Skip to main content

Hegseth frustrated with lack of adherence to grooming rules

Washington — As they juggle ongoing U.S. military operations against Iran and a host of other national security challenges, senior Pentagon officials have also been pressing ahead on a far different priority: tightening the grooming, fitness and appearance standards of the American service members. 

Military officials have recently taken steps to address troops who fail to meet hair, weight and physical fitness standards, nine months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a blunt message to a room full of admirals and generals at Marine Corps Base Quantico, declaring there would be “no more beardos” and “fat troops.” 

The renewed emphasis comes as Hegseth, an Army National Guard veteran and former Fox News host, has privately complained in recent days about seeing service members with facial hair and has expressed frustration over lapses in physical training and violations of military height and weight standards, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. 

One official told CBS News that Hegseth believes his message has not been fully embraced by the military’s senior leadership despite his repeated public and private calls for stricter enforcement. The military official, who is not authorized to speak publicly and talked with CBS News under condition of anonymity, said the defense secretary was frustrated that his speech to the top brass gathered from around the world at Quantico last year did not produce the rapid change he expected. 

“Secretary Hegseth maintains the highest expectations for our service members to uphold the professional standards of appearance, fitness, and discipline that define our warfighting force, and he continues to emphasize consistent enforcement of hair, weight, and grooming standards across all ranks,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement to CBS News. 

He added: “Commanders at every level are expected to lead by example by meeting these standards, implementing these requirements, and they will be held accountable for delivering results as the Department works to restore a culture of excellence and readiness. Our Armed Forces are stronger when every service member meets and exceeds these expectations.” 

The Pentagon’s renewed focus is reflected in a Defense Department memorandum issued last year directing commanders to initiate proceedings to drum out active-duty and reserve service members who continue to require medical shaving waivers after more than one year of treatment. 

The policy has renewed debate over the balance between military discipline and accommodations for troops with legitimate medical or religious exemptions. The armed forces allow facial hair in certain circumstances, including for Sikh, Muslim and Jewish service members whose faith requires beards. Before the new Pentagon policy, shaving waivers were also granted for U.S. troops diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae, also known as razor bumps, a painful skin condition that disproportionately affects Black men. 

Multiple studies estimate that the condition occurs in roughly 45% to 83% of Black men. It can also develop in women with hirsutism — a condition that causes coarse, dark facial hair to grow in a typically male pattern — when they shave. 

The military is overhauling how they measure body composition following Pentagon guidance to all the services issued in December in an effort to restore the “warrior ethos” demanded by Hegseth and has rolled out guidance that frames shaving as a matter of military readiness rather than appearance. 

Service members with medical shaving waivers must undergo treatment and periodic evaluations, with waivers generally limited to 90-day increments. Those who remain unable to shave without irritation following a year of treatment may be booted from their service. 

Officials said the policy is intended to ensure service members can safely wear protective equipment, including gas masks, which the military calls “respirators,” while reinforcing grooming standards that leaders say are essential to discipline, deployability and combat readiness. 

The debate over beards and gas masks is hardly new. In 2016, then-Army Secretary Eric Fanning ordered testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground to determine whether Sikh troops with beards could safely wear protective masks. Fanning wrote that the study found that while standard-issue gas masks did not provide adequate seal over beards, alternative equipment — including powered air-purifying respirators and loose-fitting protective masks — could provide sufficient protection in hazardous environments, according to Fanning’s directive. 

Hegseth has made little distinction between those debates and his broader campaign to restore what he views as military discipline. Speaking at Quantico in September, he declared that “the era of unprofessional appearance is over,” casting the issue of shaving waivers and grooming standards as part of a wider effort to rebuild standards across the force.

Many service members agree that consistent standards and uniformity are central to military discipline, and some support Hegseth’s effort to tighten enforcement. But others argue that his approach risks sweeping together troops who simply disregard regulations with those who qualify for long-standing medical and religious accommodations. 

Hegseth seemed to suggest last year that some religious accommodations lack merit, saying, “We don’t have a military full of Nordic pagans but unfortunately, we have had leaders who either refuse to call BS and enforce standards, or leaders who felt like they were not allowed to enforce standards.” The U.S. military formally recognized the pagan faith in 2017, although Hegseth recently overhauled the religious affiliation codes the military uses to accommodate service members’ faiths and beliefs. It’s not clear whether pagans continue to be recognized.

Over roughly 18 months as defense secretary, Hegseth has repeatedly argued in speeches, policy directives and public remarks that relaxed appearance standards are symptomatic of a military culture that has drifted away from discipline and combat readiness. 

That view predates his tenure at the Pentagon. In his book, The War on Warriors, Hegseth criticized what he described as inconsistent military priorities, writing that the armed forces had pushed out “good soldiers for having naked women tattooed on their arms” while tolerating relaxed standards “on shaving, dreadlocks, man buns, and straight-up obesity” — though he offered no evidence that such practices had become broadly accepted across the force. 

Mike Nelson, a retired Army Special Forces officer, told CBS News that Hegseth is not wrong in some of his criticism of standards but says the defense secretary is concerned about issues below his office. 

“He’s not wrong, he’s just spending a lot of time and effort on things that a battalion sergeant major should be focused on, small unit level leadership kind of things that are getting to him and that are taking up much of his time and focus.” 

While there are legitimate shave waivers needed in the military, Nelson said he believes the process was abused over the last decade and he agrees with broad guidance of tightening “sloppy” standards but draws a distinction on the issue of drumming out service members for manageable medical issues. 

If Hegseth considers it a national security concern, “then fine,” but Nelson called the approach “ridiculous.” 

Darline Graham’s race in South Carolina is a test of Trump’s chutzpah

(CNN) — President Donald Trump’s endorsement has never looked as feeble as it has in the month of August 2026. Already six of his chosen candidates have been defeated.But Tuesday’s special primary runoff for US Senate in South Carolina is an especially big test of not just his endorsement and domination of his party, but also his chutzpah.That’s because Trump has put his reputation on the line like he rarely has before — even as his fortunes with his party have ebbed — and for seemingly relatively little upside.South Carolina’s voters will decide between Rep. Ralph Norman and the Trump-backed candidacy of appointed Sen. Darline Graham, the political neophyte sister of Sen. Lindsey Graham, who died last month.It’s difficult to say who has the edge, given the dearth of quality polling and the rapid turnaround from the first round of the primary just two weeks ago.But those results made it clear Graham was no shoo-in. She took 32.7% to Norman’s 24.6%, and there are plenty of signs the South Carolina GOP has been reluctant to accede to Trump’s advice. The president’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., has also now spent more than $800,000 — perhaps a sign of his political operation’s uncertainty.And if it doesn’t pay off, it will be a real unforced error for Trump.The situation looks somewhat accidental. After Lindsey Graham’s death, Trump recommended Darline Graham as the appointee to replace him, and Gov. Henry McMaster complied. That seemed relatively harmless; the seat, after all, was up for election in November.Darline Graham was widely expected to be a placeholder while a coterie of ambitious South Carolina Republicans tangled over a full term. But things suddenly shifted. Just three days after she was sworn in, Trump began talking her up as a candidate for a full term. And she soon said she would run.All of this despite Graham having been almost anonymous politically, until about a month and a half ago.There are a number of ways in which this was brazen.For one, by trying to anoint Graham, Trump effectively thumbed his nose at a bunch of South Carolina Republicans who have been waiting a long time for an open Senate seat. The last vacancy was also filled by an appointee who later ran for and won the seat, Sen. Tim Scott. Before then, the last vacancy was in 2004.It would be one thing for Trump to endorse in a crowded primary; it’s another to try to help someone leapfrog experienced politicians who have been building their brands for years.And that brings us to a related point: Trump is basically asking his voters just to trust him — and Graham.Because Graham has been such a political nonentity, she has almost no track record. Graham doesn’t even seem to have thought through her positions on some of the big issues, as evidenced by her recent remarks at a debate about whether Taiwan is a national security concern for the United States.So when it comes to what she believes in and would do, voters might reason it will be similar to what her brother did or what Trump wants, but how can they be sure? With someone like Norman, they can at least gauge him by what he’s done previously.What’s more, even those shortcuts might not accrue to Graham’s benefit.While there is surely some goodwill toward the sister of a senator who recently died, her brother was not a beloved figure in the South Carolina Republican Party. His past support for comprehensive immigration reform — some to his right labeled him “Grahamnesty” — haunted him over the years.He got less than 57% of the primary vote in June before his death, despite not facing a very formidable and well-known challenger. That was the lowest of any incumbent GOP senator running in a primary besides Texas’ John Cornyn and Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, who both lost.And finally, it’s brazen from Trump because it seems somewhat pointless. It’s not clear what he gets out of the deal. It’s not like the seat is in serious jeopardy in the general election and Republicans need a strong candidate. And it’s not like whoever wins a South Carolina GOP primary wouldn’t be a pretty strong Trump ally.Trump also inserted himself in the process even as it was clear his fortunes with his party were waning somewhat.The president actually did this just a couple of weeks after his endorsed candidate for South Carolina governor, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, crashed and burned in the primary runoff. (Trump endorsed the other candidate, too, apparently to save himself too much embarrassment.) What better time to roll the dice again?A Graham loss would also be an especially big setback for the president because true Trump loyalists would seem to have a reason to reject Norman. After all, he initially endorsed former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley over Trump in the 2024 presidential primary. (Norman later backed Trump when Haley’s campaign fizzled)That kind of apostasy is usually all GOP voters need to vote against you. But imagine voters pick a non-Trump-endorser over a Trump-endorsed candidate.GOP voters also generally abide by Trump’s wishes in federal races — and especially Senate races. While a series of Trump-backed candidates for governor and other statewide office have lost primaries, only three Trump-endorsed Senate candidates have — and only one since 2018.That’s the potential rebuke Trump has set himself up for. And if it arrives, it will be the latest in a really curious succession of political moves.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story