300-Pound Bench Press at 75 Fuels Pentagon's Testosterone Push

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants U.S. troops tested for testosterone levels and, where levels fall short, offered testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) — a policy he has described as essential to maintaining what one Guardian columnist called 'what's left of our civilization.' Hegseth frames the effort as 'restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity, and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight,' according to a column by Dave Schilling published in The Guardian.

The policy has landed amid a broader administration push on hormone therapy. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed limits on TRT prescriptions in June 2026, Schilling writes, making it easier for doctors to prescribe testosterone to men who want it rather than, in Schilling's description, obtaining it informally outside a clinical setting.

What exactly is Hegseth proposing for soldiers?

According to the Guardian column, Hegseth's plan centers on testing service members' testosterone levels and offering TRT to those who do not meet a threshold the Pentagon considers sufficient. The stated rationale, in Hegseth's own words as quoted by Schilling, is about combat readiness and longevity — not aesthetics or athletic performance. The column frames the push as part of a wider cultural moment in the administration that treats testosterone as a proxy for military and civic vigor.

What changed with RFK Jr.'s June 2026 rule?

Kennedy's move to lift restrictions on TRT prescriptions, described in the column as happening in June of this year, widens the pool of men who can legally obtain the hormone through a physician. Schilling contrasts this with the alternative he jokingly cites — informal, unregulated sources — to underscore the practical effect of the rule change: more men routed into a medical pathway rather than outside one. The column does not cite a specific prescription-volume figure tied to the rule change, and no such number appears in the source material.

Is the science on TRT settled?

No, and the column says as much. Schilling writes that the benefits of testosterone replacement therapy for cisgender men are 'hotly debated' among researchers, declining to adjudicate the dispute himself. The piece does not name specific studies or quantify risk versus benefit, so this analysis holds to that same caution: the clinical debate remains open, per the source, and claims about TRT's effects on longevity, muscle mass, or mood should be read as contested rather than settled.

What is the criticism of the policy?

Schilling's column is itself the criticism — a skeptical take on whether a culture already saturated with testosterone-focused messaging needs more of it. He questions whether the country benefits from, in his words, more 'muscle-bound, angry guys,' and jokes that he would prefer less testosterone circulating, not more. He also notes, with some irony, that testosterone does not regrow hair and in fact can worsen hair loss — a detail he raises to puncture the idea that the hormone is a cure-all. The column stops short of citing military data on how many service members have been tested or treated under Hegseth's initiative; no such figures appear in the source.

What to watch

• Whether the Pentagon publishes testing criteria or thresholds for what counts as insufficient testosterone in service members.
• Whether HHS under Kennedy issues further guidance now that prescription limits have been lifted, and whether prescription volumes become public.
• Whether medical and military researchers publish data addressing the 'hotly debated' question of TRT's net benefit for healthy men, which could shape how the policy is implemented or challenged.
• Whether other administration officials or lawmakers respond publicly to Hegseth's framing of testosterone as tied to 'the fight' and military readiness.

The debate, as Schilling frames it, is less about a single policy memo and more about a broader question of what the country is optimizing for — and whether testosterone is the metric that should decide it. For now, the concrete facts are limited to what has already happened: a defense secretary pushing testing and treatment, a health secretary who has cleared a regulatory path for it, and a scientific literature that has not reached consensus on the hormone's broader effects. Readers weighing the policy on its merits will have to wait for data the Pentagon and HHS have not yet made public, according to the source material reviewed for this report.

For the original column and full context, see The Guardian's opinion piece.