This Tuesday, the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, was the setting for an unprecedented meeting: more than 800 high-ranking military officials from the United States were urgently summoned to hear speeches from President Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War.
During the event, both leaders announced a radical ideological and regulatory transformation of the Armed Forces, presenting a package of new directives aimed at tightening physical standards, eliminating policies of inclusion and diversity, and restoring what they consider a lost "warrior ethos."
Trump, for his part, went further: he proposed that American cities with high crime rates be turned into military training camps, stating that the country is facing an "invasion from within."
The event, expensive and laden with political symbolism, took place on the eve of the federal government shutdown, causing concern among experts, lawmakers, and within the military itself.
A mandatory and surprising appointment
What would normally be a discreet routine meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington turned into a spectacular summit of high political voltage.
High-ranking officials—from four-star generals to heads of regional units—were instructed to report to Quantico with only a few days' notice.
Many of them traveled from positions in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, without knowing in advance the reason for the call.
“When Hegseth summoned the senior officials last week, he did not provide any reason for the meeting, which is unprecedented in scope and scale in recent history,” warned The New York Times.
The meeting generated speculation in Congress and among national security analysts regarding a potential significant strategic announcement.
However, what occurred was a scene that many describe as a sort of political rally disguised in militaristic rhetoric, where the central theme was an ideological review of the army and a clear message of breaking away from the policies of inclusion, rights, and controls implemented in recent decades.
Hegseth and his war against the "Woke Department"
Pete Hegseth, former National Guard officer, television commentator, and current Secretary of War, has made his crusade against what he refers to as the "Woke Department" the cornerstone of his administration.
In his speech -which U.S. media describe as a mix of motivational monologue, political denunciation, and cultural war declaration-Hegseth announced ten new directives that will substantially change the structure of the U.S. military.
Among the highlighted points:
-Replace all physical standards with the "highest male standard."
-Complete review of military education to eliminate "gender ideology."
-Total prohibition on beards, long hair, or individual expressions.
Mandatory physical exams twice a year for all ranks.
- Eliminate DEI policies (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion).
-Lift restrictions on initiation practices and strengthen disciplinary rules.
-Review of combat regulations and removal of "absurd restrictions."
"The era of politically correct leadership, overly sensitive and that does not hurt anyone's feelings, ends right now," declared the U.S. Secretary of War.
"Today, under my direction, each service will ensure that all requirements for each fighter [...] exclusively meet the highest male standard," he said at another time.
“No more climate crisis. No more division, distraction, or gender delusions. No more rubble. As I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, we are done with that sh*t,” he asserted during another of the most commented moments of his speech.
The insistence on physical standards and the elimination of "inappropriate" figures was reiterated several times during his speech:
“I don't want my son to serve alongside troops that are not in shape or in combat units, with women who cannot meet the same physical combat standards as men,” he asserted.
Hegseth also announced the end of the use of the term "toxic" to evaluate leaders, which he described as a distorted concept that has been used to delegitimize competent authority figures.
Even he expressed his disdain for war crime investigations, claiming a "crushing violence" and the need to free soldiers from "absurd rules of engagement."
"We unshackled the hands of our fighters to intimidate, demoralize, pursue, and kill the enemies of our country," he said. "We also do not fight with absurd combat rules," he added.
The aesthetic and hierarchical redefinition of the Armed Forces
Another pillar of Hegseth's intervention was the physical aspect and presentation of the military. He denounced the existence of "fat generals and admirals," and committed to eliminating that "aesthetic problem" through strict controls with no exceptions.
"It is completely unacceptable and presents a bad image to see fat generals and admirals," he stated; and he also warned that "the beards are over."
Moreover, he openly criticized previous leaders, such as General CQ Brown and Admiral Lisa Franchetti —both dismissed during his tenure— and warned that more purges are on the way.
"There will be more changes in leadership, of that I am sure," he concluded.
Trump: The military as an instrument of internal control
The president Donald Trump, who was not originally on the agenda, decided to join the event just a few days prior, adding an even more political twist to the occasion.
In his speech, he proposed that cities with high levels of violence be used as military training grounds.
"We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military," he said. "We are under invasion from within," he added.
Trump defended the deployment of National Guard troops to cities like Los Angeles and Portland, against local governments, to "combat crime" and strengthen immigration controls.
Additionally, he defended his merit-based policy in military promotions, insulted former President Biden, and described the withdrawal from Afghanistan as “the most embarrassing moment” in the country's history.
"We went through political correctness, where it was necessary to have people who were completely incapable of doing what one does. Now everything is based on merit," he asserted.
Silence, tension, and internal criticism
Despite the triumphant tone of the speeches, the silence in the room was absolute. No applause, no cheers, no signs of support.
The tradition of political neutrality among the military prevailed, but multiple internal sources describe an atmosphere of discontent, discomfort, and humiliation, especially among decorated veterans who were instructed by a civilian with no combat command experience.
"These guys were captains and majors in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [...] And here’s this guy, the youngest in the room, the least experienced, the one who has spent the least time in combat... giving them sermons?”, notes CNN, citing an anonymous source.
A former Pentagon official described the speech as "a poorly disguised TED talk," and warned about the potential consequences of undermining reporting mechanisms in cases of harassment or discrimination.
Costs, federal closure, and symbolism
The event took place just a few hours before the deadline to avoid a shutdown of the federal government. Trump himself acknowledged that the meeting had involved significant costs, although he attempted to downplay them.
"There is a little bit of spending, not much, but there is a bit of spending for that. We don't like to waste it. We prefer to spend it on bullets and missiles," he said.
Analysts warned that after the government shutdown is finalized, about two million service members could be left without pay.
In this context, the meeting takes on strong symbolic significance regarding political priorities: while troops prepare to continue working without pay, the top brass of the military is summoned to Washington to align with a new, exclusionary, ultraconservative identity narrative.
What transpired in Quantico marks, according to several analysts, a redefinition of the role of the military in American society. No longer as a professional, apolitical institution focused on national defense, but as an arm of an ideological agenda that seeks to shape military culture in the image and likeness of its leaders.
"This administration has made a great effort from day one to eliminate the toxic ideological, politically correct, and social justice nonsense that had infected our department."
With directives that weaken internal controls, stigmatize diversity, and subordinate military strategy to cultural and political impulses, the Trump-Hegseth administration seems intent on building not only a more aggressive army but also one that is more obedient, more homogeneous, and more useful for its power project.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Military Meeting in Quantico and Its Implications
Why was a military meeting called in Quantico?
The meeting was called to announce an ideological and regulatory transformation of the U.S. Armed Forces. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump presented new directives aimed at tightening physical standards and eliminating inclusion and diversity policies.
What are the new directives announced by Pete Hegseth?
Among the new directives are the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and the imposition of the highest male physical standard. Beards and long hair are also banned, and restrictions on combat rules are lifted.
What controversies did Donald Trump's participation in the event generate?
Donald Trump proposed using cities with high crime rates as military training grounds, which raised alarm among experts and lawmakers. This approach was seen as a politicization of the military and an attempt at internal control.
What impact does this meeting have on the political and military context of the U.S.?
The meeting marks a redefinition of the army's role in American society. It is seen as a move towards a more ideological, exclusionary military that is subordinate to a political agenda, rather than a professional, apolitical institution.
How has the military establishment reacted to these new directives?
The reaction within the military establishment has been one of displeasure, discomfort, and humiliation, especially among decorated veterans who felt lectured by a civilian without combat command experience. The political neutrality of the military prevailed, although there were internal criticisms.
Filed under:
