In a televised speech to the nation’s military leaders in September, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delineated the updated values of his department. They included an adherence by all military branches to a “male-standard of high physical performance,” “colorblind, gender neutral, merit-based” promotions, and “maximum lethality” while implementing a “peace through strength” ethos. In practice, implementing these values would set a benchmark of peak male physical performance all service members must meet to qualify for combat positions and eliminate anonymous reporting systems for ethical or behavioral infractions.
The Department of Defense’s new expectations exemplify and prioritize stereotypically masculine traits: strength, bravery, dominance, stoicism, and aggression. The emphasis on these traits, and, importantly, the exclusion of other qualities typically coded as “feminine” reinforces the primacy of the masculine archetype, presenting the feminine binary as inherently weak.
Although the masculine-feminine binary is constantly present in social structures, explicit and repeated emphasis on such dynamics presents concern; Hegseth’s desired reforms would institutionalize femininity as antithetical to the DOD’s image of power, strength, and aggression.
The effects of such rhetoric go beyond simply devaluing women’s contributions to the armed services. On an institutional level, they impose a rigid set of norms associated with a specific definition of masculinity. The subsequent environment of hypermasculinization and marginalization hinders force readiness by creating a culture of violence, fear, and oppression, which restricts operational awareness, cohesion, and overall performance. This, in turn, impacts the functionality of the U.S. armed forces in combat, deteriorates the U.S. military’s credibility, and obstructs deterrence of aggressors, impacting U.S. international security strategy.
As a result, Hegseth’s espoused doctrine actively hinders the actualization of the current Trump administration’s desired disengagement from conflict abroad. Strong masculine norms correlate with increased engagement in conflict. Therefore, a military culture favoring aggression is more likely to pursue violence over diplomatic methods of conflict settlement. Combined with a reduction of – and skepticism toward – passive, soft-power policy, this leaves the U.S. at greater propensity for conflict engagement. The result is a simultaneous reduction in the effectiveness of the military as a peacekeeping tool and erosion of other pillars of peace and security. Not only does this strain international relations, but also a geopolitically multipolar world without effective U.S. leadership would be more prone to conflict.
Standardizing the Masculine Archetype
Emphatic repetition of hypermasculine characteristics creates the idea that embodying these traits is conducive to higher social capital. Hegseth’s Defense Department places high value on archetypal traits of masculinity that portray “maximum lethality” and embody a “warrior” ethos. “Maximum lethality” dictates death and destruction, and in a military setting, this connotes the effectiveness of neutralizing or defeating an enemy. The “warrior” ethos implies bravery, sacrifice, endurance, and fighting for a purpose greater than the self. Both terms – beyond emphasizing physical strength and danger – are conflated with a direct capability to achieve objectives, in this case, success of missions. Thus, it is rhetorically implied that a service member’s ability to succeed correlates directly to embodiments of aggressive masculine traits. This cultivation of collective thinking reinforces socially accepted behavioral norms and fosters social stratification by implying that the only way to demonstrate commitment to these values is through exemplifying them.
In tandem with the military’s inherent hierarchical chain of command, this institutionalization of hypermasculine norms will influence power dynamics. Specifically, the concept of hegemonic masculinity associates power with hypermasculine traits, establishing a male hierarchy based on masculine performance. The result is a constant pressure for individuals to embody the masculine archetype to garner status and prestige. The subsequent social stratification will directly impact cohesion and readiness through enshrining a culture of fear, marginalization, and oppression. Service members who do not follow the hypermasculine archetype will be considered more effeminate and be at risk for exclusion.
Increasing Marginalization and Devaluing Femininity
Hegseth’s explicit reintroduction of hazing tactics further highlights the institutional desire for embodiment of such traits and resulting power stratification. Hazing is intended to build social cohesion through demonstrated commitment and establishment of command hierarchies. Drill sergeants now are encouraged to verbally and physically assault recruits. Such tactics seek to both test and build masculine traits of strength, resolve, and emotional control in recruits. Thus, if recruits endure hazing, their masculinity is visibly validated and they will earn their place in the masculine power hierarchy. If not, recruits risk being viewed as weak and feminine and consequently could be marginalized from the group.
Constant battles to prove and demonstrate masculinity as a means of gaining social capital promote a toxic work environment. Blatantly, women are excluded from this value set, reinforced by Hegseth’s statement, “If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.” Similarly, people of color, gender-nonconforming, and LGBTQIA+ service members will be subjected not only to these rigid norms but also to the broader system of power and subjugation that such norms support. Potential repercussions include resignations – encouraged by Hegseth – by existing service members who refuse to conform. Those departing service members will take with them institutional knowledge and damage the cohesion of individual units. Both qualities require extended tenure to develop.
Further, an overemphasis on the value of hypermasculinity leads to a reduction in value of traditionally feminine traits like inclusivity, collaboration, empathy, and cooperativeness. This development not only prompts skepticism of the role of women in other security and labor spaces but also positions soft power as weak.
While the new doctrine does not explicitly bar women from military duty, the promotion of a hypermasculine environment certainly deters women’s participation and covertly signals their devaluation. Hegseth said, “Any place where tried and true physical standards were altered – especially since 2015 when combat arms standards were changed to ensure females could qualify – must be returned to their original standard.” This shift would effectively limit the number of women allowed to serve in combat positions. Additionally, such rhetoric singles out female qualification and minimizes significant skills and contributions that are not derived from brute strength alone including counterinsurgency operations, state-building, interacting with local populations, and strategic decision making. Notably, within peacekeeping missions there is a proven correlation between increased women’s participation and enhanced operational effectiveness.
The result is twofold: the standardization of a hypermasculine archetype that service members are expected to embody and the broader devaluation of feminine traits exhibited directly by women and manifested indirectly in soft-power policy.
International Signaling: Projecting a Masculine Image
The Trump administration has sent mixed signals when it comes to intervention abroad: It simultaneously embraces isolationism under the America First agenda while wanting recognition for its active role in ending conflicts and promoting peace. Trump’s legally contested aspirations to rename the Department of Defense as the “Department of War” solves this apparent disconnect by demonstrating the administration’s active redefining of “peace” through promoting a hypermasculinized image.
Whereas “defense” connotes reactivity and peaceful protection – traits typically associated with femininity – “war” connotes the more masculine offensive action and aggression. This stance reflects a pivot in U.S. foreign policy toward direct engagement – or active power – and away from soft-power influence.
After the end of World War II, under the National Security Act of 1947, President Harry Truman renamed the War Department as the Department of Defense. The change unified the various armed forces branches under the defense secretary, established intelligence agencies, and reflected U.S. foreign policy goals emphasizing permanent security maintenance, readiness, and alliance-building. Rather than serving as an institution mobilized for episodic conflict as the name “War” suggests, the department’s emphasis on “Defense” reflected the value of long-term strategy, intelligence sharing, and America’s shift from peacetime isolationism toward a global role in democracy-building and peacekeeping.
The current administration’s desired return to the Department of War communicates a shift in perception of foreign policy as conflict engagement and a reduced emphasis on long-term peace strategies. This fits the renewed values on hypermasculinization through the devaluing of soft power tactics and emphasis on hard power.
Soft power is equated with the feminine binary through emphasizing noncoercive promotions of culture, positive international image, and fostering of long-term relationships. Common avenues for soft power projection include humanitarian aid, engagement and cooperation in multinational organizations, and international cultural and education exchanges. Hard power, on the other hand, is related to coercive economic and military tactics meant to compel compliance through force or threat of force.
Accordingly, hypermasculinization of the American image is most apparent with the administration’s dissolution of soft-power techniques, notably the dismantling of USAID and pending withdrawals from international diplomatic organizations like WHO, and UNESCO. Simultaneously, Trump’s use of tariffs to punish or coerce negotiations with countries deemed noncooperative or threats to domestic U.S. economic prospectives reflect a preference for hard-power techniques.
Militarily, airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June, large-scale mobilization of military assets to the Middle East in October, and Trump’s use of the armed forces to pursue a counternarcotics campaign – which has seen the deployment of 10,000 U.S. troops near Venezuela and airstrikes in both the Caribbean and the Pacific – further signal a pivot toward international aggression and an increased propensity for conflict engagement from the U.S.
Domestically, deployments of the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. – and Trump’s recent statement that he is willing to send “more than the National Guard” into cities to enforce crackdowns on crime and immigration – reinforce an aggressive shift toward hypermasculine U.S. policy. Routine domestic deployments of U.S. forces hinder force readiness by overextending resources, diminishing training time, and straining troops’ mental and physical wellbeing.
Combined, these efforts reduce trust in the United States and diminish its image as a global leader, which has broader implications for U.S. security and policy goals.
Policy Implications:
The masculinization of the DOD will reshape the U.S. security space. Institutionally, Hegseth’s rhetoric influences who is broadly considered fit to work in the security field. Misconceptions of feminine identities and prioritization of a consolidated masculine image risk limiting the perception of women as weak and unfit for security environments. Sidelining women in the armed forces promotes skepticism of their roles and capabilities in security spaces – at any level of the DOD – that prioritize traditionally masculine traits.
Routine domestic deployments contribute to decreased force readiness and present a national security threat. Not only would troops be unavailable should they need to be deployed, but resource strain, equipment shortages, and loss of specialized training time hinder military effectiveness. This runs directly counter to Trump’s and Hegseth’s desired “readiness” campaign. This poses a national security threat when compounded by current reduced cooperation with allies, rollbacks in in soft-power peacekeeping initiatives, and aggressive tariffs, all of which weaken the favorability and influence of the United States abroad.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not an official policy or position of New Lines Institute.
