Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted on X that the United States would now have a “High-T Department of War.” This would be implemented by mandating that soldiers aged 30 and older undergo a testosterone screening at their annual physical exam. If their levels were deemed low, the soldiers would be offered a prescription for testosterone supplementation.
I have questions. I have many questions, in fact.
In his video, Hegseth begins by noting that as we age, testosterone levels “naturally drop.” But he goes on to say that supplementation with testosterone “is not about artificial enhancement, it’s about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities.”
I’m confused: If lower testosterone is natural when one ages, why is raising it with exogenous supplements not to be considered artificial enhancement?
If troops on testosterone therapy were to be deployed, they would presumably continue with this hormone therapy on deployment. But Hegseth has previously argued that transgender individuals could not serve in the military in part because they were undeployable due to the fact that they were reliant on daily hormone therapy, and Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin has said this sounds like “gender-affirming care.” So would troops on testosterone also be undeployable? If not, why not?
The United States is currently engaged in hostilities with Iran. At the moment, things are not going well in terms of the U.S. achieving its stated objectives. How, exactly, would things have gone better if our troops had been on testosterone therapy? Would we have managed to hit more targets if our soldiers were on hormone therapy? Hit them faster, or harder? By what possible metric will we conclude that having our soldiers take exogenous testosterone improved our military and diplomatic outcomes with Iran?
About 18% of U.S. troops are female. Will they be subject to testosterone screening as well? Since women normally have only 5-10% of the testosterone levels men have, will they all need to be on testosterone supplementation? If that is believed to be unnecessary, then why? And how can we explain why female soldiers seem to perform just fine in their assigned military roles without male levels of testosterone? Or is this one way of insinuating that they never can?
Hegseth repeatedly notes in his video that testosterone supplementation will aid in maintaining “long-term health.” But the situation is actually more nuanced: testosterone supplementation in men is associated with reduced sperm production and shrinking of the testicles, gynecomastia (development of breast tissue in men), suppressed immune response, higher red blood cell count (which might increase the risk of blood clots), atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea, enlargement of the prostate, kidney injury, pulmonary embolism, hair loss and skin problems. If a soldier refuses testosterone supplementation because of these risks, will he be viewed as insufficiently dedicated or capable in his military role? And if a male soldier develops gynecomastia, the enlargement of breast tissue, will he be given access to cosmetic surgery to decrease his breast size, even though the military typically does not pay for cosmetic surgery?
More broadly, over the male life cycle, the decrease in circulating testosterone is associated with life events that help you mature. Get married, and your circulating T drops. Have a baby with your wife, and circulating T drops further. Testosterone is the hormone designed to motivate a man to obtain sufficient status, through dominance or eminence, to attract a mate. Circulating T is highest in the age group 15-25, and if a man is successful in attracting a committed mate, the reward is to see one’s circulating T drop. In contrast, it is during the ages where circulating T is highest that men act in a way that increases their mortality. One researcher notes:
“We know that between the ages of about 15 and 25, in pretty much every population including in nonhuman primates, there’s a big increase in male mortality, and usually it’s due to risky behavior. You end up seeing males do stupid things to procure mates. That’s why it’s very expensive to insure an 18-year-old if he has a car.”
Nature’s reward for age and procreation is to be less hormonally inclined as a man to “do stupid things.” Indeed, the very best military leaders our nation produced — George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower and George C. Marshall, to name a few — likely did not have the circulating T levels of a young man, and that may have been the very reason they were so successful. They were less inclined to take foolish risks, less inclined to rise to the bait, less likely to underestimate others, more likely to plan ahead, more capable of considering the longer term. High T makes a man more motivated to pursue a mate, but does nothing for his level of wisdom or strategic acumen.
Why, then, would we expect a “High-T Department of War” to be more effective at securing the national interest than a “Normal-T Department of War”? Indeed, might it not be less effective?
And related to this critical question, it seems to me, is the question of whether Hegseth himself is supplementing with testosterone. If he is, that certainly explains much about this new mandate, and speaks to the question of whether “high T” leadership in the Department of Defense has made a difference for the better for the United States — or not.
So, yes, I have lots of questions about Hegseth’s quest for a “High-T Department of War.” And so should the country.