The Pentagon’s decision to commission a review of the “effectiveness” of women in combat arms roles marks a significant moment nearly ten years after these positions were formally opened to women. Framed around the enforcement of “elite, uniform, and sex-neutral” standards, the review - conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses - will assess readiness, training outcomes, casualties, and deployability across the Army and Marine Corps. Officially, the rationale is operational: to ensure that combat standards are not diluted and that performance requirements reflect the realities of ground combat. However, the timing and rhetoric surrounding the review suggest that it is as much a political and cultural signal as a technical evaluation.

The review unfolds against a backdrop of longstanding ideological resistance to women in combat, most visibly associated with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Prior to assuming office, Hegseth publicly argued that integrating women into combat roles undermined lethality and reflected a progressive social agenda rather than military necessity. Although his position softened during his confirmation hearing—emphasizing equal standards rather than outright exclusion—his earlier statements continue to shape perceptions of the review’s intent. This raises concerns that “effectiveness” may be narrowly defined through a lens that privileges physical metrics while underplaying broader dimensions of military performance, such as cohesion, adaptability, and the evolving character of warfare.

More broadly, the review sits uneasily alongside the Department of War’s stated commitments to Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) principles, which emphasize inclusive participation as a force multiplier rather than a liability. With thousands of women already serving in infantry, armor, and artillery roles, the question is no longer whether women belong in combat, but how institutions assess success in modern military operations. If conducted rigorously and transparently, the review could reinforce the legitimacy of sex-neutral standards while affirming women’s contributions. If not, it risks reopening settled debates and reframing gender integration as an unresolved experiment rather than an established component of contemporary armed forces.

For the women already serving in these roles, however, the premise of the review is itself a source of frustration. Many describe a decade spent meeting the same gender-neutral standards in training, fitness, and combat performance, only to see their competence repeatedly treated as provisional. Former Army adviser Kris Fuhr notes that the military has already tracked unit readiness and performance in integrated combat units for years without finding any decline, making the renewed scrutiny feel less like quality control than a reopening of a question that was already empirically settled.

Internationally, the United States’ move also departs from prevailing practice among allied militaries. Across Europe, most armed forces retain gender- and age-differentiated physical standards for general service, reserving fully unified benchmarks only for elite close-combat or special operations roles. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain all calibrate baseline tests to physiological differences while maintaining common thresholds for their most demanding units, reflecting a model that treats inclusion and operational effectiveness as compatible rather than mutually exclusive.

To read the full story, see here

Learn more here

To learn more gender-differentiated approaches across Europe, see here