Opinion: Sec. Hegseth, We Met the Standards for Women — They Never Changed

On March 31, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made statements. mandated that the Pentagon reviews its combat arms criteria to make sure the military does not grant exemptions to female service members.

This directive reinforces the baseless notion that Hegseth has been promoting since his confirmation hearing—that women in the military attained their achievements solely because the criteria were relaxed for them.

However, we were never catered to, and our expectations were never diminished.

Bethany became the 71st female to receive the prestigious Ranger tab. In her case, Rita joined the field artillery—a role involving direct combat duties—during the initial year when women could fully participate. It seemed as though military women rarely received special considerations; those weren’t visibly apparent anyway.

Stories have long circulated about how military standards have supposedly been reduced to accommodate female service members. A little over ten years back, when we enlisted, this kind of narrative frequently appeared in print media. major newspapers The New York Times highlighted an op-ed In January, revisiting these same old debates.

Nevertheless, over the past year, we have reviewed almost all the integration documents produced by the Department of Defense since they completely integrated women in 2016. Every reference made anecdotally about reduced standards lacks support from service-level evidence. implementation plan, every congressional testimony and each branch of the Department of Defense report or update to Congress.

As soon as women joined the combat roles, the Pentagon focused when prioritizing standards above all else—and, in certain instances, even establishing or raising standards in anticipation of female involvement.

TheDefenseDepartment's dedication to upholding standards was so robust that Secretary of DefenseAshCarterincluded " TransparentStandards"onhislist. top priority When incorporating the force in 2015, every service branch reiterated this dedication within their respective integration strategies. The Army went a step beyond; its execution plan allocated 17 out of its total 54 pages to this initiative. pages To list each individual standard for formalization and guarantee their immutability took up more resources than what the Army dedicated to outlining strategies for managing the careers of recently integrated female soldiers or safeguarding them against sexual assault.

Every year, the Army and the Marine Corps has consistently confirmed that "standards which are operationally relevant, occupation-specific, and unbiased continue to apply across all [Military Occupational Specialties]." Neither branch reported at any stage, whether internally or to Congress, having adjusted these criteria to facilitate the inclusion of women or boost female pass rates.

At times, the Defense Department established combat criteria shortly preceding integration to maintain uniformity throughout the changeover. Expecting this policy adjustment, the Marine Corps developed gender-neutral criteria for its combat arms roles were established just two months prior to integration in 2015. Likewise, four months before allowing women into these positions, the Army validated Approximately 445 military occupational standards have been established to formalize task requirement criteria for combat roles. Since this time, neither branch of the service has updated these standards, and the same occupational requirements persist to this day.

There will always be stories from individual soldiers claiming they've met women who "had an easier time," yet no aspect of Defense Department policy supports these grievances.

Some argue that the Army’s revised public version of its new fitness test indicates a reduced standard for female soldiers. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between an inadequately designed test and one tailored to include women — and this particular fitness test falls into the first category. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense hasn’t provided any proof that the second scenario applies here.

Hegseth’s remarks are incorrect as well as being based on obsolete, sexist, and refuted stereotypes. However, the problem extends beyond mere sexism. The ongoing challenge for women remains prominent. underrepresented In the combat arms and specialized units that he critiques, often these areas do not receive sufficient attention. equipped with gender-specific gear To assist them in performing these duties with the same efficiency as their male peers. The benchmarks they must meet were established prior to women joining the combat roles and largely without incorporating female perspectives, which might make these criteria less suitable for the current military needs.

We require sincere, detailed policy conversations about supporting both male and female service members fairly. However, these talks cannot happen as long as women in the military still have to challenge outdated sexist stereotypes continually.

Throughout our professional journeys, we've consistently faced exclusionary messages. However, when these sentiments come directly from the Secretary of Defense, they validate all previous doubts raised by our superiors, colleagues, and even juniors. This statement serves not just as a personal affront to military women but also casts doubt upon the achievements of female service members who came before us. Such remarks diminish each instance where we outperformed male counterparts during runs or training exercises. They undermine the countless nights we’ve spent serving abroad at great personal cost to ourselves and our families. Most dishearteningly, this reinforces the notion that regardless of our efforts to match—or exceed—the standards set for men, our contributions will continually face scrutiny regarding both capability and merit.

Hegseth appears to confirm what we've heard time and again — the Department of Defense does not accommodate women serving in military roles.

Bethany Russell is pursuing a dual master’s degree in Public Policy and Business Administration from Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School. Previously, she spent six years serving as an Army Intelligence officer. Rita Graham, meanwhile, is studying for her Master's in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School after completing a seven-year tenure as an active-duty Army Field Artillery officer. It's important to note that the opinions expressed herein belong solely to the authors and may not reflect the perspectives of the Department of Defense or its various divisions.

To stay updated with the most recent news, weather forecasts, sports updates, and live videos, visit The Hill.