy, industrial capacity and civilian harm.
It contends that the Navy’s new shaving-waiver rules — limiting medical waivers to four 90‑day increments within a 12‑month treatment window and then allowing administrative separation — shift standards from mission performance to aesthetics, even though the official rationale centers on mask seals and “readiness.”[3][5][12][23][24] The piece suggests that once medical justifications are scrutinized, what remains is a preference for a clean‑shaven look as a proxy for discipline rather than a demonstrable safety requirement.
The article highlights that the condition driving most shaving waivers, pseudofolliculitis barbae, disproportionately affects Black men, and therefore the crackdown effectively favors a whiter, straighter‑haired force under the guise of uniform grooming rules.[1][21] It stresses that what for many White service members is a minor daily ritual can, for those with tightly curled hair, mean chronic pain, scarring or forced separation from service despite otherwise strong performance.
The piece argues that the new testosterone screening policy for all service members aged 30 and older, with optional testing for younger personnel, lacks scientific backing as a force‑wide readiness measure, noting that standard medical guidelines recommend testosterone testing only when symptoms or specific risk factors are present.[7][8][20][22] It emphasizes that Hegseth’s branding of a “High‑T Department of War” borrows language from the online “manosphere” and elevates a narrow, aggressive version of masculinity rather than clinically grounded health criteria.
Additionally, the article suggests that testosterone therapy is being framed as a readiness enhancement when it reinforces conventional male traits, even as hormone treatment has been cited in past bans and restrictions on transgender service members and as part of broader skepticism about women in ground combat and senior leadership roles. In this view, medicine is being selectively invoked to support a particular gendered ideal of the warrior rather than applied consistently across the force.
The article connects grooming and hormone policies to a larger pattern in which Hegseth is seen as selecting for a specific warrior archetype: male, conventionally masculine and clean‑shaven.[1][14][21] It argues that this archetype influences who is promoted, who is retained and who feels welcome in uniform, privileging appearance and gender norms over demonstrated competence in tasks such as maintaining aircraft, defending networks, operating ships or leading units under fire.
The piece warns that these policies will not reliably distinguish capable from incapable service members, but will instead sort people according to Hegseth’s prejudices about masculinity and grooming standards. It argues that the resulting signals from senior leadership will drive away talented volunteers — especially those who do not match the preferred image — and gradually narrow the force, making it smaller, less diverse and ultimately less capable of prevailing in future conflicts.
Finally, the article insists that Hegseth is entitled to demand standards but bears an obligation to show that they serve a clear military purpose. It maintains that nothing in the beard crackdown or testosterone screening regime, as currently explained, makes victory in the next war more likely; instead, the piece suggests they risk hollowing out the force by undermining trust that performance, rather than appearance or hormone levels, is what truly counts.
Different views on the topic
Supporters of Hegseth’s grooming reforms argue that strict clean‑shaven standards are essential to military discipline, safety and uniformity, contending that facial hair can compromise respirator and gas‑mask seals and undermine a cohesive professional appearance.[2][3][4][11][24] Pentagon statements emphasize that commanders must apply consistent criteria, and that medical officers will still recommend waivers when appropriate, positioning the policy as a balance between safety and accommodation.[2][11][24]
In defense of limiting medical shaving waivers to about one year, war‑department memoranda assert that long‑term exemptions erode standards and create uneven expectations within units, while the new rules require treatment plans and individualized reviews rather than automatic separation.[2][4][5][12][24] Officials highlight that religious accommodations for facial hair are governed by separate policy and remain possible, portraying the changes as a uniform readiness measure rather than an effort to target any particular racial or religious group.[4][12][24]
Hegseth and allied commentators present the beard crackdown as part of a broader effort to restore a “warrior ethos,” arguing that years of more lenient appearance rules have led to “beardos” and lax standards incompatible with combat readiness.[1][6][13][16][19] They insist that requiring everyone — from junior enlisted personnel to generals and admirals — to meet grooming and fitness benchmarks reinforces accountability up and down the chain of command and strengthens public confidence in the armed forces.[10][14][16]
Military leaders defending related grooming and fitness reforms contend that tougher, more uniform standards prevent perceptions of favoritism and double standards, especially around body‑composition and physical fitness.[14][16][18] From this perspective, ending permanent shaving profiles and tightening waivers is part of a wider recalibration toward traditional, demanding benchmarks that they say better reflect the realities of war and the need for deployable, resilient troops.[14][16][18]
Regarding testosterone screening, Pentagon and media reports describe the policy as a proactive health initiative aimed at identifying hormone deficiencies that might affect energy, mood, muscle mass or overall well‑being, thereby supporting performance and quality of life for service members.[8][9][15][17] Officials emphasize that testing will be integrated into existing annual health assessments for those 30 and older, that younger troops can volunteer, and that testosterone replacement therapy remains optional rather than mandatory.[9][15][17]
Some medical voices note that clinically significant low testosterone can contribute to symptoms such as fatigue, low libido or anemia, and that appropriate treatment may improve functioning for affected individuals, even though major guidelines generally advise testing only when symptoms are present.[7][8][22] Those open to the policy suggest that standardized screening could uncover undiagnosed cases in a high‑stress population, provided risks are managed and therapy decisions remain individualized.[8][15]
Advocates of Hegseth’s broader reform agenda argue that consolidating grooming, fitness and health standards across services — including stricter rules on beards, hair length and body composition — is necessary to prepare for high‑intensity conflict and to ensure that every service member meets “male‑level” physical expectations.[14][16][21] They frame reductions in diversity initiatives and the emphasis on traditional warrior imagery as a corrective to what they view as prior overemphasis on inclusion at the expense of combat effectiveness.[16][19][21]
Finally, officials defending the policies assert that they are being implemented with phased timelines, medical oversight and documented counseling — such as delaying separations tied to shaving‑waiver limits until after a period of adjustment — to mitigate abrupt disruptions to careers while still enforcing standards.[5][12][23][24] In this view, the reforms are portrayed not as punitive, but as disciplined steps to align the force with clear expectations before and during wartime.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Kim, an attorney and former San Francisco supervisor, is running against State Sen. Benjamin Allen for the role of running California’s long-beleaguered Department of Insurance. In this episode she talks to Rebuilding L.A. host Kate Cagle about why she should get the job.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
