Winston Churchill, President Theodore Roosevelt and John Fetterman, they all have something in common: tattoos. I am here to argue that tattoos can be considered freedom of expression, a strong naval tradition, and most importantly, no barrier to job performance. The Marine Corps should have no restrictions on tattoos. Over the past 50 years, tattoos have continued to grow in popularity, but the Marine Corps wants to place restrictions on its military; claiming their policy is designed to help their military maintain a disciplinary appearance. There is evidence that tattooing is considered favorable by royalty and the elite. Free speech, before one could truly understand the position, became clear and concise with the following statement: "The American people expect Marines to be disciplined, physically fit, and ready to accomplish any mission. They also expect Marines to possess esprit de corps and a clean, sharp personal appearance” (Marine Corps Bulletin 1020, 2016). Today, tattooing is the sixth fastest growing retail industry in the United States and the fastest growing demographic. The group seeking a tattoo is middle-class suburban women (Cartoon, 2016). To put it plainly, the specialty of tattooing no longer only attracts insubordinate “social freaks.” Rather, you're usually as likely to find that a Fortune 500 executive, a doctor, a governor, and a lawyer sport a tattoo like a punk rocker. Given that 73% of today's young people receive their first tattoo at the age of 18, the likelihood of coming across a tattooed employee is very likely. Many contemporary companies are emphasizing their commitments to diversity and inclusion, and tattoos are becoming less of an issue at all levels (Hennessey, 2013). A statement as such supports my contention that the Marine Corps needs to review its restriction guidelines regarding