As confirmations go, the hearing for Pete Hegseth — military veteran, failed leader of two veterans’ groups and outspoken Fox News commentator, — and someone Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Armed Services Committee chair, called an “unconventional” choice to become the leader of America’s military, was fraught with contradiction and deflection .
Whatever substantive criticism or more contentious allegations emerged in public examination of a guy with a damaged character background and no managerial experience to fire up a “warrior” military, what seems really at work was a pressure campaign — likely successful — for Republican votes rather than a thorough vetting of an important Cabinet candidate.
As the first Donald Trump candidate to face Senate review, Hegseth epitomized the burn-it-down, anti-Joe Biden outlook of the incoming administration. Rather than worry about international relationships with friend and foe or even readiness for major war, Hegseth had made clear that he wanted the job to take the “woke” out of military jargon, throwing out trans troops, barring women from combat, and eliminating diversity and inclusion and climate change from thinking about how to run a massive organization.
Hegseth, a combat vet, said he would restore “the warrior ethos to the Pentagon” with “lethality,” and give “new defense companies” a better chance to win contracts, and rapidly deploy emerging technologies. His “only special interest is — the warfighter,” Hegseth said — apparently not needing to spell out that he would prefer warfighters who apparently should be male, straight, and U.S. citizen.
Hegseth repeatedly said he was the victim of a “coordinated smear campaign” as if that was reason to overlook his background. A character-flawed Hegseth would be light-handed on moral standards in war, as he had been in advocating pardon for a Navy Seal and others who had faced war crime charges, and he would be heavy-handed on new weapons programs and bristling combativeness that he might not know how to carry out. He would return ‘masculinity’ to operations involving two million armed forces members, challenge our NATO alliance, cut back on prosecution of sexual assaults.
The would-be Defense Secretary, one of the most powerful jobs in government, would not be drawing upon his deep organizational leadership experience — he has none beyond running those two small vets’ groups into the ground, and rely instead on opinions. He does have a background that includes reports of heavy drinking, sexual abuse allegations and financial problems that would be the stuff of discipline for him if he were in the military.
Overall, it seems reasonable to ask: Just what makes this guy the best pick for the job?
The Hearing
From the start, it became clear that Democratic senators were unhappy over lack of access to FBI background information gathered as directed by the Trump transition team, which clearly had little interest in embarrassing material. The FBI was incomplete in interviewing potential critics. Hegseth snubbed pre-hearing interviews with Democrats.
In effect, Democrats were asking: What was the point of a confirmation hearing without enough information about his character? Ranking Sen. Jack Reed, D-RI, made clear that his partisans oppose Hegseth over various character issues, lack of experience and his views about what the job requires.
It quickly became clear that Hegseth’s views about the women in combat was going to be the main battlefield for the hearing. Harsh questions from Senators Jeane Shaheen, D-NH, and Kristen Gillibrand, D-NY, Mazie Hiroto, D-HI, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., about his published statements about women, standards, and perceptions of quotas seemed to pique Hegseth, and drew supportive softball questions from Republicans.
Other Democrats vigorously focused on financial problems, quashed sexual assault complaints, and excessive drinking. Hegseth demurred on each, or said he was wrongly accused, or said his life was changed by religion and marriage, or was cut off as he tried to answer more than yes or no. He squirmed after asking to be embraced for a change in life outlook.
For majority Republicans, this process is about preserving the narrow majority to approve Hegseth — and other Trump nominees — more than to judge suitability. Throughout the hearing, it was impossible to separate partisanship from the job of matching skimpy skills with the broad demands of the position.
These same Republicans have not raised any question about reports that Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., Trump’s pick to head the National Security Council, is vetting those career staffers with questions of personal loyalty to Trump, not experience with recognizing foreign dangers. Or about countries so distrustful of Trump’s picks that they threaten to withhold intelligence from U.S. counterparts. Hegseth wants to dump generals who carry out what he sees as diversity and inclusion when it interferes with “lethality.”
The key Republican drawing scrutiny was supposed to be Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a military vet herself as well as someone who has been sexually abused, who had objected to Hegseth’s views on women in combat. Hegseth seemed to have blunted her objections through private meetings, The issue, of course, was not Hegseth’s policy choices but the degree of political pressure being focused on Ernst’s vote.
Hegseth and supportive questions from Republicans like Kevin Cramer, R-ND, sought to make clear that he and others with Christian white supremacist leanings were the victims of a Biden-politicized military. Hegseth vowed to return troops to active service those who were dismissed over refusal to take “experimental” Covid shots. The withdrawal from Afghanistan remains a stain to Hegseth, who blamed Biden without mentioning that Trump had made the withdrawal deal.
What Did We Learn?
Did we learn whether Hegseth will cooperate with sending armed troops in the U.S. streets? Do we know that he will fire up plans to invade Greenland and Panama, and to attack cartel targets in a sovereign Mexico without Congressional okay? Would he advise withdrawing U.S. aid to Ukraine? Did we get a sense of how Hegseth will work with allies who no longer want to share intelligence with a U.S. government that indicates it will be less than rigorous about holding onto classified secrets? Do we know how Hegseth, who will be in the command chain to unleash nuclear weapons, will make those judgments? Did we learn about preparation for major wars while Ukrainians are turning to use of drones to knock out Russian tanks or guerillas are launching lone-wolf attacks?
The answers were the same: Hegseth will do what Trump wants to do. And he would promote “lethality.” That’s it. In the end, listeners slogged through another highly partisan performance.
The practical question at the end of this hearing was not about Hegseth’s skills and attitudes, or even whether his time as a potential Defense Secretary would make us somehow safer or more agile or improved by any measure unrelated to partisan politics. It is only about whether the Senate retains the three Republican votes it needs to have a majority confirmation of someone who should not be on the menu.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF OUR NONPROFIT FREE AND INDEPENDENT NEWSROOM