“For Anyone Who Has Served, It’s Obvious: He Is Unfit to Be Defense Secretary”

Naved Shah, a veteran and activist who served in the Army as a journalist, found himself unexpectedly at a loss for words after the new defense chief’s address to the top brass.

"Many of the words that come to mind can’t be printed," admitted Shah, now policy director at Common Defense, a veterans’ rights organization. "The people in that room, who have served 20–30 years and more, don’t need Pete Hegseth to lecture them on military ethics."

Hegseth’s talk—delivered in the style of a TED Talk and focused on physical fitness, a "doctrine of lethality," and attacks on inclusion policies—made a far bigger splash than any dry policy document could have. His remarks drew more attention than the lengthy, politicized speech that followed from Donald Trump. But according to those present, the attention came at the expense of respect.

"I found it offensive," said retired General Dana Pittard, who commanded forces in Iraq and co-authored the book Hunting the Caliphate. He rejected Hegseth’s claims that minority officers had been promoted through some sort of quota system.

Well before the classified gathering of more than 800 generals and admirals at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, online military forums were abuzz with speculation about a possible oath of loyalty to the administration, public firings, or even a declaration of war. Some joked it was payback for endless hours of pre-weekend briefings. Others noted that the security costs for such a meeting seemed excessive—something that could easily have been handled by a memo.

"Addressing the military as a whole can be useful, but bringing together more than 800 generals and senior advisers from around the world on the eve of a government shutdown? That’s not just a matter of reputation or strategy," observed Shah. "A simple cold could have paralyzed the entire chain of command."

Pittard stressed that the defense secretary has every right to convene senior leaders, but he described the event as a "self-indulgent spectacle" and a waste of resources. He said Trump’s remarks afterward only deepened the impression: "It’s a dangerous, slippery path when military leaders are told about an ‘enemy within.’ Very dangerous."

Hegseth’s remarks on standards for women in combat units drew particular attention. He argued that requirements should be the same for men and women, including carrying a wounded soldier or marching with heavy gear. "If women can do it—great. If not—so be it," he said.

Sally Roberts, an Afghanistan war veteran and world wrestling medalist who founded the organization Wrestle Like A Girl, saw it as an opening for greater fairness. "I’m for equal standards, and it seems to me this is indeed a path toward justice," she said, recalling that she herself faced barriers to elite units despite being physically prepared. "This could be an opportunity for strong, ambitious women who want to serve but are held back by obstacles."

Amy McGrath, a former naval aviator and Senate candidate, took a very different view. "He claims the military needs to ‘return to the male standard’ of 1990. But the facts are these: there never were separate male and female standards," she wrote on Instagram. "Since women were admitted to combat roles, the standard has been the same, and we’ve met it. Either you can do the job or you can’t. Period."

Tamara Stevens, a former Navy cryptographer, said what unsettled her most were Hegseth’s musings on "lethality," especially in light of Trump’s remarks about possibly using American cities as training grounds. "Essentially, he’s suggesting we’re no better than Hamas, because people supposedly join the military only for destruction and killing," she said. — "For anyone who has served, it’s obvious: he is unfit to be defense secretary. He barely qualifies as a Fox News host. But to say this before the nation’s top generals and admirals? Does he have even a shred of honor?"