(The Lion) — U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the secretaries of the military departments to review physical readiness standards for combat troops with the goal of increasing lethality and ditching diversity quotas.

The move comes as the U.S. pivots from the defense of Europe to take a more active role in  preventing a possible war with China in the Pacific by strengthening U.S. military strength.

The two-page DoD memo, dated March 30, requires the military departments to develop physical readiness standards for new recruits and continued service in combat roles that are “sex neutral.” In other words, no special exceptions based on gender.

“These roles, which are critical to our military’s mission success, demand exceptional physical capabilities, and the standards for them must reflect that rigor,” Hegseth wrote.

Military departments “may not establish standards that would result in any existing Service member being held to a lower standard,” the memo also said, adding “no existing standard will be lowered in this process.”

Over a 10-year career, Hegseth served in the Minnesota National Guard, leaving the service as a major after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he was awarded two Bronze Stars, the Joint Commendation Medal, two Army Commendation Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

In addition to concerns about women’s ability to measure up to the physical standards required for combat roles, in the past Hegseth has said that having women in combat just complicates war fighting.

“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” Hegseth said, according to the Military Times. “It hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal. It has made fighting more complicated.”

Hegseth said that “complication in combat means more casualties.”

The military denies that women are held to a lower physical readiness score, especially at induction, according to Scripps News.

Yet, the Associated Press reported that military departments have “a hodgepodge” of physical readiness requirements.

The “hodgepodge” started when the Army changed combat readiness requirements in 2017 to make them “gender neutral.”

But the Army subsequently made adjustments in 2019 to this key combat readiness metric when 84% of women and 30% of men failed to pass the standard, according to the Center for Military Readiness (CMR).

The Biden administration further lowered standards in 2022 when introducing easier requirements for women during their annual physical readiness tests.

But even more dangerous are on-the-fly adjustments that officers and senior NCOs make to testing that degrade combat standards.

In his book Stand Down: How Social Justice Warriors Are Sabotaging America’s Military, author James Hasson, a decorated military veteran, said the Army made exceptions for women so they could pass the demanding Army Ranger School.

In one case, every candidate, except for the female candidate, on a patrol exercise was failed during a course because a soldier got lost during the patrol. The prime responsibility of the female candidate, who led the patrol as platoon sergeant, was to keep track of the soldiers.

When retested, she lost another soldier and was responsible for a friendly fire incident, said Hasson. Yet, the female candidate was advanced, despite the failures.

Similarly, military supervisors routinely make physical readiness exceptions for troops depending on the recruitment and retention needs of the service branch.

And under Obama and Biden, the recruitment and retention needs were geared to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) goals.

“During the administration of President Barack Obama, the priority goal was demographic ‘gender diversity’ in the combat arms, including the infantry and special operations forces, regardless of the consequences,” said CMR.

CMR quoted one report that found “scientific field tests showed that all-male units outperformed the gender-mixed teams 69% of the time.”

Proponents of sex neutral combat testing said the needs of the mission are sex neutral and testing should reflect real life, known as “fight as you train.”

Dragging a wounded soldier 100 yards, for example, requires a lot of upper body strength.

“When it’s what the Army needs you to do, whether you’re male or female has no real bearing on that,” Michael McGurk, director of research and analysis at the U.S. Army Center for Initial Military training said in an interview. “If I need you to lift a 50-pound box up onto the back of a truck, I need you to lift a 50-pound box up onto the back of a truck. It doesn’t make any difference if you’re tall or short or young or old or male or female. I need a soldier that is capable of doing their assigned duties and jobs.”

Ironically, the lowering of physical readiness requirements just means more men with lowered standards of physical fitness get more spots, lowering the readiness of U.S. combat forces overall.

Hegseth is hoping that the emphasis on higher standards will improve the warfighting capabilities of the U.S.

“As the nature of warfare evolves and the demands on our Service members grow more complex, it is imperative that we assess and refine the physical fitness standards that enable our readiness and lethality,” said the secretary.

Heritage estimates there were 194,000 combat soldiers in the U.S. Army as of the end of 2023.

Despite the emphasis on DEI under Obama and Biden, only 4,800 (or 2.5%) of combat roles are filled by women as of 2024, reported the Associated Press.