From the playing field to the battlefield, the realities of biology cannot be ignored. Protecting women’s sports has become a cultural battle cry, with 27 states adopting laws or regulations preventing biological men from competing against women. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order protecting women’s sports by officially defining male and female — signaling a broader recognition that fair competition depends on acknowledging genuine biological differences.

This issue loomed large in the 2024 election as policymakers — previously sidelined by the DEI-driven cancel culture — began to speak out. Voters, athletes, and parents demanded that women’s sports remain for women, and polls showed almost 80% of Americans supported this stance. For most, it’s about fairness and safety. After all, in athletic competition, “playing make-believe” about biological differences runs foul of reality.

And if these distinctions matter on the playing field, they matter even more on the battlefield. Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that physical fitness requirements for combat positions would be sex-neutral. He emphasized that the battlefield is physically demanding for everyone — so the standard should be the same for all, regardless of sex.

I can attest firsthand that age impacts physical performance. My Marine Physical Fitness Test score has changed since I was 22 — and that’s just biological reality. Unless we’re in desperate circumstances, you won’t find 62-year-old men on the front lines. Similarly, men and women are biologically different.

Those who understand the military’s mission know its purpose is to form a lethal, effective force capable of defeating any adversary. At his confirmation hearing, Secretary Hegseth stated, “Our standards will be high, and they will be equal, not equitable.” Equal treatment doesn’t mean equal outcomes — it means every warrior must meet the same combat demands.

In the corporate world, woke DEI and gender ideologies may be costly miscalculations, as seen in controversies involving major brands like Bud Light and Target. In the military, however, such ideologies can be deadly. Policies driven by ideology rather than readiness undermine the warrior ethos, endanger lives, and ultimately jeopardize national security.

Holding all warriors to identical physical standards is a critical step toward restoring military focus. But it’s not the only step. Valid concerns remain about placing women in direct combat roles. As Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, a founding member of Delta Force, noted, “Some units—like infantry, Special Forces, SEALs, and others—are not suitable for integrating men and women. It has nothing to do with women’s courage or capabilities. It’s about two things: the burden on small unit leaders and the lack of privacy in these units.” Leaders in those environments must be focused like a laser on keeping their soldiers alive and defeating the enemy — which should always be the military’s mission.

I urge Secretary Hegseth to consider these additional operational factors — such as unit cohesion, privacy, and the realities of close-quarters combat — that could undermine effectiveness, even when physical standards are met.

As we navigate this complex issue, let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: our armed forces exist to fight and win wars. Pentagon policy must always reflect and reinforce that fundamental goal, and I applaud the Trump administration for moving us in that direction.