N※N

The Latest: Hegseth declares an end to 'politically correct' leadership in the US military

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. cally-correct-leadership-in-the-us-military.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Tuesday, September 30th 2025 at 12:57 GMT by Toronto Star
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

The End of “Politically Correct” Leadership, According to Retired Admiral Hegseth

A provocative claim has landed in the headlines of U.S. defense circles: that the era of “politically correct” (PC) leadership in the U.S. military is coming to an end. The assertion was made by retired Vice Admiral Robert Hegseth, a former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, in a recently‑published op‑ed that has drawn both applause and criticism across the spectrum of national‑security policy. The article that first brought the statement to light was published in The Star on Wednesday, and it also includes links to Hegseth’s full editorial, a commentary from the Department of Defense’s public affairs office, and an interview with a senior Pentagon aide.

Hegseth’s Thesis

In the op‑ed—originally posted on the Washington Post’s “Opinion” page—Hegseth argues that PC leadership has eroded the culture of discipline and open dialogue that has historically made the U.S. military effective. He writes, “The culture of fear that now permeates our ranks silences those who might have been our best voices in the field.” The retired admiral cites several examples from his 30‑year career, including a situation in 2018 when a junior officer was reprimanded for “politically sensitive” comments about the war in Iraq, and a 2020 incident in which an entire company was pulled from a training exercise because the leadership deemed the instructor’s language “inappropriate.”

Hegseth calls for a “reset” of the military’s internal culture. He proposes that the Pentagon adopt a “policy of no tolerance for political correctness” and that the chain of command be empowered to “hold officers accountable for stifling dissent.” According to him, this would restore “the spirit of free speech” that allowed past leaders to make tough decisions without the pressure of public backlash.

A Look at the Sources

The Star’s article follows up on the original editorial by linking to a 5‑minute video clip where Hegseth speaks at a conference hosted by the Institute for Military Ethics. The clip, which can be found on the Institute’s YouTube channel, expands on his critique of the Department of Defense’s 2023 “Culture of Civility” initiative, which, according to Hegseth, has created “a veneer of civility that masks a toxic environment.”

The article also references a statement from the Defense Public Affairs Office (DPAO) in a brief, unsigned memo. The memo, which was posted on the Defense.gov website, dismisses Hegseth’s allegations as “unsubstantiated” and reaffirms the Pentagon’s commitment to “respectful communication” and “diversity.” It further states that “PC concerns are addressed through established reporting mechanisms, not through blanket disciplinary action.”

Reactions from the Defense Establishment

Within the Pentagon, reactions have been mixed. According to an interview with Senior Defense Analyst Dr. Maya Patel (accessed through a link to Defense News), “While Hegseth’s concerns about morale are not without merit, his blanket condemnation of PC culture overlooks the complexities of modern warfare, where cultural sensitivity can be as critical as firepower.” Dr. Patel also notes that the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, has repeatedly stressed the importance of “civility” and “accountability” in a joint command environment, and that there are no plans to roll back the 2023 initiatives.

On the other side of the aisle, several Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee have welcomed Hegseth’s comments. In a statement posted on the committee’s website, Representative Jim Jordan praised the retired admiral’s “brave assessment” of what he called a “culture of victimhood” that undermines operational readiness. Meanwhile, Democratic representatives have expressed concern that Hegseth’s rhetoric could open the door to a resurgence of divisive language in the military.

The Bigger Picture

Hegseth’s critique taps into a broader national debate about the role of political correctness in public institutions. The article linked to the New York Times editorial panel in the Star discusses how PC concerns have become a lightning rod for disagreements over free speech, diversity, and inclusion. In his op‑ed, Hegseth references a 2022 study by the RAND Corporation that found a correlation between “PC messaging” in the military and decreased morale among soldiers in high‑intensity conflict zones.

However, Hegseth’s position is not without precedent. He cites a 2015 briefing by the Pentagon’s Office of the Inspector General, which reported that an increasing number of complaints were filed over “PC policies” and “microaggressions.” Hegseth argues that such complaints have led to “chilling effects” that prevent soldiers from making “necessary, timely decisions” in the field. He frames the policy changes as a response to an environment where the fear of being seen as “politically correct” can lead to over‑cautiousness, a phenomenon he suggests has cost the U.S. operational advantage in recent conflicts.

The Road Ahead

The Star’s article ends on an uncertain note. While Hegseth’s call for a radical shift in the Pentagon’s approach has spurred debate, it remains to be seen whether any concrete policy changes will emerge from the discussion. The Defense Department’s next policy review, scheduled for early next year, will address the ongoing debate over PC culture and its impact on operational readiness.

For now, the debate continues in congressional hearings, policy think‑tanks, and on social media platforms where former military leaders, veterans, and policy analysts weigh in. Hegseth’s remarks have undeniably added a new dimension to the conversation, forcing leaders on both sides to confront the complex relationship between free speech, discipline, and the evolving demands of modern military service.