Hegseth’s plan to screen military members for low testosterone raises concern for doctors: “Not a performance drug”
Hegseth’s Military Testosterone Screening: What Doctors Are Saying
Hegseth s plan to screen military – Hegseth’s plan to screen military members for low testosterone has sparked debate among medical professionals. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that service members over age 30 will undergo annual testing for testosterone deficiency as part of routine health assessments. The initiative aims to ensure personnel “have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best.” Those identified for treatment may receive testosterone replacement therapy, though Hegseth did not clarify implications for female service members.
Medical Experts Question the Approach
Major medical organizations have raised concerns about Hegseth’s plan to screen. The Endocrine Society and American College of Physicians both recommend against routine testosterone screening, noting that levels fluctuate based on age, lifestyle, and even time of day. Dr. Céline Gounder, CBS News medical correspondent, emphasized: “Testosterone in the normal range is not a performance drug.” While replacement therapy may modestly improve libido and mood for men with genuinely low levels, research has not demonstrated benefits for cognitive function, fatigue reduction, or combat readiness.
“When a man in his 30s or 40s has a low testosterone level, it’s usually a signal of something else: extra weight, bad sleep, opioids, chronic stress. That describes a lot of military life. Treating the cause is what works. Handing him a hormone treats the number and leaves the cause sitting there.” — Dr. Céline Gounder
Dr. Marcus Goncalves, director of the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at NYU Langone Health, explained that normal testosterone ranges from 270 to 900-plus nanograms per deciliter. “Somebody could be normal at 350, somebody could be normal at 650,” he noted. “Putting people on that scale has no link to how masculine they are or feel or look.”
Low testosterone can stem from multiple factors common in military service, including stress, inadequate sleep, and physical overexertion. Research indicates that military training itself can temporarily affect hormone levels, but these changes are “transient and reversible,” according to Goncalves. When lifestyle factors cause decreased testosterone, levels typically rebound naturally once conditions improve.
Testosterone production naturally peaks during early adulthood, approximately ages 30 to 40, before declining roughly 1% annually. While low testosterone may contribute to fatigue, depression, and concentration difficulties, young men face “very low risk of having low testosterone,” Goncalves observed. He cautioned that symptoms often attributed to hormonal issues can stem from “20 other reasons.”
Cost and Complexity Concerns
Accurate testosterone measurement presents logistical challenges. Goncalves recommended testing within a narrow window between 8 and 10 a.m., when hormone levels typically peak. All reference ranges calibrate to this timeframe, and fasting before testing is ideal. If initial results indicate low levels, at least one repeat test should be conducted, potentially requiring multiple appointments spanning several months.
Gounder estimated that blood draws alone would cost the military “tens of millions of dollars a year.” Additional expenses for follow-up testing, treatment, and ongoing monitoring would increase the financial burden significantly. “There’s no published analysis showing this is a good use of money, and that should matter for an administration concerned with waste, fraud and abuse,” she stated.
The Endocrine Society specifically examined whether routine male screening for low testosterone was warranted, ultimately concluding it was not. “So the military is about to spend real dollars, at scale, on a program the science says isn’t worth doing,” Gounder concluded. Critics of Hegseth’s plan to screen argue that without evidence of performance improvement, the initiative may represent an expensive misallocation of resources rather than a meaningful enhancement to military readiness.