Hegseth already removed women from combat roles.
Apparently not at all true. They're still on Navy combat ships, eh?
I asked Grok:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Women remain eligible for and are serving in combat positions, including ground combat arms like infantry, armor, and artillery, as well as related roles. This policy—fully opening all military occupations to women—has been in place since 2015–2016 under the Obama administration, following earlier openings for aviation and ships in the 1990s.
19thnews.org
Current Status (as of April 2026)
- Roughly 3,800 women serve in frontline Army combat roles (infantry, cavalry, armor, field artillery), with around 700 in the Marines. A smaller number have qualified for elite training like Ranger School (over 150 women have earned the Ranger tab) or Special Forces courses.
politico.com
- Standards for these roles are supposed to be gender-neutral—women who qualify must meet the same physical and performance requirements as men. There is no legal quota system, and lowering standards specifically for women has been prohibited by law since the 1990s.
19thnews.org
What Hegseth Has Done
Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense) has been a longtime critic of women in ground combat roles. Before and during his confirmation, he stated things like “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” argued it hasn’t improved effectiveness/lethality, and claimed standards were sometimes compromised (though military leaders and studies have pushed back on that).
apnews.com
In office, he has:
- Ordered combat fitness standards to become sex-neutral and revert to the “highest male standard” for roles requiring physical power (e.g., carrying heavy loads). He has said: “If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.”
npr.org
- Directed a six-month review (announced around January 2026) of the “operational effectiveness” of women in ground combat units, more than a decade after integration. This is framed around unit performance, standards, and readiness, not an outright ban.
thehill.com
- Taken other actions like blocking some promotions of female (and Black) officers and eliminating advisory committees on women in the military, which drew criticism.
npr.org
These moves aim to emphasize merit, physical standards, and “de-woking” the force, but they have not resulted in a blanket removal or ban on women from combat positions. Senior military leaders from the services have testified that they’ve seen no evidence that women in combat have lowered standards or hurt unit readiness.
defensecommunities.org
Bottom Line
- No mass removal has occurred. Thousands of women are still in those roles.
- Hegseth’s policies (stricter neutral standards + review) could make it harder for women to qualify going forward, potentially reducing their numbers in physically demanding ground combat jobs without explicitly barring them.
- The review was ongoing or recently completed around early 2026; there’s no public indication of a final decision to reverse the 2015–2016 integration policy as of the latest reports.
Critics (including some female troops and Democrats) see this as an attempt to sideline women; supporters view it as restoring focus on combat effectiveness over social experiments. The situation could evolve based on the review’s outcome and any further directives, but as of now, women have not been removed from combat roles.
(jk--don't get your panties in a bunch!)