Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered mandatory annual testosterone testing for all active-duty and reserve military members aged 30 and older, framing the initiative as essential to combat readiness and soldier resilience. But the directive has alarmed leading medical professionals who question whether the screening serves any proven military purpose and warn it could expose service members to unnecessary or even dangerous treatment.
Hegseth said the testing would be paired with guidance to help soldiers decide whether to pursue treatment, which would remain voluntary. The stated goals are to ensure troops have optimal testosterone levels for peak performance and to bolster their longevity and readiness in the field.
Yet four of six men's health experts contacted for this story said there is no solid scientific evidence that screening all military personnel in this age group would enhance combat effectiveness. Dr. Kevin McVary, a urologist affiliated with a telehealth testosterone platform, acknowledged that patients report improvements in alertness and stamina after treatment, but stressed that such evidence comes from symptomatic patients already being treated, not from broad population screening.
Major medical organizations including the American Urological Association and the Endocrine Society recommend testosterone treatment only for patients with confirmed deficiency and actual symptoms such as reduced libido, erectile dysfunction, fatigue, muscle loss, or low bone density. McVary cautioned that treating patients without symptoms leads to overtreatment and its own set of risks.
The timing of the screening is also problematic, according to Dr. Haleem Mohammed, chief medical officer at a men's wellness clinic network. While testosterone naturally declines starting around age 30, the rate and severity vary widely among individuals. Age 30 is not a logical threshold for screening, Mohammed argued, noting that some men experience only about 1 percent annual decline in their thirties and forties.
Fertility concerns loom large among the medical community's worries. All experts interviewed raised alarms about testosterone therapy's impact on male reproduction. McVary warned that many service members are young men still planning families, and testosterone treatment causes testicular shrinkage that cannot be reliably reversed. Additional side effects include blood clotting, prostate complications, acne, hair loss, breast tissue enlargement, and mood swings.
Recent research has also raised cardiac red flags. The FDA revised testosterone warning labels after a study of more than 5,200 men, but participants showed higher rates of abnormal heart rhythms and bone fractures, findings that could have military implications, according to Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic.
Hegseth cited a condition called operator syndrome, which affects elite special forces units and involves low testosterone alongside traumatic brain injury and other metabolic issues. But Dr. B. Christopher Frueh of the University of Hawaii, whose team first described the syndrome in 2020, noted that these operators face extreme physical exposures vastly different from the general military population. He questioned whether blanket screening of all 100 percent of active-duty and reserve members makes sense when many younger soldiers might restore testosterone through improved sleep, diet, and rest alone.
Some medical experts do see potential value in broader screening if done thoughtfully. Mohammed noted that testosterone testing can be a useful health indicator in men and that screening could identify reversible factors like excess weight that suppress testosterone naturally. Both those with reversible causes and those with true deficiency could benefit from proper medical guidance, he suggested.
The Pentagon has not released detailed protocols for how abnormal results will be handled or whether the screening will apply equally to male and female service members. That ambiguity itself troubles some experts, including Frueh, who noted that female soldiers might benefit from different hormonal assessments entirely.
Author James Rodriguez: "This is Pentagon policy at its most backwards, implementing a broad mandate without the data to support it while ignoring the fertility risks to young fighting men."
Comments