Air Force members must be ready to heed new federal grooming guidance in the weeks ahead.

That is according to updated medical guidance for shaving profiles announced Monday by the Department of the Air Force (DAF), telling members that new grooming standards will go into effect Jan. 31, 2026, as part of the standards set in motion[1] in September by the Department of Defense and Secretary Pete Hegseth.

All shaving profiles issued before March 1, 2025, are invalid and any airmen and guardians who have medical shaving profiles issued prior to that date are being instructed to schedule an appointment with a military health care provider for further evaluation before the January deadline.

Instructions have simultaneously been given to equip primary care providers, medical profile officers and unit commanders with guidance in order to approve or deny a medical shaving profile.

Maj. Caitlin Oviatt, 55th Logistics Readiness commander, inspects a shaving waiver during an open ranks inspection on July 9, 2024. Open ranks was being conducted as part of an Air Combat Command initiative to boost troop readiness. (U.S. Air Force photo by Chad Watkins)

“With the recent release of updated guidance on medical shaving profiles, the Department of the Air Force is coordinating additional implementation guidance to meet the intent of the Secretary of War’s grooming standards for facial hair policy,” a DAF spokesperson told Military.com[2].

“To ensure consistency and fairness, the department will provide detailed instructions as soon as they are finalized and will address updated standards, non-compliance procedures, religious accommodations and readiness considerations,” they added.

'No More Beardos'

The new profile comes on the heels of Hegseth in September ordering the Pentagon “to revert to pre-2020 standards” and do away with permanent shaving profiles for medical conditions, such as razor bumps. He used the phrase “no more beardos” when discussing appearance and U.S. military standards to generals and admirals at Marine Corps Base Quantico[3] in Virginia.

“The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done,” Hegseth said during his September speech. “Simply put, if you do not meet the male-level physical standards for combat positions, cannot pass a (physical training) test or don’t want to shave and look professional, it’s time for a new position or a new profession.”

It has led to not just DAF but other branches issuing updated guidelines. The U.S. Army, for example, announced changes that include precise definitions for hairstyles such as authorized lengths, styles and accessories for both male and female soldiers. Standards for cosmetics, fingernails and jewelry have also been clarified.

Violation Process

DAF said that no single shaving profile may exceed a six-month period. Starting on Feb. 1, 2026, any airmen and guardians who accumulate more than 12 months of shaving profile within a 24-month period will be referred to their commander.

The memorandum does not apply to shaving waivers granted for religious accommodations.

Recruit Anthony Escalante with Charlie Company, 1st Recruit Training Battalion, gets his hair cut aboard Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, S.C., Aug. 26, 2020. (Dylan Walters)

The chain-of-command for assessing, potentially reporting violations is as follows:

  • Primary care managers will evaluate members for medical conditions, recommend profiles, and submit profile recommendations to a medical profile officer.

  • Medical profile officers will review the primary care provider’s recommendations for profiles of 30 days or less. For those greater than 30 days, senior profile officers will review recommendations. DAF said that profile recommendations that meet all review criteria earn a “concur” and are submitted to the unit commander for consideration.

  • Commanders have final approval authority for medical shaving profiles, recording electronic approval or denial via the Aeromedical Services Information Management Systems (ASIMS) within seven days. They may also request service members to be evaluated due to operational concerns stemming from a medical condition.

Sensitive Skin

The new guidance provided in the Dec. 15 memo is also intended to assist health care providers in evaluating airmen and guardians for a Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (PFB) diagnosis.

PFB is described by the National Institutes of Health as a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by papules, pustules, and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. The condition, which occurs more frequently in men of African and Asian descent, could also lead to itching and the development of keloids and potential scars.

The DAF memo differentiates between shaving irritation and PFB, and provides criteria to distinguish between mild, moderate and severe cases of PFB.

“We recognize the complexities involved, as updated medical shaving profile guidance may raise questions beyond shaving and profiles alone,” DAF told Military.com[4]. “The department remains focused on providing clear, timely guidance to help airmen and guardians understand and comply with the grooming standards.”

© 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[5].

Read more

A new poll shows a plurality of voters across nearly all demographics disagreeing with the Trump administration’s foreign policy strategy against Venezuela, as a majority of respondents said they want Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to resign.

In September the United States military began airstrikes on alleged drug-carrying boats[1] traversing the Caribbean Sea, branded by the Trump administration as traffickers who are bringing narcotics to the U.S. Speculation has persisted regarding whether the U.S. plans to militarily infiltrate Venezuela to remove President Nicolás Maduro and/or seize oil. Trump himself has alluded multiple times to a potential land war[2].

At least 90 people have been killed in more than 20 vessel strikes, including three strikes announced Monday that led to eight deaths.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives to join Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol to brief lawmakers on the military strike on a suspected drug smuggling boat and its crew in the Caribbean near Venezuela Sept. 2, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“On Dec. 15, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on three vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters,” U.S. Southern Command wrote on X. “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking.”

The legality of the ongoing strikes has become a major issue in Washington and beyond, with hearings continuing Tuesday involving Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials briefing U.S. House and Senate members on Capitol Hill.

Independents Sour on Hegseth, Boat Strikes

From Dec. 5-9 Data for Progress surveyed 1,165 U.S. likely voters about the ongoings in the Caribbean and whether military involvement overseas should be a bigger priority for the Trump administration than domestic issues.

Results mostly fell along partisan lines, though those who consider themselves independent or third-party aligned expressed discontent and aligned more with liberals/Democrats. The poll from the progressive think tank included responses from 454 Republicans, 448 Democrats and 263 independents.

A Data For Progress poll shows voters' sentiments towards ongoing military action in the Caribbean ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. (Data For Progress)

When asked whether they have a favorable or unfavorable view of Hegseth, 40% responded that they view him unfavorably (9% "somewhat" unfavorable and 39% "very" unfavorable). That included 66% of Democratic respondents and 44% of independents, but just 16% of Republicans.

About 31% of respondents expressed a net favorable opinion of Hegseth, including 58% of Republicans and 25% of independents. Another 29% overall said they “haven’t heard enough to say” their opinion on Hegseth.

Across all demographics except Republican-identified voters, Hegseth received a net unfavorable opinion from respondents.

Ryan O'Donnell, executive director at Data for Progress, told Military.com[3] that the results show some cracks in U.S. citizens’ support for the current foreign policy outfit. Another 1-in-4 Republicans also don't trust the current administration to make decisions about the use of military force in Venezuela.

"It's not a good sign for Pete Hegseth that a plurality of voters, including 41% of independents, think he should resign without being provided with any context,” O’Donnell said. "An overwhelming majority of voters (86%) say it is important that the U.S. government demonstrates that any actions taken in international waters comply with international law and treaty agreements.”

"Trump campaigned on ending wars, but his ongoing threats of escalation with Venezuela directly contradict that promise."

But when it comes to resignation, respondents expressed more hesitance. While there was a net 14% of support across all demographics except Republicans for Hegseth to resign, a net 20% said they weren’t sure.

Actions overseas have definitely drawn Americans’ attention, per the poll, with 40% of all respondents hearing “a lot” about it and 37% hearing “a little.” Just 23% reported hearing nothing at all about the continuous military action.

The poll of likely voters, conducted in English, sampled respondents across the age, gender, education, race, geography and political spectrum. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Americans' Priorities

There was also a 2-1 split among respondents when asked whether the United States should be more or less involved in trying to resolve foreign conflicts, with 62% saying the U.S. should be less involved and 32% saying the opposite.

That was even true among Republican respondents by a narrow margin, with 50% wanting less involvement and 43% wanting more.

"Trump campaigned on ending wars, but his ongoing threats of escalation with Venezuela directly contradict that promise," O'Donnell said. "Voters are noticing."

More than six in 10 poll respondents said they would prefer less foreign entanglements. (Data For Progress)

When asked about priorities foreign and domestic, respondents soured on President Donald Trump’s current agenda involving Venezuela and Maduro—instead wanting more attention paid to the home front.

Again, all demographics but Republicans (+16) said Maduro’s removal should be a top priority for the administration. Just 37% overall referenced his removal as a priority.

The same was true when asked whether alleged boat drug traffickers should continue to be targeted, which was supported by 70% of Republicans and opposed by 76% of Democrats and 64% of independents—totaling 45% who say that bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean should be a “top priority” or “somewhat of a priority.”

Fewer voters said the same about deploying troops to Mexico to crack down on drug trafficking (43%).

In contrast, more than 70% of voters said that extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits (75%), restoring Medicaid funding (71%), and increasing funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation (71%) should be at least somewhat of a priority.

© 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[4].

Read more

More Articles …