A photograph can end military careers now. Several Texas National Guard members deployed to Illinois last week got sent home after pictures showing their heavyset physiques went viral. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth celebrated the removal on social media Monday, declaring “Standards are back at The Department of War.”
The photos showed National Guardsmen in fatigues carrying rifles and duffle bags as they arrived south of Chicago. Their body types drew immediate online mockery and comparisons to Hegseth’s recent declaration that he was “tired” of seeing “fat troops” and “fat generals and admirals.” Within 24 hours, the Texas Military Department confirmed that “a small group” of the 200 deployed service members had been replaced for not meeting certain standards.
The swift response raises questions that extend far beyond fitness requirements. Texas National Guard troops were federalized for deployment to Illinois against the state’s objections. A federal appeals court temporarily blocked the deployment before allowing it to proceed. And now those federalized troops face removal based on appearance standards applied retroactively after photographs generated negative publicity.
This is constitutional crisis packaged as body-shaming controversy. The real questions involve who commands National Guard forces, what standards apply when, and whether viral photographs can override due process protections for service members.
Discussion
Fake news pushing body-shaming again! Prioritize real issues, not viral photos! MAGA!
Sounds like another diversion tactic to distract from the real issues, typical Dems!
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
The Deployment That Illinois Never Wanted
Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered 200 National Guard troops to Illinois as part of his “border security” initiatives. The deployment came over objections from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who never requested assistance and views the deployment as political theater designed to embarrass Democratic-led cities.
The National Guard exists in constitutional limbo – simultaneously state militia under governor control and federal reserve force subject to presidential authority. When not federalized, Guard members serve under state command and state law. When federalized for active duty, they transition to federal authority and uniform military standards.
President Trump federalized the Texas Guard deployment to Illinois, converting it from state militia action into federal military operation. That federalization theoretically subjects the troops to uniform federal fitness standards and military justice procedures rather than variable state National Guard regulations.
But the timeline reveals problems. The troops were federalized and deployed with extraordinary speed – Abbott announced the deployment, federal authorization came quickly, and service members mobilized within days. The Texas Military Department acknowledged that “the speed of the response necessitated a concurrent validation process.”
Translation: They sent troops first and checked whether they met standards afterward. That’s the opposite of how military deployments typically work.
The Standards That Applied When
The National Guard Bureau issued a statement Thursday declaring that all Guard soldiers and airmen “are required to meet service-specific height, weight and physical fitness standards at all times.” The statement emphasized that mobilizing for active duty includes “a validation process to ensure they meet those requirements.”
The bureaucratic language obscures the key question: when did these troops allegedly fail to meet standards? If they were non-compliant before deployment, why were they initially sent? If they became non-compliant during deployment, what changed in the days between their arrival and their removal?
The most logical explanation is that the troops met whatever standards applied when they deployed. After photographs went viral and generated mockery, new scrutiny revealed they didn’t meet stricter standards that should have been applied during pre-deployment validation.
That sequence suggests the removals stemmed from public embarrassment rather than genuine fitness deficiencies. The optics of overweight troops became untenable after Hegseth’s recent emphasis on fitness standards. So the troops got sent home and replaced with service members whose appearance better matched the Defense Secretary’s expectations.
Hegseth’s War on “Fat Troops”
The Defense Secretary told military officers last month that he was “frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops.” He declared every service member at every rank must take physical fitness tests and meet height and weight requirements twice annually.
The emphasis on visible fitness isn’t subtle. Hegseth didn’t reference performance metrics, combat readiness assessments, or functional capacity measurements. He focused on appearance – what it looks like to see overweight personnel in formation or walking Pentagon halls.
That focus matters because military fitness standards have always balanced appearance concerns with functional requirements. Height and weight tables exist alongside fitness tests that measure actual physical capability. A service member can exceed weight standards while passing demanding fitness assessments if their body composition includes significant muscle mass.
Conversely, service members can meet height-weight requirements while lacking functional fitness. The standards serve as proxies for combat readiness, but proxies aren’t perfect measures. Emphasizing appearance over performance risks removing capable personnel while retaining those who simply look fit.
The Texas National Guard deployment photos created the worst possible optics for Hegseth’s fitness initiative. Days after he declared zero tolerance for overweight troops, photographs showed heavyset service members in fatigies carrying rifles on a high-profile domestic deployment. The contradiction demanded response.
The Constitutional Command Structure
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia” while reserving to states “the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” Article II makes the president commander-in-chief of “the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
This dual structure creates tension between state and federal authority. Governors command National Guard forces for state purposes – disaster response, civil unrest, state emergencies. The president can federalize Guard units for federal missions, at which point they operate under federal command and federal law.
Texas Guard troops in Illinois fall into contested territory. They’re federalized for domestic deployment to a state that doesn’t want them, performing a mission related to Texas border policy rather than genuine federal emergency. Their command structure is federal. Their purpose remains state political priorities.
When those federalized troops fail to meet appearance standards in viral photographs, who bears responsibility? The Texas Military Department that mobilized them? The federal government that authorized deployment? The Defense Secretary whose fitness emphasis created political pressure for removal?
The answer matters for due process protections. Service members facing adverse action – including removal from deployment – typically receive notice, opportunity to respond, and formal proceedings. Summary removal based on photographs short-circuits those protections.
The Validation Process That Happened After Deployment
The Texas Military Department acknowledged conducting validation “concurrent” with deployment rather than before it. That’s extraordinary. Military deployments typically require extensive pre-deployment processing – medical screenings, dental clearances, immunization records, legal briefings, equipment issue, and yes, fitness validation.
Deploying first and validating afterward invites exactly the problems that emerged. Service members arrive in theater only to be deemed non-compliant and sent home. The embarrassment falls on individuals who likely believed they met requirements when they volunteered for deployment.
The speed justification – that rapid response necessitated concurrent validation – reveals political rather than operational urgency. No genuine emergency required Texas National Guard troops in Illinois within 24 hours. Chicago wasn’t under attack. No natural disaster demanded immediate military response.
The urgency served Governor Abbott’s political timeline and President Trump’s desire for visible federal action. That political calculus shouldn’t override standard military deployment procedures designed to protect both mission effectiveness and service member rights.
What “Not In Compliance” Actually Means
The National Guard Bureau statement and Texas Military Department comments carefully avoid specifying what standards the removed troops failed to meet. “Not in compliance” could mean exceeding height-weight tables, failing fitness tests, lacking required medical clearances, or having expired qualifications.
The vagueness protects individual privacy but prevents external verification of whether standards were applied fairly and consistently. If the troops failed clear fitness tests, their removal is straightforward. If they exceeded height-weight tables but could pass fitness assessments, the removal becomes more questionable.
Military body composition standards have faced criticism for decades as imperfect measures of actual fitness. The body mass index calculations underlying height-weight tables don’t account for muscle mass, bone density, or body type variations. Athletes with significant muscle mass routinely exceed weight limits while demonstrating exceptional fitness.
The Army has moved toward functional fitness assessments that measure actual combat-related capabilities rather than body composition proxies. But those changes remain incomplete and inconsistent across services and Guard units.
If the Illinois deployment removals stemmed from height-weight table violations rather than fitness test failures, they prioritize appearance over capability – exactly what Hegseth’s “fat troops” rhetoric suggests.
The Photographs That Changed Everything
ABC News photographed the arriving National Guardsmen. The images spread rapidly on social media, generating mockery and comparisons to Hegseth’s recent fitness comments. Within hours, the photographs became a political liability requiring immediate response.
The sequence suggests the removal decision stemmed from public relations disaster rather than genuine fitness concerns. If the troops met standards when they deployed but became embarrassing after photographs circulated, the operative problem isn’t fitness – it’s optics.
That distinction matters for service member rights and military culture. Personnel shouldn’t face adverse career consequences because their appearance in photographs contradicts political messaging. Military standards should apply consistently based on objective criteria, not variable enforcement depending on publicity.
The National Guard members sent home likely face questions from peers, family, and future employers about why they were removed from deployment. Their service records may reflect the removal. Their military careers could be damaged by association with a viral embarrassment.
All because they looked overweight in photographs taken during a deployment they presumably qualified for when they volunteered.
The Illinois Deployment’s Broader Context
Texas has sent National Guard troops to other states multiple times under Abbott’s border security initiatives. The deployments generate controversy because they involve state militia operating beyond state borders for purposes unrelated to federal emergency or interstate cooperation.
Illinois Governor Pritzker has opposed the deployment from announcement. He views it as Texas political grandstanding using federal military forces to make partisan points about border security and sanctuary cities. The deployment serves Abbott’s political narrative more than any genuine security need.
Trump’s federalization of the deployment converts state political theater into federal military operation. That federalization should trigger federal deployment standards, federal command authority, and federal accountability for mission appropriateness.
Instead, the deployment demonstrates how National Guard forces can be weaponized for domestic political purposes while operating in constitutional gray areas. They’re federal troops when that’s convenient for avoiding state objections. They’re state forces when that’s convenient for avoiding federal deployment restrictions.
Standards Applied Selectively
Hegseth’s emphasis on eliminating “fat troops” raises questions about selective enforcement. The Defense Secretary referenced seeing overweight personnel “in combat formations, or really any formation” and overweight generals and admirals “in the halls of the Pentagon.”
If fitness standards apply uniformly, Pentagon leadership should face the same scrutiny as deployed National Guardsmen. Senior officers exceeding weight standards or failing fitness tests should face removal from their positions. The standards shouldn’t protect senior leaders while punishing junior enlisted personnel.
The focus on appearance rather than performance suggests that visible compliance matters more than actual capability. Generals who look fit can remain regardless of fitness test scores. Junior troops who look overweight face removal even if they can pass demanding physical assessments.
That double standard isn’t new in military culture. Senior leaders have historically received more lenient treatment regarding appearance standards, justified by their experience and leadership value. But if the goal is genuine combat readiness rather than visual uniformity, the disparity undermines the fitness initiative’s credibility.
The Due Process Question
Military service members retain constitutional rights even under military law. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Military careers, deployment status, and service reputation constitute protected interests requiring procedural fairness.
Summary removal from deployment based on viral photographs without formal proceedings raises due process concerns. Service members should receive notice of specific standard violations, opportunity to respond or request evaluation, and formal determination before facing adverse action.
The speed of the removals – happening within days of photographs circulating – suggests abbreviated or nonexistent due process. If the troops were non-compliant, formal fitness evaluations should have documented the violations before removal. If evaluations happened after photographs went viral, the timing suggests the publicity drove the enforcement rather than objective standards.
Military necessity can justify expedited proceedings, but no combat emergency required immediate removal of these National Guard troops from Illinois. The deployment itself serves political rather than operational purposes. The urgency stemmed from embarrassment, not mission readiness.
What This Means for National Guard Morale
National Guard members serve part-time, balancing civilian careers with military obligations. They train on weekends and deploy when activated. The arrangement requires significant sacrifice – time away from family, income disruption, physical demands – without the full-time support and resources active duty personnel receive.
Guard members who volunteer for deployments reasonably expect they’ll be allowed to serve if they meet stated requirements. Deploying and then being sent home after photographs go viral sends a clear message: appearance matters more than qualification, and public embarrassment can override military procedure.
That message will affect future recruitment and retention. Why volunteer for deployment if arbitrary appearance standards applied after the fact can result in public humiliation and career damage? Why maintain Guard membership if fitness standards vary based on publicity rather than consistent application?
The Guard already faces recruitment challenges as fewer Americans meet baseline qualifications. Making service uncertain based on how personnel photograph rather than what they can accomplish won’t improve those numbers.
The “Department of War” Rhetoric
Hegseth refers to his agency as the “Department of War” rather than Department of Defense. The name change isn’t official – Congress would need to authorize it – but Hegseth uses it consistently in communications and appearances.
The rhetorical shift signals preferred military posture. “Defense” suggests protecting American interests and responding to threats. “War” suggests offensive operations and combat focus. The semantic difference reflects broader changes in how military leadership views the institution’s purpose.
Applied to fitness standards, the “Department of War” framing justifies ruthless enforcement. War demands peak physical capability. Overweight troops can’t perform in combat. Therefore, visible fitness becomes non-negotiable regardless of individual circumstances or procedural niceties.
But the National Guard troops in Illinois aren’t in combat. They’re conducting domestic deployment for political purposes. The “Department of War” rhetoric applied to this situation reveals that appearance standards serve messaging objectives rather than genuine combat readiness concerns.
The Precedent for Appearance-Based Removal
If viral photographs can trigger military personnel removal without formal proceedings, the precedent extends beyond fitness standards. Service members photographed in any unflattering context – equipment failure, procedural mistake, unfortunate timing – become vulnerable to career-damaging consequences.
The military already struggles with social media policies that balance service member rights with institutional reputation. Allowing viral images to drive personnel actions without due process makes every service member’s career dependent on avoiding photographing badly.
That standard is impossible to meet. Military operations involve physical demands, uncomfortable conditions, and unflattering moments. Photographers can capture service members at their worst. If those moments become justification for removal, no one’s position remains secure.
The appropriate response to photographs showing potentially unfit personnel is formal fitness evaluation. If evaluations confirm standard violations, proper proceedings can address the issue. If evaluations show the photographs were misleading or captured personnel who actually meet standards, the individuals are protected from arbitrary removal.
What Federalism Says About This Deployment
The Texas National Guard deployment to Illinois tests constitutional boundaries on state militia use. The Founders carefully divided military powers between federal and state governments. States maintained militia for local security. The federal government could call that militia into service for national emergencies.
Abbott’s deployment extends Texas forces beyond Texas borders for purposes unrelated to Illinois needs or federal emergency. The federalization converts the deployment into federal operation, but the underlying mission remains Texas political priorities regarding border security and sanctuary city opposition.
This creates constitutional tension. Can state political objectives drive federalized military deployments to other states over those states’ objections? Does federalization launder state political missions into legitimate federal operations?
The fitness standards controversy obscures these deeper questions. But the removal of troops based on viral photographs highlights the problematic nature of the entire deployment. If the mission were genuinely necessary and properly authorized, appearance concerns wouldn’t drive personnel decisions.
The Military That’s Always on Camera
Modern service members operate in constant documentation. Smartphones capture every moment. News photographers cover deployments. Social media amplifies any unflattering image. Military personnel can no longer assume their service occurs outside public view.
That reality requires different approach to personnel management. Appearance standards must be enforced consistently and fairly, not variably based on whether photographs go viral. Service members need clear expectations and procedural protections against arbitrary removal when images generate negative attention.
Hegseth’s celebration of the Illinois removals sends the opposite message. Viral photographs can trigger immediate personnel action. Embarrassing the Defense Secretary’s fitness initiative justifies bypassing normal procedures. Appearance matters more than qualification.
That approach prioritizes public relations over personnel rights and operational readiness. It makes military careers dependent on avoiding viral attention rather than meeting objective standards consistently applied.
The Question No One’s Asking
Why were Texas National Guard troops deployed to Illinois at all? What legitimate federal purpose does the deployment serve? How does sending state militia forces to another state against that state’s objections serve national security or constitutional governance?
The fitness standards controversy distracts from these fundamental questions. The troops’ appearance becomes the story rather than the deployment’s appropriateness. Removing overweight personnel becomes the solution rather than questioning why any personnel should be there.
That deflection serves political purposes on both sides. Republicans can emphasize restored military standards and fitness requirements. Democrats can criticize body-shaming and procedural violations. Neither has to address the constitutional problems with federalizing state National Guard for domestic deployments serving state political agendas.
The service members sent home became collateral damage in a political theater that shouldn’t involve military forces at all. Their appearance provided convenient distraction from harder questions about federal-state boundaries, National Guard command structure, and domestic deployment authorities.
What Standards Actually Require
Military fitness standards exist for legitimate reasons. Combat demands physical capability. Military operations involve carrying equipment, moving quickly, maintaining endurance under stress. Personnel who can’t meet those demands endanger missions and fellow service members.
But standards must be applied consistently, fairly, and with appropriate procedural protections. Pre-deployment validation should occur before deployment, not concurrently. Standard violations should trigger formal evaluation, not summary removal based on photographs. Appearance concerns should be verified through objective testing, not assumed from viral images.
The Illinois deployment failed all those requirements. Troops deployed before complete validation. Removal happened after photographs circulated rather than after formal fitness evaluation. Appearance in images drove personnel decisions rather than verified capability assessment.
If Hegseth genuinely wants to restore fitness standards, the process matters as much as the outcome. Arbitrary enforcement based on publicity undermines standards rather than strengthening them. Service members need confidence that consistently meeting requirements protects their careers regardless of how they photograph.
The Troops Who Deserved Better
The National Guard members sent home from Illinois volunteered for deployment. They presumably believed they met requirements when they accepted orders. They traveled to another state, reported for duty, and then got sent home after photographs made them a political liability.
Those individuals deserved formal proceedings, clear explanations, and fair evaluation. Instead, they became examples in Hegseth’s fitness initiative and cautionary tales about appearing overweight in photographs.
Their service records likely reflect the removal. Their military careers carry the stigma of public fitness failure. Their personal lives absorbed disruption twice – first for deployment, again for removal. And their contribution to the military they served ended with being held up as examples of unacceptable appearance standards.
That’s not how standards are properly enforced. That’s how service members become collateral damage in political messaging and public relations crises. The Constitution’s due process protections exist specifically to prevent this type of arbitrary treatment.
The photographs captured what Hegseth didn’t want Americans to see – that real military forces include personnel who don’t match idealized images. The Defense Secretary’s response revealed what concerns him most: not whether troops can perform their mission, but how they look while doing it.
Standards matter. Due process matters more. And the photographs that launched this controversy reveal far more about constitutional erosion than military fitness.
Constitutional chaos disguised as fitness standards… is anyone minding the bigger issues here?