Regular army and reserve components enlistment program: Summary of change
armypubs.army.mil
armypubs.army.mil
“Increases the maximum enlistment age up to and including age 42 for non-prior service applicants” (previously maximum age was 35)
“Eliminates requirement of a waiver for a single conviction of possession of marijuana or a single conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia”
And it's also a war with no clear benefit to Americans, which Marco Rubio admitted they were dragged into by Israel.
Well, I'm old enough to remember many "peace talks" go to eternity wit absolutely zero results. In many countries around the world. Just to create the argument.
This is quite clear for younger people who grew in an interconnected world. But some old folks (73 y.o., 79 y.o.) seem to live in the old world where winning, or an illusion of it, is still a thing.
This is why I suspect that Israel might at least have encouragement from the U.S., direct or indirect.
Maximum age for the Marines remains 28 years.
With high youth unemployment [1], it ought to be easier to recruit.
The land war is getting closer. The Army's 82nd Airborne has been sent towards Iran. Possibly to take Kharg Island, one of the very few objectives for which an airdrop might possibly make sense.[1] Possibly. 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force is already on the way.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLUEM1524ZSUSA
[2] https://apnews.com/live/iran-war-israel-trump-03-24-2026
I believe at the time they were allowing 38 year olds to join for the first time which seemed crazy to me. Now that I’m in my early 40s I can’t imagine going back in
https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/overweight-texas-nati...
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5528556-hegseth-warrior-e...
> “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” he said. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world.”
“It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are,” he continued.
> “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape, or in a combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men” Hegseth said.
It’s not, that’s silly.
It turns out that it’s kind of hard to establish uniform physical fitness standards at scale! They have to be cheap to implement and easy to execute in a wide range of environments.
No one can agree on how much fitness a soldier needs to be minimally effective, but you know for sure every stakeholder has a strong and incorrect opinion on it. Oh, and if you raise the bar too high, you won’t meet your enlistment goals, and readiness suffers.
He's also rebranding to a macho aesthetic, encouraging bringing back hazing, tossing bunks, "shark attacks" and drill sergeants putting hands on recruits. I'm no expert but maybe if we're having trouble recruiting we shouldn't lead with ways to make military life suck even more?
Sure, sometimes you need a human being to sneak behind enemy lines to get in range for the drone, but that's not gonna involve a ton of sprinting anyway!
Rumor is they’re also cracking down on (specifically medical, not religious) shaving waviers again, probably because some minorities have a skin condition that makes regular shaving painful.
So it’s a bit of a conundrum! They obviously want more enlisted so they can do more wars in more places, but they also are adding disincentives for female or nonwhite enlisted.
[0] https://www.fitnesswarriornation.com/hegseth-military-fitnes...
I’m hardly the only person who has inferred this:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/september/ne...
> It is estimated that 45–94 percent of all Black men will experience PFB at some point during their lifetime. Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern men also are often affected, as are some women. A 2021 study found an association between shaving waivers and delayed promotions. Since most of the waiver group (65 percent) was Black, the new policy could have a discriminatory effect. In our conversations with Black sailors, including some in senior leadership positions, many shared that they feel the new policy is racially insensitive at best—or may be designed to target them.
Shaving waivers have been so abused it's a running joke in the army.
It's still trivially easy to have a doctor get you a waiver.
Also, I don't even think they are necessarily abused. A lot of men are very sensitive to shaving, with degrees of sensitivity. I think there's probably plenty of guys who have perpetual razor burn and ingrown hairs and nobody cares.
The reasons grooming standards are enforced are the same reasons anything is enforced.
Pseudofolliculitis barbae [1] or PFB was a regular issue for some I served with in the 90's.
I aced the aptitude test, and totally failed the PFT.
In 2012 Lieutenant General Mark Hertling had a TED talk [1] about this very issue and I think it still very much applies today.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWN13pKVp9s [video][16m][TED-Talk]
All my vet friends said to reconsider and I wisely followed their advice.
"What did you get to see and experience?"
"Mostly a lot of grey metal, water as far as the eye could see, and sea and home sickness."
Born too late to go to war in the Middle East
Born just in time to go to war in the Middle East
They'll have to start taking harassment seriously if they want to recruit more young women.
Yeah, um.. about that...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult#Adoption_by_21st_cen...
Facial hair prevents the proper functioning of gas masks and other sorts of PPE that sits on your face. Hypothetically speaking, [0] I'd rather deal with looking like a minor than with getting a snoot and face full of something dreadfully toxic.
[0] Hypothetical because I'm way too old to ever be confused with a minor again.
Tattoos don't matter unless they're in a particular set of extremes.
Marijuana also really doesn't matter, it's easily waiverable if you didn't have a chronic problem recently.
Harassment is so heavily punished in the military I don't think you're informed on this topic beyond a few wild headlines.
It's extremely common knowledge that harassing women will ruin your military career very quickly.
Sexual assault rates remain high, afaik. How do those things all make sense? Are they just not investigating/punishing these problems?
Conviction for sexual assault in the military is an automatic dishonorable discharge and loss of all benefits as a minimum sentence. However, while the military generally has a slightly higher conviction rate than civilian courts, you don't have to be convicted to have career altering or even ending consequences.
The bar to convict is also lower. It doesn't require a unanimous vote, there's no statute of limitations, and you're generally going to face immediate consequences once accused.
The reporting says sexual assault rates are high in the military. If that's underreported, than the rates are even higher.
> (etc)
Whatever these mechanisms, they aren't implemented if nobody seriously pursues the accusation. Also, the mechanisms don't seem to have sufficient effect in practice.
This change increases maximum enlistment age. Maximum reenlistment age is something else entirely. To reenlist, you need to be able to complete 20 years of service by age 62. So if you joined at 18 and did 8 years then you can technically rennlist up to age 50. Not that you would or should but you can.
I know many 40 somethings in way better shape than most 20 somethings. And all things considered, if I were someday somehow sent off to war, I'd much rather be surrounded by the former assuming equivalent fitness.
it's because people cannot disassociate their own anti-war views with the benefits of a military career.
That's why i dont confound the military with the political aparatus's directing of said power. Because the military isn't murdering people for no reason - they are following (in the case of the west) a elected official's policy (which you are very welcome to dislike and oppose, as i do as well).
I think most people still are in support of the idea if military service even if that job may entail death.
I’m not debating the right or wrong of it, but it just is so. I’m pretty sure the entire history of militaries have been full of people enlisting to die and kill on behalf of some random politician they don’t necessarily agree with. There’s nothing particularly notable happening differently.
But Trump being the clown he is, this is laughable.
In all seriousness, I do agree about the functioning knees part. But as long as it's voluntary, I don't see the downside.
I'm not privy to the decisions about how staffing 42-year-old As infantry men is militarily wise, however.
You referred to joining the US military as an E-1 at the age of 42 as a career path. As an Army brat, I can tell you that it absolutely is not. At that age, it absolutely is a job of last resort.
I like how the options are "age out/die" or "be part of our disgusting military machine", no other options; people have no value unless they've already got money or can risk their blood.
Surely we can think of SOME option better than either of those?
maybe aviation electronics, or supply, medical.
marching with a pack and a gun ruins 20 year old knees.
If you start at 40, then you will lack the rank to ride in the truck.
It's midnight in the US on a workday, what would be more American than non-Americans complaining about America on American social media?
If one has impact in the military, what purpose is it serving under current administration and leadership? It's a hard sell from an ethical perspective.
Jobs that feel purposeless is a common complaint but actively serving evil?
Hilarious.
I don't think many people who don't exercise running can do 1.5 miles in 9:40.
Any other sport? Cycling, swimming, rowing, ball sports, team sports, weightlifting, ...
> I don't think many people who don't exercise running can do 1.5 miles in 9:40.
It's 1.5 miles at 9:40 mile pace; 14.5 minutes total. Much easier than 6:30 pace (what you're imagining).
I used to work around some very "high level" athletes. There is definitely a body type that is pretty BMI heavy that can run for days seemingly. They often struggle with sprints or H.I.I.T. type workouts, as a downside.
At run clubs, I see practically every novice join and do 3 miles / 30 mins at 10min/mile pace on their very first day or within 2-3 attempts.
Really not advocating for the time.
It's quite slow compared to most US military standards.
I'm simply talking about my love of visual "fatbodies" that sometimes have 5x the running cardio of a, say, 5'8" 150lb male that looks like they could run circles around the heavier individual.
I'm not at all into running but I suspect it's the exact same scenario. It's just a selection bias. And also like running, genetics plays heavily into it.
Maybe at this time they are having trouble recruiting but just like Russia US has large prison population that may like the offer thar Russian prisoners got: 6 months on the frontlines, if you survive you are free and well paid.
Just today Iran backed militants released a video of drones takings out US helicopters and radars, very similar to what we are used to seeing in Ukraine.
Is US public really ready to support such a thing and endure hardship like the Russians for ideological causes?
It’s fascinating, maybe Trump is right- maybe his supporters are literally tired of winning and want attrition?
Assuming elections still happen, that scenario would mean the end of the Republican party.
They used to say they are against war, against "jewish influence", against this against that but nothing seems to be changing their minds. I thought that this high ranking MAGA dude who resign over "Israel influence concerns" and immediately did rounds on the MAGA-sphere popular outlets doesn't seem to have any influence on the support for the war.
They don't appear to be ideologues but demagogues. Maybe its some more primal urge to kill and get killed and Trump has control over it?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-approval-hits-new-36...
> up to %100 among MAGA in fact.
Sure, but I mean if Trump shat himself live on TV, he'd probably get about 90% MAGA approval for that, too. That's not really the point.
So, 100% of the people that made Trump their personality think he's doing a good job? Not a great barometer.
They attacked a HH-60M Medevac helicopter which is a war crime, and also explains why it wasn't protected.
Also, the radar was Iraqi, although possibly jointly operated with the US.
I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I don't think the US public would accept losses on the order of 30k/month: there would be massive demonstrations and congress would likely act to cause disengagement.
In the first scenario, you desperately need a lot of warm bodies, most of what these people would be otherwise doing has been shut down, if someone does perform a critical role in society at large, going back and forth is quick, and the alternative still potentially leads to you losing that person.
In the second scenario, recruiting middle aged people robs your economic/industrial/cultural base of its experience and mid-level leaders who are critical to stuff getting done. Substantial resources are spent training, moving, and sustaining these troops who are not as well suited as younger individuals, on top of the opportunity cost. Besides the people already in the military who have spent years gaining applicable military experience, those additional bodies are liabilities, not assets. An argument can be made for raising mandatory retirement age to keep those skills around, but not for new recruits.
Generally speaking, you've needed a minimum ASVAB of 31 to join the military. Recruiting stations will have quotas of only accepting so many below 50 so if you're below 50 you may have a more restrictive choice of job, even though you qualify, because you're an undesirable candidate. You take up a valuable sub-50 slot. Oh and below 50 and the Air Force won't even sneeze on you. They don't have to take you. They have more than enough applicants.
This can go the other way too. You can score too high for certain jobs such that they won't want to sign you up because you'll get bored. This is way less common obviously.
Every area of the country is covered by a recruiting station ("RS") for each branch and is staffed by recruiters who usually aren't volunteers (eg most marines on a re-enlistment after an initial 4 years will have to do a Special Duty Assignment--SDA--and will end up as a recruiter or a drill instructor). Each recruiter will generally have a quota to fill of 2 contracts per month.
In some areas (eg Texas) this is no problem at all. Recruiters can be picky. In others, it's way more of a challenge. Anyway, a few years ago the enlistment numbers for the Navy must've gotten so bad that for awhile they were accepting an ASVAB of 10 [1]. 10 is bordering on illiterate.
I say this because raising the maximum enlistment age to 42 is almost as desperate as lowering the ASVAB minimum to 10. I cannot imagine a 42 year old E-! in basic getting yelled at by a 23 year old DI. You won't be doing 20 for the pension. I guess you'll get the GI Bill after 3-4 years. That's something I guess? Most other 42 year olds you'll meet will be near or beyond their 20 years.
[1]: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-recruiting-afqt-asvab-s...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Apti...
Passed all the physicals at Fort Dix. I was rejected.
Soon after an Army recruiter called me and said they are willing to take me.
Someone told me I was rejected because of high test scores. I didn't really believe them, but it kind of makes sense.
Armed forces does a lot of tracking and they need a mix of people. It makes sense to try to get people into jobs that work for both the person and the seevice, and where the person is likely to stay (if the service wants you to). Marine infantry is an important and prestigious job, but it might not be something that would have kept your interest.
The raising of the recruitment age has nothing to with "desperation" (recruitment has been at a high) and everything to do with people living longer/healthier lives and the military has been handing out age waivers for years.
The max enlistment age has been de facto 42ish for a while, they're just getting rid of pointless paper work and obstacles that don't make sense.
April 20: National Get High day.
Age 42.0
St Elon is risen and is now running Army recruitment.
Next time you start to generalize about "Americans" exhibiting some kind of unified belief or behavior, just stop and think about how stupid that is.
Oh, come on.
I'm sure they'll have no trouble recruiting the kinds of people they want - no woke, no DEI, no women, nobody who'd be troubled by symbols of swastikas or nooses (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/20/...).
Hey, for the people who DO sign up, they'll get to use Trump Drones! Well, Trump's sons drones (https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-sons-ba...). Those big juicy contracts were definitely awarded on merit, right? Right; good luck!
Join up! You can defend our "freedoms". Like the freedom to have ICE ignore the Constitution! We can do war crimes (bombing boats of Venezuela) now! The FCC threatens talk show hosts, and Pete Hegseth has opinions on the Scouts having girls in it (https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/441701...) but remember: they hate us for our FREEDOM. ( some conditions apply. )
Maybe the Air Force? Well, if you like Erika Kirk and White Christian Nationalism: (https://theintercept.com/2026/03/19/air-force-academy-charli...).
[rumor] It's not like sailors are so desperate to get out of this situation that they'd set fire to the laundry room on an aircraft carrier... right?(https://news.usni.org/2026/03/23/carrier-uss-gerald-r-ford-a...) I mean, 8 months at sea, dumb ass war nobody wants. Hmm. [this one's just a rumor, of course].
Besides: They said recruiting was WAY up, and we already won in Iran. Weird they'd need to loosen the rules, right? Weird...