Seems like they're having trouble recruiting people to serve as America launches headlong into GWOT 2.0 with no plan. It makes sense that people aren't signing up: it's a very unpopular war that was started by assassinating leaders during peace talks and bombing an elementary school, and it's not one they're winning.
And it's also a war with no clear benefit to Americans, which Marco Rubio admitted they were dragged into by Israel.
I think smart people do NOT want to enlist while Trump is Commander in Chief and Hegseth is in charge of the Military. The way the crew of the USS Ford have been treated is despicable.
Well, I'm old enough to remember many "peace talks" go to eternity wit absolutely zero results. In many countries around the world. Just to create the argument.
Up from 35 years. Average age is currently 22, though.
Air Force and Space force went to 42 years back in 2023. The Navy went to 42 years in early 2026.
Maximum age for the Marines remains 28 years.
With high youth unemployment [1], it ought to be easier to recruit.
The land war is getting closer. The Army's 82nd Airborne has been sent towards Iran. Possibly to take Kharg Island, one of the very few objectives for which an airdrop might possibly make sense.[1] Possibly. 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force is already on the way.
When I joined the army as an infantryman back in the early 2000s there were kids who couldn’t start basic training because they weren’t capable of doing 6 pushups. 6.
I believe at the time they were allowing 38 year olds to join for the first time which seemed crazy to me. Now that I’m in my early 40s I can’t imagine going back in
The US military is in the process of changing fitness standards, mostly for ideological reasons [0]. Most enlisted I’ve spoken to consider the new tests harder, especially for women, but it isn’t clear cut and implementation across services has been weird.
Rumor is they’re also cracking down on (specifically medical, not religious) shaving waviers again, probably because some minorities have a skin condition that makes regular shaving painful.
So it’s a bit of a conundrum! They obviously want more enlisted so they can do more wars in more places, but they also are adding disincentives for female or nonwhite enlisted.
> “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” he said. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
“It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are,” he continued.
> “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape, or in a combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men” Hegseth said.
I went into the armed forces recruiting office a year or two ago for Air Force Cyber and the adjacent Army and Navy recruiters were complaining that no one wanted to join while everyone was asking for Air Force when the Air Force recruiter was out for most of the year because he had met his quotas. Somehow I ended up in the Navy office and suffice to say I left the office with a big no to the Navy man no matter how much he tried to persuade me with promises of seeing the world. I have the internet for that thank you.
All my vet friends said to reconsider and I wisely followed their advice.
Just before I turned 35 and wanted to change careers, I spent a few days really considering enlisting, but decided I would not do well in an environment where 20 years olds outranked me :)
So I know you're making a joke/statement about how the post-9/11 volunteers got royally screwed over and are (understandably) disillusioned with war but I just wanted to add something here.
This change increases maximum enlistment age. Maximum reenlistment age is something else entirely. To reenlist, you need to be able to complete 20 years of service by age 62. So if you joined at 18 and did 8 years then you can technically rennlist up to age 50. Not that you would or should but you can.
Presumably a 42 year old who can meet the fitness tests will be a better candidate than a 25 year old who cannot. Less 42 year olds will be able to meet the requirements, but the ones that do are what they’re after.
That's about a 8:30 mile scaling for the fact that its harder when you have to cover more distance... seems pretty reasonable to me as a fitness baseline for the army. I would struggle to make that now but if I had one month to prep I could clear that
I'm not sure if you're saying this as somebody who never runs, or somebody who runs so often that you've forgotten baseline levels. That's a very significant hurdle for most people. I'm in very good shape strength wise, but I'd almost certainly need to do some significant training to meet that since I just never run.
I do run for (for weight loss and general health) and at one point had a BMI in the mid-thirties. Back then I was able to make that pace for sessions of 30-40 minutes on most days. That's not to say it was easy, but for a LEO role like ICE it's very reasonable to expect better - that's my point.
Depends on what you mean by untrained. I think most men who exercise regularly and don't carry a ton of extra bodyweight, even with zero running, could bang out 1.5 miles at 9:40 pace. Couch potatoes, no.
How many young men do you know who have never tried marijuana, don't have a tattoo and don't have facial hair? A few years ago it seemed the Army didn't actually want to recruit young men. They loosened the tattoo requirements in 2022. The facial hair requirement remains, but that's less of an imposition since you can grow it back.
They'll have to start taking harassment seriously if they want to recruit more young women.
I don't know about the facial hair. It would take me months to grow back my moustache, and until then I'd look 10 years younger. Given my age that would be pretty ridiculous.
Facial hair prevents the proper functioning of gas masks and other sorts of PPE that sits on your face. Hypothetically speaking, [0] I'd rather deal with looking like a minor than with getting a snoot and face full of something dreadfully toxic.
[0] Hypothetical because I'm way too old to ever be confused with a minor again.
There are limits on gang tattoos, face/neck/hand tattoos and tattoos that promote various hate-based or extremist ideologies (e.g. Nazi or KKK tattoos.) Other than that, tattoos are allowed.
That is why we vote. Canvas your neighborhood. Start local. Go to your city counsel meetings. Tell your representatives what you think or even run for local office. Support the people that won't take us to war. Democracy works when people participate.
What will US public do if US in Iran ends up like Russia in Ukraine, recruiting 30K soldiers every month to die in middle east?
Maybe at this time they are having trouble recruiting but just like Russia US has large prison population that may like the offer thar Russian prisoners got: 6 months on the frontlines, if you survive you are free and well paid.
Just today Iran backed militants released a video of drones takings out US helicopters and radars, very similar to what we are used to seeing in Ukraine.
Is US public really ready to support such a thing and endure hardship like the Russians for ideological causes?
It’s fascinating, maybe Trump is right- maybe his supporters are literally tired of winning and want attrition?
I used to think the same but according to the polls I keep seeing the support for war seems to be very strong, up to %100 among MAGA in fact.
They used to say they are against war, against "jewish influence", against this against that but nothing seems to be changing their minds. I thought that this high ranking MAGA dude who resign over "Israel influence concerns" and immediately did rounds on the MAGA-sphere popular outlets doesn't seem to have any influence on the support for the war.
Maybe its some more primal urge to kill and get killed and Trump has control over it?
Thats the general public that apparently doesn't have any grip. You can do whatever you want if tens of millions of people + the billionaires support you till the end when hundreds of millions are mildly annoyed by you.
Surprised comments are so negative. I think it's a great thing to expand - the military can be an excellent career path, and this allows more people to take it should they choose.
I know many 40 somethings in way better shape than most 20 somethings. And all things considered, if I were someday somehow sent off to war, I'd much rather be surrounded by the former assuming equivalent fitness.
Many people look for purpose and impact in their careers.
If one has impact in the military, what purpose is it serving under current administration and leadership? It's a hard sell from an ethical perspective.
Jobs that feel purposeless is a common complaint but actively serving evil?
You're absolutely right. I was having trouble understanding why every commenter seems completely wrong about what the Army is, and recruitment numbers, and basically everything else.
I'm arguing with children and people not in the US. Time for bed.
Why not just join ICE? The acts you might have to commit there are probably less bad than what the military gets up to, and you don't get sent overseas?
Are you admonishing people for not being selfish and making decisions which benefit themselves even if it puts them in a position where they can't say no to wronging someone else?
What does this even mean? "If you just ignore the fact that your job is murdering people for no reason, the benefits are great!" Why, exactly, should people "disassociate" that?
You are asking whether someone should not have picked the military career if it was the best fit for them, just because you are personally morally against what they do?
That's why i dont confound the military with the political aparatus's directing of said power. Because the military isn't murdering people for no reason - they are following (in the case of the west) a elected official's policy (which you are very welcome to dislike and oppose, as i do as well).
The negativity isn’t anti-military service. It’s because this specific expansion at this particular time for this current administration is all very ridiculous.
I think most people still are in support of the idea if military service even if that job may entail death.
Yeah just think of how great it would've been to serve in the past decades. Oh wait you'd still end up killing people in the Mideast - half way around the world, and in turn getting killed by them, all in endeavors that ultimately make the world a worse and less safe place. And that certainly includes America.
Becoming an E-1 at age 40 isn't a "career path", it's a last resort for somebody who for whatever reason can't make more than $30K/year with the skills they've gained over the last 25 years, and for whom having functioning knees is less important than needing the money.
So they should just age out in poverty and die? Such people exist. To be clear, I'm 1000% against anything resembling a draft, but if an older person wants to, why stop them? A guy in my brother's medical doctor graduation class was 46 years old. Good thing nobody explained to him it was too late and he failed already.
In all seriousness, I do agree about the functioning knees part. But as long as it's voluntary, I don't see the downside.
You referred to joining the US military as an E-1 at the age of 42 as a career path. As an Army brat, I can tell you that it absolutely is not. At that age, it absolutely is a job of last resort.
We are slowly grinding towards another world war the reason similar to world war 2. Ie an ethno state expanding it's territory while considering it's population as some kind of master race so commiting a genocide against the rest. Ironic the victims have become the perpetuators.
The military has spent decades working on a general aptitude test, called the ASVAB [1]. It's a score up to 99, which is usually what people focus on, but there are also line scores for things like electrical and mechanical. When you join, there'll be a score range you'll need to be in and possibly certain subtest scores.
Generally speaking, you've needed a minimum ASVAB of 31 to join the military. Recruiting stations will have quotas of only accepting so many below 50 so if you're below 50 you may have a more restrictive choice of job, even though you qualify, because you're an undesirable candidate. You take up a valuable sub-50 slot. Oh and below 50 and the Air Force won't even sneeze on you. They don't have to take you. They have more than enough applicants.
This can go the other way too. You can score too high for certain jobs such that they won't want to sign you up because you'll get bored. This is way less common obviously.
Every area of the country is covered by a recruiting station ("RS") for each branch and is staffed by recruiters who usually aren't volunteers (eg most marines on a re-enlistment after an initial 4 years will have to do a Special Duty Assignment--SDA--and will end up as a recruiter or a drill instructor). Each recruiter will generally have a quota to fill of 2 contracts per month.
In some areas (eg Texas) this is no problem at all. Recruiters can be picky. In others, it's way more of a challenge. Anyway, a few years ago the enlistment numbers for the Navy must've gotten so bad that for awhile they were accepting an ASVAB of 10 [1]. 10 is bordering on illiterate.
I say this because raising the maximum enlistment age to 42 is almost as desperate as lowering the ASVAB minimum to 10. I cannot imagine a 42 year old E-! in basic getting yelled at by a 23 year old DI. You won't be doing 20 for the pension. I guess you'll get the GI Bill after 3-4 years. That's something I guess? Most other 42 year olds you'll meet will be near or beyond their 20 years.
In 2004, as a senior in high school, I tried enlisting in the Marines (infantry, what was I thinking based on the year). I scored 99 on the ASVAB (finished way earlier than everyone else) with a high SAT score as well.
Passed all the physicals at Fort Dix. I was rejected.
Soon after an Army recruiter called me and said they are willing to take me.
Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
And they wouldn't be the types to sign up to face an opponent who is more dangerous than a young mother driving their kids to school or a uni student walking home.
This is because we’re paying people to get into shape to the point where they can be considered for service. And that began before the current presidential administration, who I think are planning to cancel this initiative
It’s crazy that Hegseth has a Christian nationalist tattoo on his chest. And watching him bully the Boy Scouts into becoming a “god centric” program, the Nazi Christian vibes are strong.
Edit - to respond to some of the replies all at once:
- German swastika is literally a different symbol than Buddhist and Hindu swastikas
- If Hegseth is actually proclaiming he's an extremist maybe use that proclamation as evidence rather than demonising a cross motif that existed nearly a millennia before the United States
- And whoever thinks the crusades were about slaughtering non-believers seems to not know anything about history, Jerusalem was Christian for centuries before Mohammed was even born and the Muslims were the invaders...
- It's extremely hypocritical to call Christian symbols "extremist" or whatever while giving a pass to symbols from a certain other religion that's particularly fond of conquest and has conquered significantly more previously Christian regions than the reverse...
I don't know much about the Kingdom of Jerusalem per se, but even today many Jews say prayers specifically written after the Crusades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
So the symbols of "hope and triumph of establishing Christianity in the Holy Land" do not evoke particularly positive connotations, even aside from the usual modern opposition to that particular mission.
The shooter who committed the 2019 New Zealand mosque massacre thought that.
Fellow members and leaders of Hegseth's National Guard unit thought that.
Crusader symbols in general have grown popular with many far-right nationalists, who see the imagery as a nod to an era of European Christian wars against Muslims and Jews.
Contemporary usage of symbols is often at odds with and regardless of any historic original back story and meaning.
> If Hegseth is actually proclaiming he's an extremist ...
Nope, he's always banging on about being a Proud, Patriotic, American, Christian, Nationalist. I can't say I've ever heard him proclaim himself to be an extremist ... save perhaps in the extreme love of God and America he professes to have. You can hear him Capitalise the words as he spits them forth.
Who on earth thinks the buddhist swastika is a German nationalist symbol? Oh, right, everyone who saw Nazis use it. Turns out that when one group uses a symbol to represent themselves, that symbol becomes associated with them. Go figure.
In this case it's not even "a symbol represents who it is used by". You literally linked to an article that espouses about how it's a symbol of the Crusades, i.e. united Christendom coming together to slaughter non-believers, in other words it has always been a symbol of hatred.
“Increases the maximum enlistment age up to and including age 42 for non-prior service applicants” (previously maximum age was 35)
“Eliminates requirement of a waiver for a single conviction of possession of marijuana or a single conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia”
And it's also a war with no clear benefit to Americans, which Marco Rubio admitted they were dragged into by Israel.
I'm no fan of Benjamin Netanyahu, but he's hardly the only one angling for advantage.
Well, I'm old enough to remember many "peace talks" go to eternity wit absolutely zero results. In many countries around the world. Just to create the argument.
Maximum age for the Marines remains 28 years.
With high youth unemployment [1], it ought to be easier to recruit.
The land war is getting closer. The Army's 82nd Airborne has been sent towards Iran. Possibly to take Kharg Island, one of the very few objectives for which an airdrop might possibly make sense.[1] Possibly. 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force is already on the way.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLUEM1524ZSUSA
[2] https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-24-2026
I believe at the time they were allowing 38 year olds to join for the first time which seemed crazy to me. Now that I’m in my early 40s I can’t imagine going back in
Rumor is they’re also cracking down on (specifically medical, not religious) shaving waviers again, probably because some minorities have a skin condition that makes regular shaving painful.
So it’s a bit of a conundrum! They obviously want more enlisted so they can do more wars in more places, but they also are adding disincentives for female or nonwhite enlisted.
[0] https://www.fitnesswarriornation.com/hegseth-military-fitnes...
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5528556-hegseth-warrior-e...
> “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” he said. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
“It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are,” he continued.
> “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape, or in a combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men” Hegseth said.
All my vet friends said to reconsider and I wisely followed their advice.
This change increases maximum enlistment age. Maximum reenlistment age is something else entirely. To reenlist, you need to be able to complete 20 years of service by age 62. So if you joined at 18 and did 8 years then you can technically rennlist up to age 50. Not that you would or should but you can.
Hilarious.
They'll have to start taking harassment seriously if they want to recruit more young women.
Facial hair prevents the proper functioning of gas masks and other sorts of PPE that sits on your face. Hypothetically speaking, [0] I'd rather deal with looking like a minor than with getting a snoot and face full of something dreadfully toxic.
[0] Hypothetical because I'm way too old to ever be confused with a minor again.
Yeah, um.. about that...
Maybe at this time they are having trouble recruiting but just like Russia US has large prison population that may like the offer thar Russian prisoners got: 6 months on the frontlines, if you survive you are free and well paid.
Just today Iran backed militants released a video of drones takings out US helicopters and radars, very similar to what we are used to seeing in Ukraine.
Is US public really ready to support such a thing and endure hardship like the Russians for ideological causes?
It’s fascinating, maybe Trump is right- maybe his supporters are literally tired of winning and want attrition?
Assuming elections still happen, that scenario would mean the end of the Republican party.
They used to say they are against war, against "jewish influence", against this against that but nothing seems to be changing their minds. I thought that this high ranking MAGA dude who resign over "Israel influence concerns" and immediately did rounds on the MAGA-sphere popular outlets doesn't seem to have any influence on the support for the war.
Maybe its some more primal urge to kill and get killed and Trump has control over it?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-approval-hits-new-36...
They attacked a HH-60M Medevac helicopter which is a war crime, and also explains why it wasn't protected.
Also, the radar was Iraqi, although possibly jointly operated with the US.
I know many 40 somethings in way better shape than most 20 somethings. And all things considered, if I were someday somehow sent off to war, I'd much rather be surrounded by the former assuming equivalent fitness.
If one has impact in the military, what purpose is it serving under current administration and leadership? It's a hard sell from an ethical perspective.
Jobs that feel purposeless is a common complaint but actively serving evil?
It's midnight in the US on a workday, what would be more American than non-Americans complaining about America on American social media?
I'm arguing with children and people not in the US. Time for bed.
it's because people cannot disassociate their own anti-war views with the benefits of a military career.
That's why i dont confound the military with the political aparatus's directing of said power. Because the military isn't murdering people for no reason - they are following (in the case of the west) a elected official's policy (which you are very welcome to dislike and oppose, as i do as well).
I think most people still are in support of the idea if military service even if that job may entail death.
In all seriousness, I do agree about the functioning knees part. But as long as it's voluntary, I don't see the downside.
I'm not privy to the decisions about how staffing 42-year-old As infantry men is militarily wise, however.
You referred to joining the US military as an E-1 at the age of 42 as a career path. As an Army brat, I can tell you that it absolutely is not. At that age, it absolutely is a job of last resort.
Oh, come on.
Generally speaking, you've needed a minimum ASVAB of 31 to join the military. Recruiting stations will have quotas of only accepting so many below 50 so if you're below 50 you may have a more restrictive choice of job, even though you qualify, because you're an undesirable candidate. You take up a valuable sub-50 slot. Oh and below 50 and the Air Force won't even sneeze on you. They don't have to take you. They have more than enough applicants.
This can go the other way too. You can score too high for certain jobs such that they won't want to sign you up because you'll get bored. This is way less common obviously.
Every area of the country is covered by a recruiting station ("RS") for each branch and is staffed by recruiters who usually aren't volunteers (eg most marines on a re-enlistment after an initial 4 years will have to do a Special Duty Assignment--SDA--and will end up as a recruiter or a drill instructor). Each recruiter will generally have a quota to fill of 2 contracts per month.
In some areas (eg Texas) this is no problem at all. Recruiters can be picky. In others, it's way more of a challenge. Anyway, a few years ago the enlistment numbers for the Navy must've gotten so bad that for awhile they were accepting an ASVAB of 10 [1]. 10 is bordering on illiterate.
I say this because raising the maximum enlistment age to 42 is almost as desperate as lowering the ASVAB minimum to 10. I cannot imagine a 42 year old E-! in basic getting yelled at by a 23 year old DI. You won't be doing 20 for the pension. I guess you'll get the GI Bill after 3-4 years. That's something I guess? Most other 42 year olds you'll meet will be near or beyond their 20 years.
[1]: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-recruiting-afqt-asvab-s...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti...
Passed all the physicals at Fort Dix. I was rejected.
Soon after an Army recruiter called me and said they are willing to take me.
Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
Next time you start to generalize about "Americans" exhibiting some kind of unified belief or behavior, just stop and think about how stupid that is.
And they wouldn't be the types to sign up to face an opponent who is more dangerous than a young mother driving their kids to school or a uni student walking home.
https://www.military.com/feature/2026/03/24/recruiting-surge...
If it works, it works.
Who on earth thinks a Jerusalem cross is a "Christian nationalist" symbol?
https://www.pieceofholyland.com/blogs/christian-articles/the...
Edit - to respond to some of the replies all at once:
- German swastika is literally a different symbol than Buddhist and Hindu swastikas
- If Hegseth is actually proclaiming he's an extremist maybe use that proclamation as evidence rather than demonising a cross motif that existed nearly a millennia before the United States
- And whoever thinks the crusades were about slaughtering non-believers seems to not know anything about history, Jerusalem was Christian for centuries before Mohammed was even born and the Muslims were the invaders...
- It's extremely hypocritical to call Christian symbols "extremist" or whatever while giving a pass to symbols from a certain other religion that's particularly fond of conquest and has conquered significantly more previously Christian regions than the reverse...
The shooter who committed the 2019 New Zealand mosque massacre thought that.
Fellow members and leaders of Hegseth's National Guard unit thought that.
Crusader symbols in general have grown popular with many far-right nationalists, who see the imagery as a nod to an era of European Christian wars against Muslims and Jews.
Contemporary usage of symbols is often at odds with and regardless of any historic original back story and meaning.
Of possible interest: https://religionunplugged.com/news/pete-hegseth-trumps-defen...
and: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/pete-hegseth-christian-national...
Addendum:
> If Hegseth is actually proclaiming he's an extremist ...
Nope, he's always banging on about being a Proud, Patriotic, American, Christian, Nationalist. I can't say I've ever heard him proclaim himself to be an extremist ... save perhaps in the extreme love of God and America he professes to have. You can hear him Capitalise the words as he spits them forth.
In this case it's not even "a symbol represents who it is used by". You literally linked to an article that espouses about how it's a symbol of the Crusades, i.e. united Christendom coming together to slaughter non-believers, in other words it has always been a symbol of hatred.
https://newlinesmag.com/essays/pete-hegseths-tattoos-and-the...
I mean, who wouldn't jump to join such an organization? /s