The Texas National Guard drew national attention this week after seven of its members were sent home for failing to meet physical or mission-readiness standards ahead of a controversial deployment to Illinois and Oregon — assignments that have already landed the Trump administration in ongoing litigation with state governments.
The Texas Military Department (TMD) confirmed on Tuesday that during a “pre-mission validation process,” seven guardsmen “who did not meet mission requirements” were removed from the assignment and “returned to home station.” According to the TMD, the troops were immediately replaced by other guardsmen who met all requirements.
“The Texas National Guard echoes Secretary Hegseth’s message to the force: ‘Our standards will be high, uncompromising, and clear,’” the TMD said in a statement, referencing remarks made in September by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In that speech, Hegseth declared that the military would adopt a single, “highest male standard” of physical fitness for all service members — a controversial change from previous gender- and age-adjusted benchmarks.
The removals followed viral photos posted on social media on October 7 showing several Texas guardsmen appearing physically unfit while preparing for deployment to Illinois. The images prompted widespread criticism and renewed scrutiny of the Guard’s fitness standards.
Hegseth shared a Task & Purpose report on the removals via X (formerly Twitter) on October 12, writing, “Standards are back at the Department of War.” The phrase referred to the department’s newly authorized secondary title, the Department of War, approved by President Donald Trump in September as part of a symbolic rebranding effort emphasizing “readiness and strength.”
When contacted for comment, the Department of Defense referred all questions to the Texas Military Department, declining to elaborate on individual cases.
Background on the Deployment
Roughly 400 members of the Texas National Guard were activated on October 5 under orders from Secretary Hegseth, with authorization from Texas Governor Greg Abbott. The guardsmen were assigned to assist in protecting federal property and personnel — including ICE agents — in cities such as Chicago and Portland, where Hegseth said “violent demonstrations” were either occurring or anticipated.
The deployment orders came amid heightened tensions between the federal government and several Democratic-led states over the use of National Guard forces in domestic operations.
In Oregon, Governor Tina Kotek objected to federal plans to deploy Oregon’s own Guard members without her consent, prompting a federal judge to issue a temporary injunction against the move. That decision has since led to a broader legal dispute over the federal government’s authority to mobilize state-controlled National Guard units for law enforcement-related purposes.
Illinois has faced a similar situation. A federal district court judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on October 10 preventing Texas Guardsmen already deployed in the state from participating in active protection missions. While the troops remain stationed there, they have been barred from engaging in any direct law enforcement support pending further review. The TRO is set to remain in effect until Thursday, October 23.
National Guard Response
The National Guard Bureau, which oversees Guard units across all states and territories, reaffirmed its commitment to strict physical and readiness standards in a statement issued October 9.
“All National Guard Soldiers and Airmen are required to meet service-specific height, weight, and physical fitness standards at all times,” the bureau said. “When mobilizing for active duty, members go through a validation process to ensure they meet requirements. On the rare occasions when members are found not in compliance, they will not go on mission.”
The bureau added that it remains “laser-focused on compliance and standards,” emphasizing that maintaining readiness and professionalism is essential to the Guard’s credibility and operational effectiveness.
Broader Implications
The episode underscores how the Trump administration’s recent approach to military readiness — emphasizing uniform standards and stricter enforcement — is already shaping operations on the ground. Supporters of the policy, including Hegseth and some state officials, argue it will restore discipline and “lethality” across the armed forces. Critics, however, contend it risks alienating qualified personnel and politicizing the military.
