On a chilly Tuesday evening in December, a busload of fresh recruits arrived at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, dashing through the rain toward a reception center. Instead of the high-decibel verbal abuse or “shark attacks” historically associated with the arrival of new soldiers, the atmosphere was professional and business-like. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Cory Sandifer directed the arrivals with clear, calm orders, reflecting a decade-long shift in military philosophy away from intimidation and toward mentoring. However, this era of “coaching” may soon come to an end as Secretary of War Pete Hegseth moves to restore a more aggressive culture to initial entry training.
Why it Matters
The proposed shift marks a fundamental reversal in how the United States military “forges” its personnel. For years, the Department of Defense has moved away from high-stress indoctrination following a series of high-profile hazing scandals and concerns over recruit mental health. By reinstating tougher tactics, Hegseth aims to prioritize combat readiness and “healthy fear,” though critics warn that returning to such methods could invite a resurgence of abuse and trauma that the military has spent years trying to eradicate.
What to Know
During a recent gathering at Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth addressed hundreds of senior leaders regarding his vision for the future of the force. He argued that basic training has become too soft and needs to return to being “scary, tough, and disciplined.” Under this new directive, drill instructors would be empowered to use tactics previously sidelined, such as shark attacks—where multiple instructors swarm a recruit simultaneously—and the tossing of bunks to enforce order.
Hegseth’s plan also includes a controversial expansion of instructor authority, suggesting that drill sergeants should once again be permitted to use physical force and profanity to instill discipline. To facilitate this, Hegseth has issued official memorandums calling for a re-evaluation of how the military defines hazing, bullying, and harassment. He argued these terms have been “weaponized” to prevent officers from enforcing standards. This push for “toughness” comes despite a 2021 study which found that official reports significantly understated the actual number of hazing incidents across the branches by tens of thousands.
What People are Saying
The reaction from the military community is deeply divided. Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, warned that some instructors might see these comments as a “license to be abusive.” Similarly, retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Rodriguez argued that “leadership is not something that is beaten into you,” suggesting that discipline based on fear results in “genuine followership” being lost in favor of simply “running from a stick.”
Conversely, proponents of Hegseth’s view believe the pendulum has swung too far toward comfort. While retired Air Force Gen. Robin Rand agreed that training must be the hardest experience of a recruit’s life, he maintained a “do no harm” philosophy. “You definitely need disciplined warriors,” Rand said, “The method I would use, though, does not lead me to believe you’ve got to yell, scream and physically intimidate.”
What Happens Next
The Defense Department is now tasked with drafting new guidelines that distinguish between “rigorous training” and prohibited conduct. This transition will be particularly notable at Lackland Air Force Base, which overhauled its training protocols following a massive 2011 sexual abuse scandal involving instructors. As the military attempts to balance the need for “scary” training with the legal and moral obligation to protect trainees, the new standards will likely face intense scrutiny from both Congress and military advocacy groups.
