Hegseth's Testosterone Double Standard, Explained
A federal judge is forcing the Pentagon to explain why testosterone therapy is a readiness perk for some troops and a reason to ban others.
Jesse Watters told women on military bases to “watch out.” A federal judge had a sharper question for the Pentagon.
On July 16, the Fox News host joked on The Five that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new testosterone screening plan would turn troops into “wild animals” around women. Fox has said nothing about it since.
One week later, in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes asked the question Fox skipped. Why does the Pentagon treat testosterone therapy as a readiness tool for some troops, and a disqualifying condition for others?
What Hegseth’s Testosterone Screening Order Actually Requires
Hegseth announced the policy on July 15, in a video posted to social media rather than a written memo. The Pentagon declined to elaborate when reporters asked for details.
Under the plan, active-duty service members 30 and older get an annual testosterone screening added to their regular health assessment. That part is mandatory. Any resulting testosterone replacement therapy, or TRT, is voluntary. Troops younger than 30 can request the screening too.
Hegseth framed it as a readiness measure, saying the goal is “ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best” and tying it to “psychological and mental readiness” and “the leading edge of lethality.”
He hasn’t said when screening starts, how results will be recorded, or whether a low-testosterone diagnosis could affect a service member’s assignment or career. The policy is separate from body-composition standards Hegseth issued in December, which set a 26 percent body-fat cap and a 0.55 maximum waist-to-height ratio.
Jesse Watters Told Women on Military Bases to ‘Watch Out’
Discussing Hegseth’s plan on The Five, Watters predicted troops would abuse it.
“The guys that don’t need it are going to take it to triple boost, right?” Watters said. “And then they’re gonna get out there, and women on base, you guys better be careful. Port calls, women in Asia, you better be careful, because these guys are gonna be wild animals, and you better watch out.”
His co-hosts responded with silence. Nobody on the panel challenged him.
Journalists called it out. “A Fox host joking about US soldiers raping women. Well done Rupert Murdoch, well done,” wrote Zeteo journalist Mehdi Hasan, naming the network’s founder. Retired intelligence officer Travis Akers asked why “joking about rape” was airing on Fox at all. Fox News has not issued a statement, and Watters has not addressed the criticism on air.
Watters has a track record of inflammatory, LGBTQ+-hostile, and sexist remarks. He’s said men who vote for Kamala Harris have “mommy issues” and that men who vote for women candidates will eventually “transition” into women themselves. When a gay asylum seeker, Andrys José Hernández Romero, was wrongfully deported to a Salvadoran prison, Watters dismissed the case on air, telling a co-host she’d “been talking about this gay barber from El Salvador with some stupid tattoo for weeks.”
Judge Ana Reyes Orders Pentagon to Explain Its Testosterone Double Standard
The sharper story is playing out in federal court, in a case Fox never mentioned.
Talbott v. United States is the lawsuit brought by more than 20 active-duty transgender service members and enlistees challenging President Trump’s ban on transgender military service. On July 23, Judge Reyes ordered the Justice Department to explain, in writing, “the similarities and differences in administering TRT, both medically and logistically, for trans men compared to other service members,” and the Pentagon’s “basis for treating trans men and other service members differently” under the ban and the new testosterone policy.
“The Court must assess the impact of this newly announced policy on the parties’ positions,” Reyes wrote.
The contradiction is direct. The administration’s ban policy requires troops to meet standards “without the benefit of routine medical treatment or special provisions,” and the government has argued transgender service members should be excluded in part because they need ongoing hormone therapy. Nine days later, Hegseth started offering that same category of treatment to troops 30 and older as a readiness benefit.
Why the Military Still Bans Transgender Troops Who Need the Same Hormone Therapy
The ban has had a tangled legal history. Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against it in March 2025, writing that “thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed, some risking their lives, to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.” The Supreme Court let the ban take effect anyway in May 2025 while litigation continued.
A federal appeals court blocked the discharge of currently serving transgender troops named in the case on June 1, 2026. On June 30, the court certified the case as a class action, extending that protection to transgender service members currently serving across the military. New transgender recruits remain barred from enlisting.
The GLAD Law case page confirms the ban stays blocked for currently serving class members while litigation continues, with the government still pushing to enforce it fully.
Sexual Assault Reports in the Military Fell 4% in 2024. The Real Number Is Likely Higher
Watters’ joke wasn’t made in a vacuum. The Pentagon’s own data shows sexual assault remains a persistent problem it has struggled to fix.
The Defense Department’s FY2024 sexual assault report counted 8,195 sexual assault reports involving service members, a 4 percent drop from 2023. An anonymous survey conducted separately estimated more than 29,000 active-duty troops experienced unwanted sexual contact in the prior 12 months, a figure far higher than what gets formally reported. Hegseth is also cutting tens of thousands of civilian Defense Department positions, which officials have acknowledged could affect the department’s capacity for assault prevention and prosecution.
The pattern isn’t new. In February 2008, a U.S. Marine was accused of raping a Japanese teenager near a base in Okinawa, prompting then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to publicly express “deep regret.” That case occurred during Dana Perino’s tenure as White House press secretary, and it was one of several incidents involving American service members near Okinawa bases that have recurred over the decades and repeatedly strained U.S.-Japan relations.
What Happens Next in Talbott v. United States
Discovery in the case closes August 7. The Justice Department has said it plans to ask the Supreme Court to undo the appeals court’s block on discharges by August 30. Trial is scheduled to begin January 4, 2027.
Whatever the Pentagon files to answer Judge Reyes’ order will be the first official, on-the-record attempt to explain why hormone therapy disqualifies transgender troops but not the ones Hegseth is now screening for it. That filing, not another Fox panel, is where this story actually gets decided.
Follow the Talbott case. It will decide whether the Pentagon can keep banning transgender troops while handing out the exact treatment it says disqualifies them.
Subscribe to The Queer Agenda for updates as the Pentagon’s filing and the discovery deadline land next month.