The Pentagon’s top civilian, Pete Hegseth, told an audience of generals and admirals at Marine Corps Base Quantico in September that he believes rules against hazing and bullying have been “undercutting commanders and [noncommissioned officers].” His remarks came as a Defense Department report published in June shows increases in both hazing and bullying complaints across the armed forces.
The congressionally mandated report tracks reports and adjudication of hazing and bullying (excluding boot camp and other entry-level training). While total counts remain relatively small, the Marine Corps continues to account for a disproportionate share of hazing complaints, and the report highlights inconsistent record-keeping about accountability actions taken against those found responsible.
Key findings
- In fiscal 2024, service members filed 138 hazing complaints; 31 (22%) were substantiated, up from 121 complaints and 29 substantiations in 2023.
- Troops filed 1,058 bullying complaints in 2024; 227 (21%) were substantiated, up from 932 reports and 175 substantiations in 2023.
- Hazing reports rose in 2024 after three years of decline; bullying reports and substantiations have increased steadily since 2020.
- Distribution across services is uneven: the Marine Corps accounted for 82% of hazing reports in 2020 and 47% in 2024, remaining the largest share despite being one of the smaller services. In 2024 the Navy reported the most bullying complaints (381), followed by the Air Force (271) and the Marine Corps (223). The Army has consistently reported among the fewest incidents.
Unclear outcomes and inconsistent data
The report notes significant gaps in dispositions and accountability. In 2024, the outcome of 44 of 138 hazing complaints was listed as “unknown,” including 30 of 66 complaints submitted within the Marine Corps. Similarly, 123 bullying complaints had their disposition recorded as “unknown.” No complaints were withdrawn by complainants during the reporting period.
Where disciplinary information is provided it is sometimes incomplete. For example, in the Marine Corps roughly half of perpetrators of substantiated hazing received nonjudicial punishment; the other half were recorded under a generic “other” category, obscuring what consequences were actually applied.
How the Department defines hazing and bullying
The Defense Department definitions used in the report are broad. Hazing can occur in person or electronically and includes physical acts (striking someone; pressing or piercing an object into another person’s skin; “branding, handcuffing, duct taping, tattooing, shaving, greasing, or painting another person;” forcing consumption of food, water, alcohol, drugs or other substances), as well as verbal or written scolding, humiliation, abusive tricks, or encouraging another person to engage in illegal, harmful, demeaning or dangerous acts.
Bullying is defined even more broadly to include degrading or damaging another’s property or reputation and intimidating, teasing, or taunting someone, in addition to behaviors listed under hazing.
Lawmakers raise alarm
Representative Judy Chu (D-CA), who authored the congressional directive requiring annual hazing reports, warned that narrowing those definitions could endanger service members. Chu cited several tragic cases to underscore potential consequences, including the 2011 death of her nephew, Marine Lance Cpl. Harry Lew, who took his own life in Afghanistan after severe hazing; the 2016 death of recruit Raheel Siddiqui, who reportedly jumped from a building after abusive treatment during boot camp; and the 2017 death of Army Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar after an apparent hazing incident.
“All service members and recruits must be treated with dignity and respect,” Chu and 27 House Democrats wrote in a letter asking the Department to retain existing definitions and strengthen prevention and reporting policies. “Weakening these protections will only worsen the existing problem of military hazing and endanger more lives.”
Hegseth’s memo and the review
On Sept. 30, a memo signed by Hegseth ordered a 30-day review of definitions for hazing, bullying, and harassment, arguing current policy is “overly broad” and can jeopardize combat readiness and mission accomplishment by imposing administrative burdens on commanders. Hegseth has said that while abusive behavior should remain prohibited, terms like “bullying” and “toxic” have been “weaponized” inside formations and that entry-level trainers should be allowed greater latitude to maintain standards.
The memo was issued shortly before a 43-day government shutdown that delayed many federal operations. Pentagon officials have not announced findings from the review.
What to watch next
Key questions remain: whether the review will narrow definitions, how any changes would affect safeguards and reporting, and whether the Department will close data gaps that obscure how complaints are resolved. Lawmakers and military leaders will likely press for clearer accountability and better record-keeping as the debate continues over preserving discipline while preventing abuse.
