The Tuesday afternoon guests on CNN’s Inside Politics couldn’t fathom the possibility of women being further excluded from frontline combat roles due to heightened military fitness standards. This was in response to Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech to top military leadership at Quantico, VA, in which he explained clear expectations for service member fitness and culture.

CNN anchor Brianna Keilar deceptively depicted how women were tested in comparison to men when it came to fitness standards by first mentioning Special Forces:

And I think that a lot of people in the military may point out that that's not something that is broadly happening […] It's not like women are being waved into these Combat Arms positions, right? There are no female Navy SEALs. There still have not been. There have been some women who have made it into the ranks of the Green Berets, into Army Rangers — not many —

Keilar sort of walked back her statement by admitting that regular forces did receive different standards for females, but stuck to her misleading comparison:

They are held to the same standard. Now, that's not to say, in a more broad sense, there have not been some exceptions. But when we're talking about people who are in those kind of serious Combat Arms roles that I think sort of the layman listening to what Secretary Hegseth is saying, that's just to be very clear, they're not being waved in to these positions.

How stupid did Keilar think her audience was? Did anyone really think Hegseth was referring exclusively to Special Forces? Anyone with a semblance of military knowledge would know that “Combat Arms roles” obviously includes positions such as infantry, artillery, etc. Those were not elite, tip-of-the-spear responsibilities. They were necessary and important, but not super specialized.

Like everyone else in the butt hurt discussion, Keilar was deeply concerned about how women will receive the news:

[O]ne of the concerns that I'm hearing from a lot of people who have national security in mind is, what is the message that is being sent to women? Clearly, they're a huge part of the military, and the expectation is they'll continue to be and that they need to be […] It's not just that it's a nice thing to have women in the military. It's that it's essential.

No, it wasn’t. What was essential was that the military be manned by those who were most qualified to serve in critical roles. Some of those service members were women, and the work they do was essential. But some specific qualities (like gender) don’t matter so long as the individual was able to meet a standard that would ensure American military supremacy. That meant men would fill most military roles. That’s not sexist. That’s reality.

The military literally lowered physical fitness standards for serving members back during the Biden administration so that women could pass. When WWIII inevitably rolls around, how would a ragtag team of fat, weak and old military squads going to protect America, exactly?

It’s also worth asking, why was the left suddenly worried about Trump shrinking the size of the military? One would think that would be a win in their book.

If Keilar made a single good point, it was this:

The vast majority of young Americans are disqualified from military service, or they have absolutely no interest in serving, and this military runs on volunteers. So, a lot of those people are women and they're essential for national security.

During Biden’s term, military recruitment was down. Terribly. And when that’s coupled with an education system that teaches adolescents to hate their country, as well as a culture that coddles kids into sensitive, non-confrontational babies, of course there’s going to be less interest in military service across the board. And when gender norms that had existed for millennia were challenged, there’s going to be some interest in crossing the career chasm. But, again, their being female is not essential.

Pennsylvania Chrissy Congresswoman Houlahan joined the program and started with some senseless semantics:

— you didn't show the part of his conversation where he said that we were returning to male standards. So you can't be — you can't have it both ways. You can't have standard standards and then male standards. Either it's a standard or it's not.

This conflation was baffling. Hegseth had re-established a single standard, one that was previously the “male” standard. This single standard applied to both male and female service members. This was best explained as plain stupidity.

Houlahan conceded the need for “standards,” but whimpered over the likely reduction of a female presence:

And where he and I do agree is that if people have to meet certain standards, they should have to meet certain standards. But he is very much, obviously, reducing the possibility that women will continue to be part of the armed services in those positions.

Boohoo. Hegseth, rightfully, wanted a strong and energetic military, including those who don’t participate in heavily-physical responsibilities. Obesity and ineptitude not only create sluggish soldiers, they reinforce a culture of sloth and unpreparedness. Women were biologically preset to be physically weaker than men. Wherever physicality was primary, women would necessarily be in the minority.

Then the phantom participation trophies went flying: “And we need every single person who wants to serve, this is an all-volunteer service, and we need people who have all kinds of capabilities and talents.”

No, we don’t. We need everyone who is willing and able. It would be an incredible disservice to America to fill the military with an ill-equipped hodge-podge of enthusiasts. That’s why boot camp exists: to filter out those who don’t belong and to build up those who do.

And for someone who seemed so concerned about representation in the military, Houlahan was quick to marginalize the military’s largest demographics:

And this is a message to me that's chilling for people who are different than these, kind of, traditional white male Christian from the South, which I think is his vision of who should be the only people who serve.

None of which was actually brought up during Hegseth’s address. That aside, large majority of U.S. service members were: a) Republican; b) white; c) male; and d) Christian-identifying. That was true before Hegseth was appointed, and it’s been that way for a long time.

Perhaps worst of all, the Congresswoman (who was also a veteran and a member of the Armed Services Committee) encouraged military leadership to subvert Hegseth and Trump’s messaging efforts:

BASH: And at the end of his riff, he said, "If the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign." These are to the highest ranking military officials in the nation.

(…)

HOULAHAN: And so if the challenge was get out, then I would say to those generals, “Stay put, because we need you. We need you and your experience to counter the message of Mr. Hegseth, and, frankly, the President himself as well.”

There was no justification for this. Unless a higher-up directly orders illegal activity, then military leadership was obligated to follow those orders faithfully. Dissonance created confusion and incoherence, which would clearly be contrary to Hegseth’s mission towards a uniform military.

CNN was more worried with bashing the Trump administration and playing identity politics than legitimate national security concerns. It’s likely the military will see some dramatic fluctuations. But may end up smaller, but those who remain will be the best and most dedicated — the ones who actually belong in the U.S. military.

The transcript is below. Click "expand" read:

CNN’s Inside Politics with Dana Bash

September 30, 2025

12:09:28 p.m. EST

(…)

DANA BASH: Okay. I do — I want to get back to that in a second, but I do want to talk about women in the military. And Brianna, you know a lot about this, and I just want to give some stats and bring you in. Active-duty military members — this is as of 2023 — male is 82.3 percent, female is 17.7 percent. And then, if you break it down, women in active-duty military — this is as of 2023 — Navy is little more than 20 percent, Army little more than 15 percent, Marine little more than nine, and Air Force and Space Force, much higher, at 21.4 percent.

BRIANNA KEILAR: Yep. Very well represented in the all-volunteer force here in the U.S. And, you know, talking to people who are military-connected — and I've just been talking to them kind of in the course of the last several months, and especially a lot over the last several hours about some of the things that were said today.

One of the things we heard the Secretary of Defense say was that he doesn't “want his son serving with troops who are out of shape or in combat units with females who can't meet the same Combat Arms physical standards as men.”

And I think that a lot of people in the military may point out that that's not something that is broadly happening. I mean, we should just be clear. It's not like women are being waved into these Combat Arms positions, right? There are no female Navy SEALs. There still have not been. There have been some women who have made it into the ranks of the Green Berets, into Army Rangers — not many — and they can carry a comrade in arms on their back. And there's pictures of them doing it —

BASH: Meaning that they already are held to the same standard?

KEILAR: They are held to the same standard. Now, that's not to say, in a more broad sense, there have not been some exceptions. But when we're talking about people who are in those kind of serious Combat Arms roles that I think sort of the layman listening to what Secretary Hegseth is saying, that's just to be very clear, they're not being waved in to these positions.

So, I think knowing that, one of the concerns that I'm hearing from a lot of people who have national security in mind is, what is the message that is being sent to women? Clearly, they're a huge part of the military, and the expectation is they'll continue to be and that they need to be. It's not just, you know, they'll tell you. It's not just that it's a nice thing to have women in the military. It's that it's essential.

The vast majority of young Americans are disqualified from military service, or they have absolutely no interest in serving, and this military runs on volunteers. So, a lot of those people are women and they're essential for national security.

AYESHA RASCOE: Yeah. I mean, I think that, you know, obviously Trump and Hegseth, they’re showman, they know how to put on a show. I always wonder, though, about, well, okay, what happens, like, are you able — you're able to put on a show, but are you able to effectively direct the military and all of these very important things that need to be done?

And even though Trump is saying that, you know, going to these cities is preparation for the National Guard, is there some sort of cost to having all of these military units deployed across the country? Like, basically helping clean up the National Mall and things like that. Like, what if there is an actual emergency? These are the questions that I have.

KRISTEN HOLMES: Can I just — I just want to add one thing to what Brianna said. It's not as though the women that go into the military are asking for a different set of standards. I mean, most women who go into the military understand that there's a high bar to meet. It's not as though you have all these women who are applying to go into the military and asking for leniency on this stuff. They also want the same requirements that there are for other soldiers. So, I think this idea that, you know, as you said, it's very small, like, minority that are people who are getting some kind of leniency. But the idea as a whole doesn't really make sense.

KEILAR: And there's barriers to retention as well that women face that men don't face. I mean, the sexual assault numbers will tell you that as well. But also the type of combat that he is talking about, right? It really does evoke the Global War on Terror, and combat is shifting.

And if you talk to people in the national security sphere, they'll tell you that. We see all these stories about drone warfare, A.I., cyber. This isn't necessarily the same kind of warfare that you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, and women are essential to that — just as are men. You know, smart people are essential to that, and that means women.

(…)

12:42:10 p.m. EST

BASH: Here with me now to discuss this is Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a member of the Armed Services Committee and an Air Force veteran. Thank you so much for being here. You obviously are a woman. As I said, you are a veteran. What do you think of the Secretary's message today?

REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Thank you once again for having me on. What I would say is that Secretary Hegseth and I have had this conversation in person face-to-face before. I’ve challenged him to explain what he means by standards and whether or not that means that women would be excluded from different positions. And he was terribly evasive at the time.

And right now, I think we're at a place where — you didn't show the part of his conversation where he said that we were returning to male standards. So you can't be — you can't have it both ways. You can't have standard standards and then male standards. Either it's a standard or it's not.

And where he and I do agree is that if people have to meet certain standards, they should have to meet certain standards. But he is very much, obviously, reducing the possibility that women will continue to be part of the armed services in those positions.

And what I would ask of him is, “What happens to those women who are currently there right now? What have you just said to them? What have you said to them about their ability to continue with their career?”

BASH: Well, yeah, I was going to get to that, so I'm glad you brought it up. What do you think the answer is? As somebody who served, you were active duty for three years in the Air Force and the Reserves for a very long time. If you were still serving and you heard that, what would the message be to you?

HOULAHAN: The message to me would be, “You're not wanted here.” The message to me would be, “To get out.”

And we need every single person who wants to serve, this is an all-volunteer service, and we need people who have all kinds of capabilities and talents. And this is a message to me that's chilling for people who are different than these, kind of, traditional white male Christian from the South, which I think is his vision of who should be the only people who serve.

BASH: One of the other things that he did is he talked about the cultural — the way that the military has gone culturally over the years. He wants to change all that, what he calls woke, on a lot of different policies. And he was talking, of course, to the military heads, 800 of them, who in an unprecedented way were brought out of their posts from around the world to be in person with him.

And at the end of his riff, he said, "If the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign." These are to the highest ranking military officials in the nation.

HOULAHAN: Yeah. First of all, that whole meeting could have been an email, as they say. That was a ridiculous waste of time. It was, I think, an operational security nightmare. I think it was irresponsible for him to gather people in that way.

But secondly, what I would ask of those generals and admirals to whom he was speaking, I would implore them to stick and to stay. You know, I grew up in a military family, and my father would always tell me that you can't serve outside. You can't solve from the outside what is going on on the inside. And so if the challenge was get out, then I would say to those generals, “Stay put, because we need you. We need you and your experience to counter the message of Mr. Hegseth, and, frankly, the President himself as well.”

(…)