WASHINGTON — Historically, the U.S. military has been an engine for cultural and social change in America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision^[1] for the armed forces he leads runs counter to that.

In comments^[2] Tuesday to hundreds of military leaders and their chief enlisted advisers, Hegseth made clear he was not interested^[3] in a diverse or inclusive force^[4]. His address at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, verbalized what Hegseth has been doing^[5] as he takes on any program that can be labeled diversity, equity or inclusion, as well as targeting transgender personnel.^[6] Separately, the focus on immigration also is sweeping up veterans.^[7]

For too long, “the military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay, some of it obvious, some of it hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.”

Hegseth's actions -- and plans for more -- are a reversal of the role the military has often played.

“The military has often been ahead of at least some broader social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stahl, associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. ”The desegregation of the armed forces is perhaps the most classic example."

President Harry S. Truman's desegregation order in 1948 came six years before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in the Brown vs. Board of Education case -- and, Stahl said, "that obviously takes a long time to implement, if it ever fully is implemented.”

It Has Been a Circuitous Path

Truman's order was not a short progression through American society. Although the military was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the races did not mix in their actual service. Units like the Tuskegee Airmen^[8], the Navajo Code Talkers^[9] and the Buffalo Soldiers^[10], formed in 1866, were segregated until the order opened the door to integrated units.

Women were given full status to serve in 1948 with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act^[11]. There were restrictions on how many could serve and they were generally not allowed to command men or serve in combat. Before then, they had wartime roles and they did not serve in combat, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs.

The WASPs and Tuskegee Airmen were among the first groups this year to be affected when Hegseth issued his DEI order^[12]. The Air Force removed training videos of the airmen along with ones showing the World War II contributions of the WASPs at the basic training base in San Antonio. The videos were restored^[13] after widespread bipartisan outcry over their removal.

Other issues over time have included “don't ask, don't tell,” the policy that allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve as long as their sexual orientation was not public. That was repealed during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve on combat aircraft and combat ships in the early 1990s -- then all combat positions after a ban was lifted in 2015^[14].

“The military has always had to confront the question of social change and the question of who would serve, how they would serve and in what capacity they would serve. These are questions that have been long-standing back to the founding in some ways, but certainly in the 20th century,” said David Kieran, distinguished chair in Military History at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. “These are not new questions.”

Generally the answer has come down to what “the military writ large” has concluded. “'How do we achieve our mission best?'" Kieran said. "And a lot of these things have been really hotly debated.”

Part of a Larger, Longer Debate

Kieran offered one example: changes the Army made in the 1960s when it was dealing with a climate of racism and racial tensions. Without that, he said, "the military can't fight the war in Vietnam effectively.”

The same considerations were given to how to address the problem of sexual harassment. Part of the answer involved what was morally right, but “the larger issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the Army carry out its mission effectively?”

While "it is important to see these actions as part of a longer history and a larger debate," Kieran said, "it’s certainly also true that the current administration is moving at a far more aggressive and faster pace than we’ve seen in earlier administrations."

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, questioned some of the actions that Trump's Defense Department has taken, including replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr^[15].

“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O'Hanlon said. Even if he got the job in part because of his race, “it wouldn't be disqualifying in my book, unless he was unqualified -- and he wasn't.”

Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said the current attitudes he is seeing toward the military suggest a misunderstanding of the armed forces and why the changes have been made.

“The military, for more than seven decades now, has been more on the leading edge in terms of figuring out how to put together an organization that tries to take advantage of the talents and capacities of all Americans,” Delmont said. Since Truman signed his executive order, “the military has moved faster and farther than almost any other organization in thinking about issues of racial equality, and then later thinking about the issues related to gender and sexuality.”

Delmont said bias, prejudice and racism remain in the military, but the armed services have done more “than a lot of corporations, universities, other organizations to try to address those head-on."

“I wouldn’t say it was because they were particularly interested in trying to advance the social agenda,” he said. "I think they did it because they recognized you can’t have a unified fighting force if the troops are fighting each other, or if you’re actively turning away people who desire to serve their country."

At Quantico today^[1], President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told hundreds of America’s senior officers that the era of “politically correct” leadership is over. The optics were clear.  It was a rare mass gathering of generals and admirals, summoned to hear a sharp course correction. Trump’s line, “We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom”, landed like a gavel strike, setting the tone for Hegseth’s harder edge. 

Hegseth followed with a vow: “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level.” He coupled that with promises of stricter standards, a purge of what he casts as “woke” policies, and a warning shot to reluctant leaders. Officers who disagreed were encouraged to resign. 

What Does This Mean for the Military?

There’s no question the military is in a standards conversation. Recruiting has been a grind where military services have experimented with waivers and adjusted fitness tests, and commanders have juggled readiness and discipline. Military.com has traced these currents for years, including the GOP’s platform posture on “woke” reforms^[2], and, more recently, the administration’s rebranding and refocus of the Department of Defense to the Department of War.

But cutting through slogans matters. If “ending political correctness” means returning to clear, rigorously enforced standards that map to combat tasks, you’ll find few in uniform who object. 

Reports noted the room’s restraint and that stoicism wasn’t rudeness, it was professionalism. The fact that America’s senior officers kept their bearing is exactly what we expect of them. 

On the policy front, the administration’s rollback of DEI offices and book removals at academies^[3] is already in motion. Supporters argue these steps restore merit, where critics warn they risk shrinking the talent pipeline and trust. The public record shows the scope of change is actual, not rhetorical. 

How Do We Know if it Will Work?

What does research say? It’s mixed (and that is noteworthy). A recent study^[4] suggests demographic diversity alone has, on average, small or inconsistent links to team performance, while task-related diversity and cohesion tend to drive outcomes more reliably. RAND’s work^[5] likewise emphasizes that how diversity is leveraged (with clear standards and mission focus) matters more than slogans at either extreme. The naval profession’s own journals continue to underline cohesion as a warfighting advantage. In short: standards, clarity, and cohesion win. 

Civil-military lines, meanwhile, are not academic niceties. They’re guardrails. When a Commander in Chief uses a captive audience of uniformed leaders to test novel views like using troops in U.S. cities for training, that opens the institution to potential risk. It invites questions about legal boundaries (think Posse Comitatus), chain-of-command pressures, and the public’s trust in a nonpartisan force. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

So where does that leave the rank and file, and importantly, the leaders who will carry today’s message down the chain? Here’s where an old word does real work: muster. In the military, to muster is to assemble the unit for accountability, inspection, and orders.  It ensures that everyone is present, understands the standard, and knows the mission. Done well, mustering isn’t pageantry.  It is communication discipline. You pull the formation together, deliver the commander’s intent in plain language, check understanding, and set expectations. Then you train to the standard you just articulated.

We should be honest about what changed today and what did not. It changed the language from the top: unmistakably. It advertised a coming wave of policy shifts on standards, personnel management, and education. What it didn’t change is the timeless equation for combat effectiveness: clear standards + tough, fair enforcement + cohesive teams that trust their leaders. If the “end of political correctness” sharpens standards, trims bloat, and recommits units to a common, lawful purpose, then the rhetoric will fade and the results will speak.

Leaders at every echelon can set the tone now. Muster your troops. State the standard. Strip away the culture-war flourishes and explain the “why” in mission terms: readiness, lethality, discipline, and dignity. Then enforce it evenly. The American people don’t need a politicized military; they need a deadly-serious one that passes muster: in training, in combat, and in the trust it keeps with the nation it serves.

QUANTICO, Va. — The Army, Navy and Air Force, with encouragement from the Trump administration, all announced this summer that they had met their recruiting goals months ahead of schedule.

That is a major shift from the past several years when the military has failed to meet its recruiting goals because of complications from the COVID-19 pandemic, tight job markets and a growing generation of young Americans struggling to meet fitness and academic standards^[1]. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed the turnaround as an early victory^[2], arguing that recruits had been put off by what he called a weakened military under Democratic President Joe Biden.

However, the uptick began well before President Donald Trump won office again in November, and a major driver has been programs the services started^[3] years ago to boost numbers.

While the Marine Corps didn't wade into the fray earlier, it is now claiming success. And the general in charge of the effort says the politics of the moment have had no impact on Marine recruiting.

“The Marines are probably the most inelastic of the services,” Lt. Gen. William Bowers told The Associated Press this month. “We appeal to a certain type of young man or woman — that really doesn’t change with the economic winds."

"They want to be part of that mystique,” he added.

Marines Say they Just Beat Their Recruiting Goal

Data provided by the Corps shows that it has recruited 30,536 active-duty and reserve enlisted Marines — just one person over its annual goal. It also recruited 1,792 active duty and reserve officers, beating its goal by two people.

Officials say the figures are not the result of a struggle to meet the numbers but a reflection of how careful the Corps has to be in not overrecruiting.

Bowers said that when he took the job as deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs, he moved the date for 500 recruits to head to boot camp until after September to avoid the Marines growing past their congressionally authorized size.

Formal recruiting figures for all the military services are typically announced after the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

The Marines also beat enlisted recruiting goals by a single person last year. The service made its enlisted recruiting goal by 351 Marines in 2023, when the Army, Navy and Air Force all missed their targets by thousands of recruits. The Army alone came up about 10,000 short^[4].

However, the Corps in 2022 also had to dip into its pools of delayed-entry applicants^[5] -- the same pool Bowers is now bolstering -- to make its goals.

The Military's Struggle to Make Numbers

The Marines have not altered their entry requirements and are “unapologetic” about their standards.

“Everywhere I’ve been in the country, the American people know the Marine Corps has very high standards and that we stick to them,” Bowers said. He added, “If you try to appeal to everybody, you won’t get the people you maybe really want.”

But there is also an inherent contrast with the other military services.

Both the Army^[6] and Navy stood up programs at their boot camps that offer remedial academic or physical training to recruits who don’t meet standards at the time they ship out.

The Navy also has started a program that allows up to 20% of its recruits to score below 30 out of 99 on the military’s academic test as long as they met specific standards for their chosen job. It also raised the maximum enlistment age by two years, to 41.

Army and Navy officials said none of those programs is a lowering of standards.

The Corps doesn’t offer the lavish cash bonuses that some services do to attract recruits. The U.S. military overall spent more than $2 billion^[7] over the past three years to recruit service members, with the Corps accounting for just over 2.5%, or about $51 million, of that.

Gen. Eric Smith, the Marine commandant, famously told a conference in 2023 that “your bonus is you get to call yourself a Marine.”

Part of what enables Marines to maintain this bravado is that they are by far the smallest service, with roughly 170,000 people. That means the recruiting goals are also smaller.

In contrast, the Army is made up of more than 450,000 troops with a recruiting goal for 2025^[8] of 61,000 recruits. The Navy is made up of more than 440,000 sailors, and its goal for 2025 was 40,000^[9].

The Marines also have had a decades-long emphasis on recruiting, Bowers says. “Culturally, we are different because we were set on a different path years ago.”

That history makes the success of the Corps difficult to emulate or easily replicate. Bowers said Marine officials had conversations with the Army and played a role in the service working to set up a cadre of career recruiters, but he also concedes that “we got about a 45-year head start.”

Political Spotlight

The Marine Corps has played an oversized role in Trump's administrations.

During his first term, Trump picked two retired Marines for key positions^[10]: Gen. James Mattis as defense secretary and Gen. John Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security and later chief of staff. Both later left the administration and have been critical of Trump.

Since taking office this year, the Trump administration has turned to Marines again. It sent active duty Marines to Los Angeles^[11] to protect federal property and personnel during protests against immigration raids.

It further thrust the Marine Corps into the political spotlight, and the deployment was challenged in court^[12].

Now, Marines are part of a U.S. military buildup^[13] in the Caribbean that is stoking fears of invasion^[14] in Venezuela and adding to speculation that Trump could try to topple^[15] its president, Nicolás Maduro.

Asked about the political attention, Bowers wasn't concerned, arguing it is an opportunity for the Corps to show that it is able to succeed in a crisis and act as a positive force.

“Whenever Marines are committed to a crisis, we turn in a performance that’s successful," he said. “We’re downright good for the youth of America.”

Bowers also wasn't bothered by the prospect that what Americans think of Marines might be changing.

“I have not seen that,” he said. “What I have seen is that the American people know that our commandant has insisted on very high standards to become a Marine and that the Marine Corps will absolutely never compromise those standards.”