Defense Secretary Hegseth Orders Review of Military Fitness Standards for Combat Roles

In a recent move aimed at standardizing physical fitness requirements across the US military, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed a comprehensive review of fitness standards for combat jobs, with a key focus on making these standards gender-neutral.

This directive aims to ensure that all personnel in combat roles meet the same fitness criteria, regardless of gender, based purely on the physical demands of the job and the readiness required to confront potential adversaries.

The Gender-Neutral Fitness Standards

Hegseth’s order comes as part of his broader push for higher and more consistent standards within the military, reflecting his concerns about current fitness norms, which he believes have been compromised in favor of accommodating gender differences.

The new directive requires the military services to distinguish between combat arms roles, such as special operations or infantry, and non-combat positions, which have less demanding physical fitness requirements.

The core of this change is the emphasis on gender-neutral fitness standards for combat arms positions, which must be “based solely on the operational demands of the occupation and the readiness needed to confront any adversary.”

Hegseth’s memo highlights the fact that many combat roles already have rigorous, non-gendered fitness tests, particularly for high-demand occupations like special forces, infantry, and pararescue jumpers.

Different physical standards for men and women in the U.S. military have existed for a long time. BUT, there were also combat roles that were male-only.

Then, under Obama, all combat roles were opened to men AND women. BUT, different physical fitness standards for men and women…

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 31, 2025

However, the move extends this approach across all combat positions, ensuring that physical standards reflect the unique challenges and physical demands of each role.

Clarifying Combat Roles

Before implementing the new standards, Hegseth has called for a detailed assessment to define what constitutes a “combat role.”

The military’s classification system for combat arms has long been complex, with questions about which positions, such as intelligence officers on the front lines or sailors aboard Navy ships facing enemy fire, should be considered combat-related. This challenge reflects the evolving nature of warfare, where nearly all personnel, even in non-combat roles, may face combat situations in modern military operations.

For example, Sailors on a deployed Navy warship in a combat zone may need to perform a variety of tasks, including operating weapons systems, even if their primary role is not traditionally considered combat-focused.

Such complexities highlight the difficulties of applying traditional definitions of combat roles across different branches of the military.

Hegseth’s directive encourages military leaders to categorize jobs more precisely and ensure that combat roles are clearly distinguished from non-combat ones. This classification will then serve as the basis for developing appropriate physical fitness standards for each category.

Expanding on Existing Standards

While many military services, such as the Army and Marines, already have rigorous physical requirements for combat-related roles, this order aims to standardize these benchmarks across all branches.

For example, the Army’s Special Forces and the Navy SEALs already have intense physical requirements for recruits, which include high-level endurance, strength, and combat-readiness tests.

However, the broader military fitness landscape has often been less consistent, with annual fitness tests varying by age and gender.

The directive calls for all service members in combat roles to meet the same fitness standards, which will now be based purely on operational needs rather than accommodating differences in physical capacities between genders. This change reflects a longstanding debate over gender integration in the military, with critics arguing that lowering standards for women has compromised overall readiness.

Reviewing the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT)

At the center of this review is the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), which has been widely criticized for its low baseline requirements and high expectations for top scores.

The ACFT, which assesses physical readiness for combat, has faced scrutiny for its mixed results.

While some Army leaders argue that the test’s requirements are too lenient, others contend that the top-tier performance benchmarks are unrealistic, potentially hindering promotions for soldiers who do not meet these elite standards.

Hegseth’s memo suggests a possible overhaul of the ACFT and other military fitness assessments, urging the services to adapt these standards to better reflect modern combat needs. This could include changes to both physical testing and qualifications for specific roles, such as the potential rebranding of the ACFT to better align with combat realities.

Challenges in Implementing the Change

Implementing this new policy could prove challenging. The process of defining which roles require higher fitness standards may involve complex deliberations, particularly in branches like the Navy or Air Force, which have fewer traditional ground combat roles.

For example, Sailors on a warship may be expected to contribute to the vessel’s defense, but it is unclear whether they should be classified as combat personnel.

Moreover, the review process will need to account for the physical demands of various non-combat roles that may still require combat readiness in specific scenarios, such as logistics specialists who may find themselves in a combat zone.

Additionally, the timeline for service leaders to submit their proposed changes—60 days to finalize the report and 30 days for an interim update—suggests that the review process will be fast-tracked, which may present logistical challenges in terms of gathering and assessing the necessary data.

Conclusion

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to implement gender-neutral fitness standards for combat roles represents a significant shift in military policy, aiming to ensure that all service members, regardless of gender, meet the physical demands required for combat readiness. While the review process will address the complexities of defining combat roles across different military services, it is expected to strengthen the overall fitness standards for those in the most physically demanding jobs. This effort, which builds on Hegseth’s broader agenda for higher military standards, will play a crucial role in refining the physical readiness of the US military to face modern combat challenges.