Command Post: Trump Flip Flopped So Fast That Mark Hertling Had to Scrap an Article

Summary

Episode Overview

Title: Command Post: Trump Flip Flopped So Fast That Mark Hertling Had to Scrap an Article
Podcast: The Bulwark
Date: July 16, 2026
Hosts: Ben Parker and Lt. General Mark Hertling (Ret.)

This episode of The Bulwark features Ben Parker and retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling reacting in real time to a breaking and controversial initiative from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: mandatory annual testosterone screening for all male service members aged 30 and over, with optional screening and therapy for those under 30. The hosts debate the merits, science, and politics behind this move, its absurdities, and its timing amid an ongoing war. They further examine the exclusion of women from the latest Navy flag officer (admiral) promotion lists and the morale issues sparked by perceived political interference in military leadership and policies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Secretary Hegseth’s Testosterone Screening Initiative

[00:30–09:43]

• Announcement Recap
  Ben plays Secretary Hegseth’s address, in which the Secretary authorizes new annual testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30, citing a duty to "optimize performance, resilience and long-term health." Hegseth stresses this is not about enhancement but restoring "natural capabilities."

  • Notable Quote – Hegseth: [02:12] “This initiative, it’s not about artificial enhancement. It’s about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity, and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”

• General Hertling’s Reaction

  • Mark calls the policy "beyond the pale" and "silliness," questioning its medical necessity and highlighting risks tied to testosterone therapy. He notes his own graduate studies in physiology and experience with military health assessments.
  • Notable Quote – Hertling: [04:38] “Testosterone replacement treatment is interesting and it has some good that comes with it, but it also has a whole lot of bad that comes with it… I’m going to put it in the category of silliness.”

• Medical Pros, Cons, and Irony

  • Hertling reads the benefits—energy, muscle, libido, cognitive function—but also warns of side effects: increased blood clot risk, reduced sperm production, testicular shrinkage, gynecomastia, sleep apnea, prostate effects.
  • Hosts joke about military medical routines now possibly including both flu shots and testosterone shots, with Ben sarcastically saying: [05:24] “Would you like a flu shot? And you can say no. And they'll say, would you like testosterone? And you can say, yes, please.”
  • Debate turns humorous and satirical: the possibility of testosterone therapy by request constitutes "gender affirming care" (08:00), and whether conspiracy theorists would fear microchips “in the testosterone” (09:21).

• Gender and Equity Issues Raised

  • Ben and Mark highlight no mention of women’s hormone levels or replacement therapy, despite women being 22% of the force.
    • Ben: [08:22] “Are they going to get replacement therapies if they have low estrogen? I mean, the whole thing raises a million questions.”

• Summing up the Mood

  • Hertling: [09:28] “The Secretary of Defense should probably have some testosterone reduction treatments because it appears to me he's got a little bit too much of it.”

---

2. Military Leadership: No Women Promoted to Admiral This Cycle

[09:43–13:55]

• Breaking Pattern & Its Significance

  • Ben notes the recent Navy flag officer promotion list has zero women—the first time in many years. He asks if this is a fluke or a sign of deeper problems.

• Mark’s Candid Assessment

  • Hertling: “It’s not a statistical fluke… There were women on the promotion list. They were pulled.” He cites the case of a trailblazing female carrier strike group commander passed over, linking this pattern to anti-diversity bias.
  • Notable Quote – Hertling: [11:09] “You can’t tell me this is not misogyny… When you talk about no women admirals being promoted this year, it just tells me there’s something wrong… it seems incredibly arbitrary and biased and just a smack against the contributions that young women and men make in the military.”

• Impact on Service Members, Culture, and the Idea of Meritocracy

  • Ben emphasizes the chilling signal to both women and men that merit may not be rewarded, undercutting the sense of a true “meritocracy.”
    • Ben: [12:52] “There are a lot of young men in the military who want to be part of a meritocracy… this isn’t the kind of institution I think I want to serve.”
  • Hertling: many career officers and senior enlisted are openly questioning whether military service is worth it if promotions can be “arbitrary, biased.”
    • Hertling: [13:55] “Many of them are asking these questions, is it worth it to stay in? Is it worth it to work hard and serve my country in a very selfless way for someday having an arbitrary action that causes me to either retire or resign or leave?”

• Historical Perspective

  • Mark contrasts the current politicization to post-Vietnam reforms that made the US all-volunteer force “the best fighting force in the world.”

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “It’s just amazing what you miss on a two hour flight.” (Mark Hertling, 03:04)
• “I’m going to put it in the category of silliness.” (Mark Hertling, 04:53)
• “Would that be gender affirming care and would it be provided through injection, which is something the anti-vaxxers would say they don’t want strange things entering the body?” (Ben Parker, 09:08)
• "The Secretary of Defense should probably have some testosterone reduction treatments because it appears to me he's got a little bit too much of it." (Mark Hertling, 09:28)
• “You can’t tell me this is not misogyny… it just tells me there’s something wrong.” (Mark Hertling, 11:09)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:30–03:01]: Secretary Hegseth’s video announcement on testosterone screening
• [03:01–09:43]: Immediate reactions, medical review, gender implications, and comedic speculation on hormone policy
• [09:43–13:55]: Discussion of the Navy’s all-male admiral promotions list, implications for morale, and the military’s emerging reputation shift

---

Tone & Style

The hosts blend sharp, informed commentary with wry humor and occasional sarcasm, especially as they process the surreal qualities of the latest Pentagon initiative. Their tone turns serious and critical when assessing the real-world impacts of politicized personnel decisions on morale and the long-term health of the professional military.

---

Key Takeaways

• The testosterone screening policy is derided as unnecessary, poorly justified, and emblematic of performative, politicized leadership.
• The exclusion of women from promotions is viewed as a targeted, demoralizing move that threatens the sense of fairness and undermines military professionalism.
• Both developments are seen as part of a broader culture war being waged at the highest levels of defense policy—a trend deeply worrying to career officers and service members alike.

---

For more expert analysis and ongoing coverage: www.thebulwark.com

Transcript

[A]

Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bulwark, joined as always by our very own Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. General, this is the first time we're doing command posts. Well, not quite from the same room, but at least from the same building.

[B]

Yeah, we're about what, 100ft apart in two different offices. And it's great to be here for the first time at the wonderful Bulwark headquarters right in downtown D.C. we're so

[A]

excited to have you. But the fact that you just got off a plane means you did miss the first thing we have to talk about today, which is this.

[C]

At the Department of War, we have the most elite warriors on the face of the earth. Every single day you are pushed to your absolute physical and mental limits to master the profession of arms. We demand your all and you give it. But while we invest heavily in our weapon systems, platforms and gear, our most decisive tactical advantage will always be the individual warfighter. We have a sacred duty to maintain that advantage, which is why we must constantly look for new ways to optimize your performance, your resilience and your long term health. And to meet that commitment today, I'm authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members. Ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best. Because it's well established science that as we age, testosterone levels often naturally drop. Under the supervision of our world class medical professionals, war fighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment. It's a health assessment that happens every year. We're just adding this test. Those under 30 can voluntarily choose to get the test as well if treatment is recommended. It's entirely your choice to receive testosterone replacement therapy. This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement. It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity, and ensuring you have the biological foundation of required to sustain the fight. We owe our warriors the absolute best medical care in the world. And this program delivers on that obligation. Taking care of your long term health means ensuring you remain strong, resilient and capable. Not just for your next deployment, but for the rest of your life. So you can thrive long after you take off the uniform. As we know, the modern battlefield is brutal and unrelenting. It requires and demands maximum psychological and mental readiness. And by addressing these health markers early, we're keeping you on the leading edge of lethality and giving you the same level of support that you give this nation. The absolute best. Godspeed. Keep going and God bless.

[A]

So yeah, it's Sort of hard to know where to start.

[B]

I am not going to travel anymore. I'm just going to stay glued to the New south cycle because it's just amazing what you miss on a two hour flight. I'm sure there's some other things that I've missed too, but this is an interesting one. Yeah, it's fascinating because I'm not sure where this is coming from. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines do testing all the time for different things. They're medically fit. They have health risk assessments on a yearly basis normally. And I just don't know what the purpose of something like this is. Because first of all, testosterone replacement treatment is interesting and it has some good that comes with it, but it also has a whole lot of bad that comes with it. So I'm just not sure and I should tell you, you know this, but we'll tell the listening audience. One of the things that, that I experienced during my time as the army in the army was the army sent me to graduate school to get a master's degree so I could go back on a teaching assignment at West Point, which happens to a lot of people. And my degree was not in the social sciences or history or math or anything. It was in physical education. I got a master's in kinesiology and physiology from Indiana University. So I know a little bit about the human body. I know a lot about hormones. Did my master's thesis on fear in combat versus fatigue in athletic events and how they compare. And this is just beyond the pale in terms of a new dynamic. But I'd say it's especially interesting because there's a war on. This should not be the topic du jour that the Secretary of Defense is making a film and posting it on social media accounts. So, yeah, we could discuss testosterone replacement treatment, talk about the good and the bad, but I don't think we should even give it that much credence. It's just more. I'm going to put it in the category of silliness.

[A]

I generally agree, but specifically I disagree. I think we should talk about it more right now. Just spend another minute. It's too much fun. Okay, really quick. First of all, I guess this means that when you go for your annual physical, if you're in the military, they'll say, would you like a flu shot? And you can say no. And they'll say, would you like testosterone? And you can say, yes, please.

[B]

Well, and if they test it and it's low, they're going to say, you really need to do this. Don't worry about, you know, the flu virus going around within the barracks, that's going to affect everybody. But for you, you know, we're going to give you a couple of hundred buck treatment on testosterone replacement treatments. But I do think I should read off just in my handy little book of what testosterone therapy does. Increases the good things. It increases energy, it provides greater muscle mass and strength. When it's combined with resistance training, it could improve bone density. If the, if the patient has a higher risk of osteoporosis, it sometimes gives or it's shown to give some people better cognitive function. But the last two good things are it improves sex drive and libido and it provides for better erectile functions. Now, I'm betting most 18 to 24 year old soldiers are going to say, give me some of that, even if my test run is low. And as a Commander of those 18 to 24 year old that are already in the season of the rising SAP, as Tom Wolf once called it. I'm not sure I want that, but tongue in cheek, but here are the risk. Increased red blood cell count, which can raise the risk of blood clots, reduced sperm production and fertility. So even though you've got a greater libido, you have reduced sperm production. Testicular shrinkage, enlargement of male breast tissue, worsening of untreated sleep apnea, fluid retention and possible effects on the prostate requiring additional monitoring. So the good and the bad of this, in listening to Secretary Hegseth's film, I'm not sure what we're trying to do in the military.

[A]

You know, I'm not sure either. And we're going to talk later about more stories of what Hegseth has been up to, as you said, in the middle of a war. But we got to ask some basic questions. You know, one of them, you know, as we were talking before we separated to our different recording rooms here, you asked me, are they going to do these tests for women? Because there are a lot of women in the services.

[B]

Yeah, about 22% of the force are women. Are we going to test testosterone or estrogen? Yeah, I don't know.

[A]

Are they going to get replacement therapies if they have low estrogen? I mean, the whole thing raises a million questions. The other one, our producer made this point that I thought was very funny but also kind of profound. Let's say some strapping young Marine, let's say, you know, six, one close cop, crew cut, bulging with muscles, goes to the Secretary of Defense and says, I don't have low testosterone, but I would like the therapy anyway. Would Secretary Hegseth say yes and if so, would. Would that be gender affirming care and

[B]

would it be provided through injection, which is something the anti vaxxers would say. They don't want strange things entering the body. There's some downsides to this. You know it.

[A]

There are some downsides. If you can't tell if there are microchips in the vaccines, how are you supposed to tell if there are microchips in the testosterone?

[B]

Yeah. What the final thing I should say or final thing I will say and I probably shouldn't is that the Secretary of Defense should probably have some testosterone reduction treatments because it appears to me he's got a little bit too much of it.

[A]

Yeah, you want to everything, everything in moderation, everything in balance. Okay, that's enough of the testosterone talk. As you said, it's very silly. This is a more serious story. It was just reported in the last few days that for the first time in many years, the list of naval officers who are promoted to going to be promoted to flag rank to admiral has no women on it. Is that, I mean obviously it's not normal. Does that seem like just a statistical fluke to you, General?

[B]

Well, it's not a statistical fluke, Ben, because there were women on the promotion list. They were pulled from both the one star rear admiral and the two star rear admiral upper half as the Navy calls it list. There's also a dynamic of a potential of a three star female admiral who is currently or was the commander of a carrier strike group, the first woman to do that. And I know Secretary Hegseth doesn't like anyone saying first woman or first African American or first anybody. She was the first. And she came up commanding various ships in the Navy and then commanded a carrier strike group. And the Navy feels like she deserves promotion to potentially four star, which. Which is a huge accomplishment. I remember the first army female four star was a woman by the name of Ann Dunwoody who we were majors together in the same seminar at Command and General Staff College. And she was tough back then and even tougher as a four star general in the Army. And everyone cheered when she was promoted to four star. So again, the Secretary seems to be focused on this exclusively. You can't tell me this is not misogyny or in some cases racism for the African Americans that are being pulled off the list because it goes beyond the trend line. When you talk about no women admirals being promoted this year, it just tells me there's something wrong and beyond that, here's the point that I would like to make is what is this doing to the young women who are lieutenants or captains or ensigns or lieutenant commanders or colonels in the army when they see this happening and there's no rationale given for it? That's the important part. It seems incredibly arbitrary and biased and just a smack against the contributions that. That young women and men make in the military and how it's a meritocracy, not a biased partisanship, where because you've said something that the secretary doesn't like or you've done something in the past or just because of your gender or your race, you get basically pulled from a list that having sat on various flag officer promotion boards, I can tell you it's incredibly fair and incredibly tough to make that cut.

[A]

Yeah, I think there's another. I mean, that's all true. And unfortunately, it's a thing that we have to keep saying over and over because it keeps happening. And you're right, it's absolutely a pattern at this point. No one can question why it's happening or that it is happening. There is another aspect of this, too, though, which is not just the effect it has on women all around the service who are questioning, you know, how to manage their careers, whether they want careers in the military, whether there's a future for them in the military. Also, there are a lot of young men in the military who want to be part of a meritocracy. Pete Hegseth likes to pretend that everyone in the military, or at least all of the enlisted, or at least all the infantry. It's unclear. Think just like he does, talk just like he does, act just like he does. But there are a lot of men in the military who are going to be looking at this and saying, well, this isn't the kind of institution I think I want to serve. This isn't the kind of institution I want to dedicate myself to and sacrifice for. So, yeah, I'm sure it's having a huge effect in the military in terms of. In terms of the morale of people who thought they were joining a real meritocracy and maybe are not questioning that.

[B]

Yeah. And it's not a question of this might happen. Ben, what I will tell you, in conversations with both active duty and reserve component officers and soldiers, by the way, senior enlisted soldiers, they are having many of them, not all of them. Many of them are asking these questions, is it worth it to stay in? Is it worth it to work hard and serve my country in a very selfless way for someday having an arbitrary action that causes me to either retire or resign or leave. Here's the other thing, Ben, that I'm going to say. You know, I was I entered the service in 1975. I know that was very long ago. It was not we were suffering from the effects of Vietnam, and it was not a professional force. The there were a lot of race issues. There were a lot of drug problems. There was a lot of disciplinary actions. Starting in the mid-80s, the military really started to transform and become a professional force because of the introduction of the volunteer military. For the last four decades, the military has become the best fighting force in the world. The president and the secretary of defense continue to tout that, yet claim it's only happened within the last year. What I would suggest is the military, the profession I was a part of, was the best military.