October 6, 2025 • 24 mins
In this episode of One Thing Trump Did, we look at the changes to the US Military that Secretary Pete Hegseth recently laid out to senior military officials, including to physical fitness requirements and the definition of a toxic workplace. Jeremy is joined by USMC veteran and Vet Voice Foundation CEO Janessa Goldbeck. #PeteHegseth #DefenseDepartment #WarDepartment #War #Veteran #Military #ArmedForces #Generals
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Welcome to one thing Trump did, available exclusively on The
Middle podcast Speed. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and you know, these days,
with everything going on, people sometimes come up to me
and they say, hey, Jeremy, what do you think of this?
What do you think is going on here? And I
cannot tell you how many people did that with our
topic today, they said, why is Pete Hegseth, the Secretary
(00:37):
of War formerly Secretary of Defense calling all the generals
and admirals from around the world to Washington at the
same time.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Isn't this dangerous? This was before it happened.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Now we know that he did that in part to
tell them that they need to work out war and
not be so fat.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
He really did say that.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
He talked about an overhaul of fitness and grooming standards,
including the establishment of fitness tests and a gender neutral
male level standard.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
For physical fitness and combat.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
He also announced a review of definitions for toxic leadership
and bullying and hazing and harassment to reduce what he
called frivolous complaints.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Listen here to peteg Sev.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
The era of politically correct, overly sensitive, don't hurt anyone's
feelings leadership ends right now. For too long, we've promoted
too many uniform leaders for the wrong reasons, based on
their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so
called firsts. This administration has done a great deal from
(01:37):
day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and
toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
To rip out the politics.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
No more identity months, dei offices, dudes in dresses, no
more climate change worship, no more division distraction or gender delusions.
But when it comes to any job that requires physical
power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be
high and gender neutral. If women can make it excellent,
(02:11):
If not, it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
So a lot there.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Let's talk about it with Genessa Goldbeck, CEO of the
Vet Voice Foundation and a veteran of the United States
Marine Corps.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Gennessa, it's great to have you here.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Jeremy, Well, first.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Off, is this what you thought that Pete Hagseth would
be talking with all the senior military leadership about when
he flew them in from all over the world.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
It wasn't entirely clear to me or anyone else what
the meeting was going to be about. But I certainly
hoped it would was something that was so important that
it had to be a meeting. It couldn't have been
an email.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
You know.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
This was basically what amounted to a junior officer's pet
rally in front of some of the most serious, decorated
members of our national security apparatus. What an enormous waste
of time, taxpayer, and frankly a completely needless risk in
terms of operational security to bring them all in. Many
of them flew in commercial I mean, think about just
(03:08):
the security at the various airports they were coming through.
Just an absolute vanity show.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Well, let's talk about the specifics of what he's talking
about here. The grooming standards, for one thing. Is that
a big deal that he's saying no more beards in
the military except for special forces?
Speaker 4 (03:23):
It is, But I think we're sort of missing the
force for the trees starting there, which is Pete hags
As vision of the military is for it to be
a nineteen eighties cartoon, a white nationalist force where every
person who serves is a square jawed white male, and
he has been taking action to cull it into that vision,
(03:43):
guising it under his merit based leadership approach and lethality.
The reality is the people who are authorized to wear
beards in the military are people who have a skin
condition that causes them to break out in very painful
sores that can get easily infected. And so the military
for many years has a lot of people who have
that skin condition to request something called a no shave
(04:04):
chit so they don't have to shave and they can
keep a neatly trimmed beard in order to maintain their
appearance and be fit and ready for all types of service.
The vast majority of people who have that skin condition
are black men. So going after beard's specifically isn't about
a return to lethality or some sloppiness in the forest.
It is a very specific way to get rid of
(04:25):
black men. And I think that the fact that that
hasn't been more widely reported is a real shame, and
I'm glad I have that opportunity to talk about it here.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
The other class of people I guess that have beards
I was just reading about this the other day are
Sikh men who keep it for religious purposes.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And there was a Sikh.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Soldier who was quoted in a newspaper saying that this
was a real insult to people like him who have
been in the military serving the United States and now
they're being told that no more beard Oz is what
heg Seth said.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Absolutely, I mean this is part of the broader context, right.
This is a person of color whose faith is not Christianity.
This is a very easy way for the Secretary of
Defense to go after him. And I look around the
world and you see militaries with plenty of discipline, plenty
of great military history and tradition, where the men keep tight,
(05:18):
you know, even beards. This is not a lethality issue.
This is not an issue in the military like this
is something that he's chosen to pick up on. He
is going after these culture wars, trying to create this
idea that the military has been infected with woke ideology.
I mean, are we going to go all the way
back to nineteen forty eight when the President Truman desegregated
(05:38):
the armed forces and say every promotion since then has
been the result of woke ideology. Through the Korean War,
through the Vietnam War, through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I mean, I frankly think it is so insulting for
him to stand up in front of those generals and
flag officers who have served twenty thirty years honorably in uniform,
trying to train and retain the best possible fighting force
(05:58):
that has led us to how the most professional lethal
fighting force in the world in the United States Military,
And to say that somehow all of those decisions and
promotions should be questioned, will help.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Us understand, just for people who are not in the
military and haven't been in the military, why the grooming
standards in particular are so important. Just in general, even
if you have exceptions, why does it matter so much
that all of the members of the armed services are
clean cut?
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Well, it really stems back the facial hair conversation stems
back toward to gas masks. In order for a gas
mask to fit your face and create a perfect seal,
having facial hair can interrupt that. But how many members
of our troops right now are stationed in places where
having a gas mask on hand and necessary to their
ability to do their jobs is necessary. A very very
(06:47):
small minority of them have that requirement. And so if
you're telling me that we need to kick out a
sergeant in the USRB who has served honorably, has performed
their job exceptionally, has served you know, seven eight nine years,
and his station in North Carolina that we have to
kick him out because a gas mask doesn't seal over
his beard. I mean, what an incredible waste of time, talent,
(07:10):
and resources.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
What about the physical fitness standards? Genessa Heg says said
he didn't want any fat generals. For context, when he
came into office, he announced big cuts to the top
military brass, ordering a twenty percent cut in the number
of active duty four star generals and admirals. Is the
fitness standard a way to just get rid of more
people or what do you think that's about.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
I think the fitness standard is a red herring for
cutting out women. Frankly, First of all, there are a
couple of things that he's relitigating that have already been litigated.
When he stands up on stage and says there should
be one standard for combat arms professions. That has been
the case since the repeal of a combat exclusion policy
over a decade ago. The combat exclusion policy was a
(07:53):
policy that was put in place that said women couldn't
serve in certain combat arms jobs in the military. It
was overturned over a decay to go, and since then
women have been serving honorably and exceptionally as tank officers
and infantry officers and rangers, meeting one gender neutral combat
standard in order to qualify for that job. Now, are
there genders normed physical fitness tests that occur every year? Yes,
(08:17):
there are, because women and men are physiologically different, and
so to gauge the fitness of a woman at age
forty performing a certain job is different than that of
a man, but they still both have to meet the
gender neutral standard of having that job in the first place.
So he's basically talking about an issue that doesn't exist.
He has this real antipathy towards women in service. We've
(08:38):
heard it through all of his remarks that he's made
over the course of his career, both before he was
the secretary and when he was at Fox News, And
so this is a way for him to attack women
while cloaking it in a conversation about merit.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, and there are I was reading more than two
hundred thousand women in active duty in the military right now,
and several thousand in among them.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
That's right. And after nine to eleven, what exactly was
a combat arms role really changed, and this is why
the policy was eventually rescinded. You could be a logistician
and that's not a combat arms job by classification. Driving
a convoy down a road in Iraq, encounter an ied
and insurgents return fire, take fire. Is that not a
(09:21):
combat arms position simply because you have the title of logistiction.
In the modern world, modern warfare, there really aren't these
clear front lines like there were in World War Two,
and so we had to necessarily adapt. The Department of
Defense had to necessarily adapt to have enough top talented
people to serve in all of these roles that may
encounter combat. Which is why as a Marine Corps officer,
(09:44):
you know, every Marine Corps officer goes through the same
sixth month Basic Combat Officer training program, because even if
you are a adjutant, someone who works, you know, in
an office supporting the service members pay and benefits and
all of that, there might be a time where you're
forward deployed and you take fire and you need to
return fire. So really this demonstrates to me that Pete
(10:06):
Haigseth has a very immature view of what the modern
military is, where our mission sets lie. He has this
vision that everybody and only certain types of people are
able to fulfill these roles, when in reality, the whole
sort of modern battlefield has the potential for somebody to
need to be able to engage. And that's why the
military adapted, not because of WOG ideology, but because it
(10:29):
was a necessity to fulfill the mission.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Another notable part of his speech to the generals and
the admirals was a big shift in how military leaders
are being instructed to approach harassment and toxic behavior or
complaints about those things. How do you expect that that
change will impact the military culture, especially with issues like
sexual harassment, which we've heard so much about in the
(10:53):
military over recent years.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
Well, I always think about how the example of leadership
impacts those the very bottom of the food chain, the
seventeen eighteen, nineteen year old private first class who's coming
into the military, who has zero power, zero voice, and
has to just kind of be part of the machine.
And when the President of the United States or the
Secretary of Defense get on a stage and they say
(11:18):
that we should relax the standards of harassment, that we
should allow drill instructors to put their hands on recruits
something that has not been the case for decades. What
does that mean to the young person at the very
bottom who is now getting that message is being reinforced
through the ranks, to the twenty year old sergeant who
might have authority over them, who thinks, oh, Pete Hegseth
(11:41):
says it's okay for me to harass or hit somebody
below me. Only a bully thinks that bullying is something
that shows you, that shows strength, Like this is really
to me, The nut at the heart of Pete Hegseth's
heart is just this deep deep insecurity thinks being a
tough guy is the ability to bully and harass and
(12:05):
commit violence with no recourse or repercussions.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
What about though, his point about this, which is that,
you know, maybe higher up people in the military having
to walk on eggshells because they're worried about frivolous complaints
coming from people below them, and it can stop them
from being able to do their jobs.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Let's have a robust and efficient system for prosecuting those complaints.
Make sure that the system is fair. I have not
heard a single senior military leader ever testify that they
are not able to do their job. Operational job because
they're afraid of harassment complaint. What I have heard them
(12:45):
testify about is how throughout the force we have an
issue with sexual harassment, we have an issue with mental
health amongst our troops, we have issues with toxic leadership,
and all of those things have a much greater impact
on the readiness of the American military than the feelings
of a senior leader. And frankly, that could happen at
any time to anyone. Do your job well, be a
(13:07):
good person. And I trust that we have a bigger
issue with our junior service members being targeted by senior
leaders who feel like they have impunity to do so,
and that that's only going to increase with this sort
of green light that Secretary Hegseth has given.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
We'll stay with us because in a minute we're going
to talk about how all this was received in the
room and some of the even bigger changes that have
been happening at the Pentagon under Pete Hegseth. One Thing
Trump did with that Voice Foundation CEO Genessa.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Goldbeck will be right back.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Welcome back to One Thing Trump did exclusively on the
Middle Podcast Feed.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
In this episode, we're talking about the changes that Secretary
of War or Secretary of Defense, depending on who you're
talking to, Pete Heggseth is making in the military. I'm
joined by Genessa Goldbeck, the CEO of the Voice Foundation
and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. And
as you know, Genessa, Trump renamed the Defense Department the
War Department, which is what it used to be called.
(14:26):
But Congress hasn't made that change yet, so it's still
kind of both. What do you think is the significance
of that change.
Speaker 4 (14:34):
I think it's such a waste of time and energy
and a distraction. Frankly, this is all the things that
the Trump administration is doing and Secretary of Heggseeth is doing.
This is the one that I roll my eyes the
hardest at. Okay, he wants to call it the Department
of War. He wants to waste I think it's been
calculated over a billion dollars at changing signs. Okay. This
(14:55):
is just another example of how this administration, and these
two individuals in particular, they are not thinking about the
greater cause. They are not thinking about strengthening the institution.
They're thinking about themselves and how to make themselves look cool,
and I guess that's worth it to them.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
So as we hear you say this, you know you
don't hear it the way that you're saying it From
many members of the military. Obviously, they have to be
very careful about what they're saying. You're out of the
military now and running the Voice Foundation. But one thing
that was interesting about the speeches that Trump and Hegseth
gave to all these people in the top leadership of
the military was there was no clapping, There was no laughing,
(15:34):
no response of any kind. They were stonefaced. What did
you take away from the response in the room and
some of the anonymous comments to news outlets afterwards, where
people were really like, why did he bring us here?
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Well, I think it's a testament to the professionalism of
people who have served and dedicated their lives to achieving
the ranks that they're at now. You know, it is
normal for general officers, if they are put into space
where there is partisan politics like the state of the Union,
to sit silently, stoneface. If you think about the Chairman
(16:06):
of the Joint Chiefs or the others who are thenant,
they said silently, and that is because it is a
norm and tradition in American society that we have this
real a political military. That is again why we have
the most professional fighting force in the world, because you
don't want to be thinking about is my commanding officer
a Republican or a Democrat? That really doesn't matter when
(16:28):
you're trying to accomplish a mission, and especially if that's
a tough and dangerous and dirty mission. But what Trump
is trying to do is reshape the US military into
his own personal police force and to make it seem
that the generals all belong to him. So I think
it was a real You know, our General officer Corps
displayed real discipline by sitting there maintaining that knowing that
they were being used as a political prop whether or
(16:51):
not they agree with the president or not in terms
of his ideology and worldview. I do think that everyone
in that room knew that it was important for them
to remain neutral and look apolitical.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
JENNESSA one thing that hag Seth has gotten credit for
is that military enrollment is up after being down for
a few years. Do you think that stuff like what
he did in front of the generals are calling it
the Department of war, even if it annoys people like you,
helps get people interested in joining.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Well. First off, I think there's been a significant and
sustained push to increase recruitment over the last several years.
So definitely Pete hag Seth is reaping the benefits of
that increased investment and some of the changes in tactics
that were put in place in previous administrations. But I
do also think that he is speaking directly to young men,
and that there is a reality that that photo op
(17:42):
and his ted talk style speech and calling general's faddies
and fafo and all this stuff that's meme culture oriented,
is speaking directly to a certain type of young man,
and that his intent is to do just that, is
to reshape the American military as we as I mentioned earlier,
into a white Christian nationalist force that shares his worldview,
(18:05):
and that I think is really dangerous. I think that
what they're doing is potentially causing generational harm to the
US military. But also it's imperative that folks who might
not agree with Pete Hegseth might agree with more with
what I'm saying, find a way to also talk to
young men in a way that showcases a different form
of masculinity, one that isn't driven by ego. And you
(18:29):
know this tough cut, tough guy machismo, you know that
has zero empathy and doesn't see diversity as a strength.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
You know, a lot of people have made fun of
the fact that heg Seth was a weekend anchor at
Fox News before becoming the Secretary of Defense. But if
you look at two of his recent predecessors, Lloyd Austin
and James Mattis, Congress had to do waivers for both
of them because the secretar Defense is supposed to be
a civilian and they were general as they come out
of the military. Do you think at least it's good
(18:59):
that heg Seth is a civilian rather than somebody that
needed a waiver.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
I'll give him that. I do think it was a
mistake to put generals in charge, regardless of their qualifications.
On the battlefield. We are supposed to be led by civilians.
That is again part of our norms and culture as
a society, in a free and fair, democratic society, that
we have a civilian led military. I think it was
(19:24):
a mistake to put generals at the helm. And so
if I'm going to give Pete Heike Seth any flowers.
I guess I could give him the smallest one and say,
at least he's a civilian.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Okay, Okay, fair enough, Jennessa. I've brought up a lot,
and this is me coming. I do not have a
background in the military, although I have covered the military
for many years. I have many friends who've been in
the military. I'm fascinated by it, but I'm not an expert,
and I wonder what other things are you thinking about
on a daily basis at VET Voice Foundation when it
(19:54):
comes to the military today that we did not bring
up in this conversation.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Well, I'm really worried about the politicals of the military
writ large. You know, we've seen this administration take a
number of actions that are just so out of step
with anything we've ever seen before, whether it's the firing
of general officers because they're not deemed sufficiently loyal, the
firing of inspectors general who sort of weigh the ethics
of particular decisions within the military, the very partisan political
(20:20):
rally at Fort Bragg that President Trump held in front
of uniform service members where they were laughing and clapping
along with a lot of partisan talking points. All of
those things are very dangerous, and probably the biggest one
is the deployment of the National Guard into American cities
and the increasing militarization of domestic immigration enforcement. This is
not what the National Guard is for. The National Guard
(20:42):
is comprised of young men and women, for the most part,
from working in middle class families who signed up to
protect the homeland overseas or respond to things like natural disasters,
not to police their neighbors, not to serve alongside ice agents,
and certainly not to do so in a way that
is inflammatory. When local leaders and local law enforcement are
(21:04):
saying this is inflammatory to have the Guard here, That
puts them in a really dangerous position, injects them right
into the middle of partisan political politics, and so I'm
pretty worried about that.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Do you think though, that the military so far in
the National Guard, from the individual level and overall, are
doing a good job in resisting the politicization that the
pressure for that that's coming from the administration.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Well, I want to give a lot of kudos to
the leadership in the various National Guard units that have
been deployed, because what could have been very escalatory situations
in places like Los Angeles and Washington, d C. We've
seen troops be very disciplined. We've seen you know, we
haven't seen an escalation that could have existed. And so
(21:51):
I think that that is a testament to National Guard
leadership and those small unit commanders who are really setting
the tone for their soldiers and others who are deployed.
But it's you know, the fact that they are in
those positions in the first place, is really that all
the blame there lies at the feet of the president,
and I think it demonstrates that he doesn't care about
(22:14):
these people. For him, it isn't about you know, giving
veterans or giving National guardsmen something to do. These are
you know, they're picking up trash on the National Mall.
They're calling them the National Gardeners on the internet, like
this is not what the Guard is for. And it
is a waste of time resources, and it's frankly extraordinarily
bad for morale when people are deployed away from their families,
(22:36):
away from their jobs, not having health care because their
orders are not long enough for them to earn health care,
and for what, you know, for a partisan political stunt.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Do you think that the military is currently prepared for
the threats that the country faces right now.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
I'm really concerned, you know, our national security strategy that
this administration put out has redirected our efforts away from
our New York peer adversaries in China and Russia and
elsewhere around the globe and to the domestic homeland. When
the President of the United States goes up on TV
and says, you know, we're focused on the enemy within.
The enemy within who is it is hard to find
(23:14):
because they don't wear uniforms. When he talks about the
radical left, I mean that is incredibly dangerous rhetoric, and
especially in this time that we're in where we're seeing
this uptick in political violence. I'm very concerned that we've
taken our eye off the ball, that we are allocating
all of these resources to domestic enforcement in a way
that is going to make us very vulnerable to outside attack.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
That's Jennessa Goldbeck, who is the CEO of the Vet
Voice Foundation, a veteran of the Marine Corps.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Genessa, thank you so much for joining us, Thank you
so much for having me, Jeremy.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
And thanks you for listening to One Thing Trump Did.
It was produced by Harrison Patino. Our next middle episode
is coming to your podcast feed later this week, and
please rate this podcast, write a review wherever you get
your podcasts Our theme music was composed by Noah Haidu.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
I'm Jeremy Hobson and I will talk to you soon.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
S
Welcome to one thing Trump did, available exclusively on The
Middle podcast Speed. I'm Jeremy Hobson, and you know, these days,
with everything going on, people sometimes come up to me
and they say, hey, Jeremy, what do you think of this?
What do you think is going on here? And I
cannot tell you how many people did that with our
topic today, they said, why is Pete Hegseth, the Secretary
(00:37):
of War formerly Secretary of Defense calling all the generals
and admirals from around the world to Washington at the
same time.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Isn't this dangerous? This was before it happened.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Now we know that he did that in part to
tell them that they need to work out war and
not be so fat.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
He really did say that.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
He talked about an overhaul of fitness and grooming standards,
including the establishment of fitness tests and a gender neutral
male level standard.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
For physical fitness and combat.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
He also announced a review of definitions for toxic leadership
and bullying and hazing and harassment to reduce what he
called frivolous complaints.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Listen here to peteg Sev.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
The era of politically correct, overly sensitive, don't hurt anyone's
feelings leadership ends right now. For too long, we've promoted
too many uniform leaders for the wrong reasons, based on
their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so
called firsts. This administration has done a great deal from
(01:37):
day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and
toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
To rip out the politics.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
No more identity months, dei offices, dudes in dresses, no
more climate change worship, no more division distraction or gender delusions.
But when it comes to any job that requires physical
power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be
high and gender neutral. If women can make it excellent,
(02:11):
If not, it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
So a lot there.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Let's talk about it with Genessa Goldbeck, CEO of the
Vet Voice Foundation and a veteran of the United States
Marine Corps.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Gennessa, it's great to have you here.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Jeremy, Well, first.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Off, is this what you thought that Pete Hagseth would
be talking with all the senior military leadership about when
he flew them in from all over the world.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
It wasn't entirely clear to me or anyone else what
the meeting was going to be about. But I certainly
hoped it would was something that was so important that
it had to be a meeting. It couldn't have been
an email.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
You know.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
This was basically what amounted to a junior officer's pet
rally in front of some of the most serious, decorated
members of our national security apparatus. What an enormous waste
of time, taxpayer, and frankly a completely needless risk in
terms of operational security to bring them all in. Many
of them flew in commercial I mean, think about just
(03:08):
the security at the various airports they were coming through.
Just an absolute vanity show.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Well, let's talk about the specifics of what he's talking
about here. The grooming standards, for one thing. Is that
a big deal that he's saying no more beards in
the military except for special forces?
Speaker 4 (03:23):
It is, But I think we're sort of missing the
force for the trees starting there, which is Pete hags
As vision of the military is for it to be
a nineteen eighties cartoon, a white nationalist force where every
person who serves is a square jawed white male, and
he has been taking action to cull it into that vision,
(03:43):
guising it under his merit based leadership approach and lethality.
The reality is the people who are authorized to wear
beards in the military are people who have a skin
condition that causes them to break out in very painful
sores that can get easily infected. And so the military
for many years has a lot of people who have
that skin condition to request something called a no shave
(04:04):
chit so they don't have to shave and they can
keep a neatly trimmed beard in order to maintain their
appearance and be fit and ready for all types of service.
The vast majority of people who have that skin condition
are black men. So going after beard's specifically isn't about
a return to lethality or some sloppiness in the forest.
It is a very specific way to get rid of
(04:25):
black men. And I think that the fact that that
hasn't been more widely reported is a real shame, and
I'm glad I have that opportunity to talk about it here.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
The other class of people I guess that have beards
I was just reading about this the other day are
Sikh men who keep it for religious purposes.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And there was a Sikh.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Soldier who was quoted in a newspaper saying that this
was a real insult to people like him who have
been in the military serving the United States and now
they're being told that no more beard Oz is what
heg Seth said.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Absolutely, I mean this is part of the broader context, right.
This is a person of color whose faith is not Christianity.
This is a very easy way for the Secretary of
Defense to go after him. And I look around the
world and you see militaries with plenty of discipline, plenty
of great military history and tradition, where the men keep tight,
(05:18):
you know, even beards. This is not a lethality issue.
This is not an issue in the military like this
is something that he's chosen to pick up on. He
is going after these culture wars, trying to create this
idea that the military has been infected with woke ideology.
I mean, are we going to go all the way
back to nineteen forty eight when the President Truman desegregated
(05:38):
the armed forces and say every promotion since then has
been the result of woke ideology. Through the Korean War,
through the Vietnam War, through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I mean, I frankly think it is so insulting for
him to stand up in front of those generals and
flag officers who have served twenty thirty years honorably in uniform,
trying to train and retain the best possible fighting force
(05:58):
that has led us to how the most professional lethal
fighting force in the world in the United States Military,
And to say that somehow all of those decisions and
promotions should be questioned, will help.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Us understand, just for people who are not in the
military and haven't been in the military, why the grooming
standards in particular are so important. Just in general, even
if you have exceptions, why does it matter so much
that all of the members of the armed services are
clean cut?
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Well, it really stems back the facial hair conversation stems
back toward to gas masks. In order for a gas
mask to fit your face and create a perfect seal,
having facial hair can interrupt that. But how many members
of our troops right now are stationed in places where
having a gas mask on hand and necessary to their
ability to do their jobs is necessary. A very very
(06:47):
small minority of them have that requirement. And so if
you're telling me that we need to kick out a
sergeant in the USRB who has served honorably, has performed
their job exceptionally, has served you know, seven eight nine years,
and his station in North Carolina that we have to
kick him out because a gas mask doesn't seal over
his beard. I mean, what an incredible waste of time, talent,
(07:10):
and resources.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
What about the physical fitness standards? Genessa Heg says said
he didn't want any fat generals. For context, when he
came into office, he announced big cuts to the top
military brass, ordering a twenty percent cut in the number
of active duty four star generals and admirals. Is the
fitness standard a way to just get rid of more
people or what do you think that's about.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
I think the fitness standard is a red herring for
cutting out women. Frankly, First of all, there are a
couple of things that he's relitigating that have already been litigated.
When he stands up on stage and says there should
be one standard for combat arms professions. That has been
the case since the repeal of a combat exclusion policy
over a decade ago. The combat exclusion policy was a
(07:53):
policy that was put in place that said women couldn't
serve in certain combat arms jobs in the military. It
was overturned over a decay to go, and since then
women have been serving honorably and exceptionally as tank officers
and infantry officers and rangers, meeting one gender neutral combat
standard in order to qualify for that job. Now, are
there genders normed physical fitness tests that occur every year? Yes,
(08:17):
there are, because women and men are physiologically different, and
so to gauge the fitness of a woman at age
forty performing a certain job is different than that of
a man, but they still both have to meet the
gender neutral standard of having that job in the first place.
So he's basically talking about an issue that doesn't exist.
He has this real antipathy towards women in service. We've
(08:38):
heard it through all of his remarks that he's made
over the course of his career, both before he was
the secretary and when he was at Fox News, And
so this is a way for him to attack women
while cloaking it in a conversation about merit.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, and there are I was reading more than two
hundred thousand women in active duty in the military right now,
and several thousand in among them.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
That's right. And after nine to eleven, what exactly was
a combat arms role really changed, and this is why
the policy was eventually rescinded. You could be a logistician
and that's not a combat arms job by classification. Driving
a convoy down a road in Iraq, encounter an ied
and insurgents return fire, take fire. Is that not a
(09:21):
combat arms position simply because you have the title of logistiction.
In the modern world, modern warfare, there really aren't these
clear front lines like there were in World War Two,
and so we had to necessarily adapt. The Department of
Defense had to necessarily adapt to have enough top talented
people to serve in all of these roles that may
encounter combat. Which is why as a Marine Corps officer,
(09:44):
you know, every Marine Corps officer goes through the same
sixth month Basic Combat Officer training program, because even if
you are a adjutant, someone who works, you know, in
an office supporting the service members pay and benefits and
all of that, there might be a time where you're
forward deployed and you take fire and you need to
return fire. So really this demonstrates to me that Pete
(10:06):
Haigseth has a very immature view of what the modern
military is, where our mission sets lie. He has this
vision that everybody and only certain types of people are
able to fulfill these roles, when in reality, the whole
sort of modern battlefield has the potential for somebody to
need to be able to engage. And that's why the
military adapted, not because of WOG ideology, but because it
(10:29):
was a necessity to fulfill the mission.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Another notable part of his speech to the generals and
the admirals was a big shift in how military leaders
are being instructed to approach harassment and toxic behavior or
complaints about those things. How do you expect that that
change will impact the military culture, especially with issues like
sexual harassment, which we've heard so much about in the
(10:53):
military over recent years.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
Well, I always think about how the example of leadership
impacts those the very bottom of the food chain, the
seventeen eighteen, nineteen year old private first class who's coming
into the military, who has zero power, zero voice, and
has to just kind of be part of the machine.
And when the President of the United States or the
Secretary of Defense get on a stage and they say
(11:18):
that we should relax the standards of harassment, that we
should allow drill instructors to put their hands on recruits
something that has not been the case for decades. What
does that mean to the young person at the very
bottom who is now getting that message is being reinforced
through the ranks, to the twenty year old sergeant who
might have authority over them, who thinks, oh, Pete Hegseth
(11:41):
says it's okay for me to harass or hit somebody
below me. Only a bully thinks that bullying is something
that shows you, that shows strength, Like this is really
to me, The nut at the heart of Pete Hegseth's
heart is just this deep deep insecurity thinks being a
tough guy is the ability to bully and harass and
(12:05):
commit violence with no recourse or repercussions.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
What about though, his point about this, which is that,
you know, maybe higher up people in the military having
to walk on eggshells because they're worried about frivolous complaints
coming from people below them, and it can stop them
from being able to do their jobs.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Let's have a robust and efficient system for prosecuting those complaints.
Make sure that the system is fair. I have not
heard a single senior military leader ever testify that they
are not able to do their job. Operational job because
they're afraid of harassment complaint. What I have heard them
(12:45):
testify about is how throughout the force we have an
issue with sexual harassment, we have an issue with mental
health amongst our troops, we have issues with toxic leadership,
and all of those things have a much greater impact
on the readiness of the American military than the feelings
of a senior leader. And frankly, that could happen at
any time to anyone. Do your job well, be a
(13:07):
good person. And I trust that we have a bigger
issue with our junior service members being targeted by senior
leaders who feel like they have impunity to do so,
and that that's only going to increase with this sort
of green light that Secretary Hegseth has given.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
We'll stay with us because in a minute we're going
to talk about how all this was received in the
room and some of the even bigger changes that have
been happening at the Pentagon under Pete Hegseth. One Thing
Trump did with that Voice Foundation CEO Genessa.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Goldbeck will be right back.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Welcome back to One Thing Trump did exclusively on the
Middle Podcast Feed.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
In this episode, we're talking about the changes that Secretary
of War or Secretary of Defense, depending on who you're
talking to, Pete Heggseth is making in the military. I'm
joined by Genessa Goldbeck, the CEO of the Voice Foundation
and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. And
as you know, Genessa, Trump renamed the Defense Department the
War Department, which is what it used to be called.
(14:26):
But Congress hasn't made that change yet, so it's still
kind of both. What do you think is the significance
of that change.
Speaker 4 (14:34):
I think it's such a waste of time and energy
and a distraction. Frankly, this is all the things that
the Trump administration is doing and Secretary of Heggseeth is doing.
This is the one that I roll my eyes the
hardest at. Okay, he wants to call it the Department
of War. He wants to waste I think it's been
calculated over a billion dollars at changing signs. Okay. This
(14:55):
is just another example of how this administration, and these
two individuals in particular, they are not thinking about the
greater cause. They are not thinking about strengthening the institution.
They're thinking about themselves and how to make themselves look cool,
and I guess that's worth it to them.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
So as we hear you say this, you know you
don't hear it the way that you're saying it From
many members of the military. Obviously, they have to be
very careful about what they're saying. You're out of the
military now and running the Voice Foundation. But one thing
that was interesting about the speeches that Trump and Hegseth
gave to all these people in the top leadership of
the military was there was no clapping, There was no laughing,
(15:34):
no response of any kind. They were stonefaced. What did
you take away from the response in the room and
some of the anonymous comments to news outlets afterwards, where
people were really like, why did he bring us here?
Speaker 4 (15:46):
Well, I think it's a testament to the professionalism of
people who have served and dedicated their lives to achieving
the ranks that they're at now. You know, it is
normal for general officers, if they are put into space
where there is partisan politics like the state of the Union,
to sit silently, stoneface. If you think about the Chairman
(16:06):
of the Joint Chiefs or the others who are thenant,
they said silently, and that is because it is a
norm and tradition in American society that we have this
real a political military. That is again why we have
the most professional fighting force in the world, because you
don't want to be thinking about is my commanding officer
a Republican or a Democrat? That really doesn't matter when
(16:28):
you're trying to accomplish a mission, and especially if that's
a tough and dangerous and dirty mission. But what Trump
is trying to do is reshape the US military into
his own personal police force and to make it seem
that the generals all belong to him. So I think
it was a real You know, our General officer Corps
displayed real discipline by sitting there maintaining that knowing that
they were being used as a political prop whether or
(16:51):
not they agree with the president or not in terms
of his ideology and worldview. I do think that everyone
in that room knew that it was important for them
to remain neutral and look apolitical.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
JENNESSA one thing that hag Seth has gotten credit for
is that military enrollment is up after being down for
a few years. Do you think that stuff like what
he did in front of the generals are calling it
the Department of war, even if it annoys people like you,
helps get people interested in joining.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Well. First off, I think there's been a significant and
sustained push to increase recruitment over the last several years.
So definitely Pete hag Seth is reaping the benefits of
that increased investment and some of the changes in tactics
that were put in place in previous administrations. But I
do also think that he is speaking directly to young men,
and that there is a reality that that photo op
(17:42):
and his ted talk style speech and calling general's faddies
and fafo and all this stuff that's meme culture oriented,
is speaking directly to a certain type of young man,
and that his intent is to do just that, is
to reshape the American military as we as I mentioned earlier,
into a white Christian nationalist force that shares his worldview,
(18:05):
and that I think is really dangerous. I think that
what they're doing is potentially causing generational harm to the
US military. But also it's imperative that folks who might
not agree with Pete Hegseth might agree with more with
what I'm saying, find a way to also talk to
young men in a way that showcases a different form
of masculinity, one that isn't driven by ego. And you
(18:29):
know this tough cut, tough guy machismo, you know that
has zero empathy and doesn't see diversity as a strength.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
You know, a lot of people have made fun of
the fact that heg Seth was a weekend anchor at
Fox News before becoming the Secretary of Defense. But if
you look at two of his recent predecessors, Lloyd Austin
and James Mattis, Congress had to do waivers for both
of them because the secretar Defense is supposed to be
a civilian and they were general as they come out
of the military. Do you think at least it's good
(18:59):
that heg Seth is a civilian rather than somebody that
needed a waiver.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
I'll give him that. I do think it was a
mistake to put generals in charge, regardless of their qualifications.
On the battlefield. We are supposed to be led by civilians.
That is again part of our norms and culture as
a society, in a free and fair, democratic society, that
we have a civilian led military. I think it was
(19:24):
a mistake to put generals at the helm. And so
if I'm going to give Pete Heike Seth any flowers.
I guess I could give him the smallest one and say,
at least he's a civilian.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Okay, Okay, fair enough, Jennessa. I've brought up a lot,
and this is me coming. I do not have a
background in the military, although I have covered the military
for many years. I have many friends who've been in
the military. I'm fascinated by it, but I'm not an expert,
and I wonder what other things are you thinking about
on a daily basis at VET Voice Foundation when it
(19:54):
comes to the military today that we did not bring
up in this conversation.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Well, I'm really worried about the politicals of the military
writ large. You know, we've seen this administration take a
number of actions that are just so out of step
with anything we've ever seen before, whether it's the firing
of general officers because they're not deemed sufficiently loyal, the
firing of inspectors general who sort of weigh the ethics
of particular decisions within the military, the very partisan political
(20:20):
rally at Fort Bragg that President Trump held in front
of uniform service members where they were laughing and clapping
along with a lot of partisan talking points. All of
those things are very dangerous, and probably the biggest one
is the deployment of the National Guard into American cities
and the increasing militarization of domestic immigration enforcement. This is
not what the National Guard is for. The National Guard
(20:42):
is comprised of young men and women, for the most part,
from working in middle class families who signed up to
protect the homeland overseas or respond to things like natural disasters,
not to police their neighbors, not to serve alongside ice agents,
and certainly not to do so in a way that
is inflammatory. When local leaders and local law enforcement are
(21:04):
saying this is inflammatory to have the Guard here, That
puts them in a really dangerous position, injects them right
into the middle of partisan political politics, and so I'm
pretty worried about that.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Do you think though, that the military so far in
the National Guard, from the individual level and overall, are
doing a good job in resisting the politicization that the
pressure for that that's coming from the administration.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Well, I want to give a lot of kudos to
the leadership in the various National Guard units that have
been deployed, because what could have been very escalatory situations
in places like Los Angeles and Washington, d C. We've
seen troops be very disciplined. We've seen you know, we
haven't seen an escalation that could have existed. And so
(21:51):
I think that that is a testament to National Guard
leadership and those small unit commanders who are really setting
the tone for their soldiers and others who are deployed.
But it's you know, the fact that they are in
those positions in the first place, is really that all
the blame there lies at the feet of the president,
and I think it demonstrates that he doesn't care about
(22:14):
these people. For him, it isn't about you know, giving
veterans or giving National guardsmen something to do. These are
you know, they're picking up trash on the National Mall.
They're calling them the National Gardeners on the internet, like
this is not what the Guard is for. And it
is a waste of time resources, and it's frankly extraordinarily
bad for morale when people are deployed away from their families,
(22:36):
away from their jobs, not having health care because their
orders are not long enough for them to earn health care,
and for what, you know, for a partisan political stunt.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Do you think that the military is currently prepared for
the threats that the country faces right now.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
I'm really concerned, you know, our national security strategy that
this administration put out has redirected our efforts away from
our New York peer adversaries in China and Russia and
elsewhere around the globe and to the domestic homeland. When
the President of the United States goes up on TV
and says, you know, we're focused on the enemy within.
The enemy within who is it is hard to find
(23:14):
because they don't wear uniforms. When he talks about the
radical left, I mean that is incredibly dangerous rhetoric, and
especially in this time that we're in where we're seeing
this uptick in political violence. I'm very concerned that we've
taken our eye off the ball, that we are allocating
all of these resources to domestic enforcement in a way
that is going to make us very vulnerable to outside attack.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
That's Jennessa Goldbeck, who is the CEO of the Vet
Voice Foundation, a veteran of the Marine Corps.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Genessa, thank you so much for joining us, Thank you
so much for having me, Jeremy.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
And thanks you for listening to One Thing Trump Did.
It was produced by Harrison Patino. Our next middle episode
is coming to your podcast feed later this week, and
please rate this podcast, write a review wherever you get
your podcasts Our theme music was composed by Noah Haidu.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
I'm Jeremy Hobson and I will talk to you soon.
Speaker 4 (24:00):
S
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.