Takeaways from Secretary Hegseth’s Quantico Meeting

Commentary by Mark F. Cancian

Published October 2, 2025

For the last week, defense circles have been abuzz with discussions about the unprecedented meeting of U.S. generals and admirals at Quantico on September 30. The televised event featured Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's exhortations for warfighting and lethality, followed by President Donald Trump's highly political campaign-style speech, which implied at one point that the military would use its deployments to cities for training.

The biggest news was what did not happen. There was no purge of the generals, no changes in the oath of office, and no demands that senior officers support partisan policies. Hegseth stated the need for a nonpartisan military and noted the oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The lack of an agenda ahead of time had produced widespread speculation, some of it quite dark.

The audience had presumably been briefed on how to comport themselves. They stood when the secretary of defense entered, had no reactions during the speech, and applauded at the end-a pattern repeated for the president. This approach prevented military officers from responding to the individual applause lines in President Trump's highly partisan speech. Although some journalists tried to read signs of hostility or disapproval into the officers' demeanor, it is impossible to ascertain those interpretations.

Secretary Hegseth's Speech

Much of what Secretary Hegseth said has already been promulgated in the directives he has issued since the beginning of his tenure. Thus, there were few surprises. Ten additional directives were released on September 30, outlining how to implement his agenda and elaborating on his Quantico remarks.

The Washington Post called Hegseth's tone "crass" and "highly political," but that's not entirely fair. I would call it blunt and theatrical. There were no F bombs, and he mentioned domestic issues only briefly. The delivery, however, reflected Hegseth's background as a Fox News commentator with language like "toxic ideological garbage," "climate change worship," and "foolish and reckless political leadership." He eschewed the language that the Washington intelligentsia (myself included) is comfortable with. Reactions to the speech, it seems, reflected attitudes toward the Trump administration in general, and toward Secretary Hegseth specifically.

Much of what Hegseth said likely resonated with senior officers-warfighting, high standards, fitness, strict grooming, excellence, and merit-based promotions-but some elements likely made them uncomfortable, such as the criticism of certain officers by name and the hint of further firings.

• Warfighting: Hegseth repeatedly came to this topic in both his remarks and his implementing directives, emphasizing that the Department of Defense (DOD, recently renamed the Department of War) will focus exclusively on warfighting. He made a powerful argument about whether he, the generals, and the admirals would want their children to be members of any units they supervised. If their answer was no, then they need to take action.

• Women: Women will be expected to meet the highest "male standard." That means that any woman in the combat arms must meet the same standards as their male counterparts, and Hegseth wants those standards to be high. Many women will be able to do that, though some will not. How significant that change will actually be is unclear since many jobs already have gender-neutral standards. The fitness standard for support jobs will be lower, making it less challenging for both women and men. Some commentators have felt that this guidance and accusations of DEI-based promotions have an anti-female tone. Hegseth responds that he has stated his support for women in the military in both his book and in this speech ("Our female officers and [female] NCOs are the absolute best in the world").

  A tension here is that the standards are such that 40-year-olds are not required to meet the same standards as 20-year-olds. On the one hand, that makes sense since people become less fit as they become older, for both physiological and workplace reasons. On the other hand, if there is one standard for everyone because of combat demands, why is there not one standard for all ages? However, this has not garnered any attention because it lacks the social and cultural implications of gender-based standards.

• Weight: Hegseth discussed fitness at length, complaining that there were too many overweight service members. As an aside, he said that there were too many overweight generals and admirals walking the halls of the Pentagon. Many media outlets picked up on this, but his main thrust was about the troops. That said, expect to see more senior officers at the Pentagon Athletic Center in the weeks ahead (mezzanine level, corridor 7, for those who have not been there recently).

• Fitness: The DOD will develop a physical fitness test like the Army and Marine Corps' existing combat fitness tests, and everyone will take such tests twice a year. Hegseth's September 30 directive, "Military Fitness Standards," has elaborate implementation instructions.

  However, implementing these standards may be challenging. The services have long struggled to develop fitness tests that are suitable for all personnel. Current tests designed to assess male troops are difficult for many women to pass, while those that most women can pass may not sufficiently challenge men. Similarly, tests that stress the combat arms may be excessive for some support troops, and standards designed for Marines may not be appropriate for Space Force Guardians.

  The approach to fitness standards reflects Hegseth's lack of joint experience in the military. His discussion was appropriate for Army and Marine Corps ground forces but may not easily be applied to other services with their different structures and personnel demands.

• Appearance and Facial Hair: No more "beardos." The Navy, which had historically allowed beards, reauthorized them in the early 1970s but reversed that decision in the mid-1980s. Troops can still get "no shaving" medical authorizations. Unit commanders have frequently complained that such authorizations have become too common, and the beards themselves are scraggly and unkempt. Although Secretary Hegseth has spoken about grooming being a good look, his directive to the force emphasizes the need for tight-fitting gas masks.

Hegseth's focus on fitness, weight, and appearance reflects his experiences as a junior officer. These are perennial challenges at the small unit level; anyone who has commanded a small unit in the military understands where he's coming from. However, if his military experience had been at higher levels, he would have discussed strategy, threats, and warfighting at the operational level. As it was, these topics were nearly absent from his remarks.

A Warning to the Officers

Hegseth said that if the officers disagreed with this plan, they should get out. That's blunt, but not inappropriate. It is a longstanding custom that officers who fundamentally disagree with departmental policies should do so on the outside. Hegseth did not demand adherence to the president's partisan policies. Taking the route of resistance from the inside, as an author infamously wrote during the first Trump administration, is inappropriate for an apolitical military.

He highlighted three topics that could cause problems in the future. The first concerned easing restrictions on hazing, which had been tightened under the Obama administration due to past abuses. This will be tricky. Light hazing can build esprit in units. However, it can quickly spiral into abuse. The implementing directive, "Review of Hazing, Bullying, and Harassment Definitions," requires a 30-day review that "aims to strike a balance, ensuring leaders have the tools necessary to foster a warrior ethos rooted in mutual respect and accountability, while also maintaining a lethal and ready Force."

Another point Hegseth addressed was eliminating toxic leadership. What he intended to mean was somewhat ambiguous, but he seemed to be referring to officer evaluations that provide for both bottom-up and top-down input. He said it led to "go along, get along" officers. The military has wrestled with this for a long time. Would great wartime leaders like George S. Patton survive in this environment? On the other hand, toxic leadership is real. There are officers who "suck up and kick down."

Related to hazing, he indicated that boot camp would become tougher, with drill instructors permitted to use intensified training methods meant to produce anxiety and fear, such as "shark attacks," turning over bunks, and touching recruits. The latter opens the way for abuse. When I went through officer boot camp many (many) years ago, the drill instructors could scream, make us do push-ups, run us to exhaustion, and inspect our gear with a magnifying glass (true story). However, they were not allowed to hit us. That did not prevent the training from being demanding, even brutal, yet highly effective.

Finally, he talked about easing procedures for handling complaints against leadership. The implementation materials focus on speed, transparency, giving people second chances, and considering the accused innocent until proven guilty-all of which sounds reasonable. It also threatens unsubstantiated complaints and frequent complainers. This will resonate with many commanders who have been caught in the "twilight zone" of endless complaints, all of which demand lengthy investigations. However, if it means shutting down legitimate complaints or preventing them from being investigated, then it will cause problems with Congress and be unfair to the troops.

Hegseth could not restrain himself from getting personal. He criticized Generals Mark Milley, Peter Chiarelli, and Frank Mackenzie by name, the latter two because of their association with the Afghanistan withdrawal, despite their having criticized the Obama administration's handling of the operation. Belittling officers by name smacks of pettiness.

Hegseth hit a few other topics worth noting briefly:

• His one strategy comment was that the United States should emulate Desert Storm-get in, win, get out quickly, then turn it over to others. It should avoid the "forever" wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. That's sensible strategic advice, but hard to do in practice.
• He endorsed "onshoring" critical components, so equipment does not rely on lower-tier components that potential adversaries like China build. However, identifying those components and finding alternatives is turning out to be difficult.
• He made several biblical references and ended by citing the armed forces prayer, but they were just references; none demanded a response from the audience.
  

President Trump's Speech

President Trump gave his standard campaign speech to the assembled officers. He talked some about the military but primarily about domestic politics, his personal grievances, and his political achievements. It was a totally inappropriate speech to give to military officers. On the other hand, he gives this speech everywhere, at campaign rallies, to Congress, and to the UN General Assembly. He did not "get political" just for the military audience.

Trump wants the military to endorse his politics and himself personally. He expressed frustration that the officers did not cheer when he took the stage, as happens at his political rallies. The military officers did not fall into that trap.

The most cited line, picked up in virtually every post-event article, was, "I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military, National Guard . . ." There was no elaboration, and it was almost a throwaway. He talked much more about battleships. It came at the end of a long section on border security and before a discussion of crime in cities. It's not clear what he meant. The statement did not mention combat but did mention the National Guard.

The vagueness encouraged speculation, some quite dark. Had the president declared war on the American people? Was he going to round up dissidents? Was this preparation for sealing ballot boxes on Election Day next year? These speculations go far beyond the evidence in the speech.

He might have just expressed his feelings on the subject and trolled his opponents, something he does frequently without any policy follow-up. The Pentagon might interpret this to mean that operations in cities will provide training for military support elements, like transportation, maintenance, and supply. Any additional domestic operations-like a pending deployment to Chicago, which was mentioned in the speech-would use the National Guard. This would be consistent with past practice and limitations on the use of active-duty forces because of the Posse Comitatus Act.

On the other hand, he might be implying that the military should use lethal force in cities. That would be a huge problem. The military is not trained or designed to deal with citizens and law enforcement. It neutralizes threats. Where police recruits might get 40 hours of training on citizens' rights and lethal force, the military might get two. So far, the activities of troops deployed to cities have been benign, although the mission itself has been controversial. The troops don't deal directly with citizens and limit themselves to support functions. Here in Washington, that even includes landscaping.

The guidance that Secretary Hegseth puts out will be critical. If he says nothing, then the current set of activities will continue. If he authorizes the use of lethal force, errors will almost certainly happen, and citizens will get hurt.

An irony is the tension between Hegseth's focus on traditional warfighting and Trump's focus on domestic enemies and law enforcement. A military that is sealing the border and walking the streets to fight crime is not getting ready for the lethal weapons of a great power adversary such as China or Russia.

It's worth summarizing the rest of the president's 72-minute speech to get a sense of its content. Virtually all these talking points and the associated characterizations will be familiar to anyone who has listened to a recent Trump speech.

Programs & Projects

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2025 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Tags

Critical Questions by Mark F. Cancian and Chris H. Park - September 8, 2025

Critical Questions by Mark F. Cancian and Chris H. Park - August 12, 2025

Critical Questions by Mark F. Cancian - January 27, 2025