By Robin Givhan / The Washington Post
Pete Hegseth looked great. That square jaw remained at a constant determined jut.
President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Defense Department and its 3 million troops and civilians walked into the Capitol Hill hearing room along with the wife he described as “beautiful” and “humble,” and flanked by many white men in suits. He settled into his seat at a big wooden witness table situated in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Its Republican members spent much of the morning and afternoon expressing their disgust over the degree to which diversity and inclusion are prized within the military while the Democrats spent their time voicing grave concerns about Hegseth’s basic human decency. After it was over, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said the man had “acquitted himself.”
During the confirmation hearing, which lasted more than four hours, Hegseth drank a lot of water as he sat under the bright lights of his congressional interrogation, frequently smiled and rarely scowled. A former Fox News television host, Hegseth remained polished and poised as he absorbed exasperated hectoring by Democrats and excessive lauding by Republicans.
Congressional hearings have become little more than public opportunities for lawmakers to either vent or hail. The witness is whacked by one and coddled by the other. But Hegseth is a particularly troubling character.
His military career began with Army ROTC at Princeton University and eventually included honorable service in Iraq with the Army National Guard. He advocated for veterans through two different organizations where his leadership skills, financial acumen and integrity have been called into question. He has had affairs, been accused of sexual assault and admitted to excessive drinking. By varying degrees, he has denied or excused all bad behavior by noting that it was either a falsehood cooked up by the “liberal media” or that he simply isn’t “perfect,” which might be acceptable if he were being vetted to run a bakery rather than an organization in charge of nuclear weapons and national defense.
During his opening remarks, Hegseth thanked God for the opportunity before him. And later, he exonerated himself from all failings and transgressions by saying, “I’m redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” which may indeed be true. But the Democrats made it abundantly clear that they find his past behavior unconscionable and have no intention of giving him a pass. The Republicans had already given him one.
“How many push-ups can you do?” Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., asked.
“I did five sets of 47 this morning,” Hegseth replied.
The witness’ hair was neatly pomaded into place, a thick, glossy salt-and-pepper wave flowing back from his wide forehead. His suit was dark blue, and his crisp shirt a gleaming white. The tie was bright red with thin blue stripe and even thinner white ones. An American-flag hankie was tucked into his jacket breast pocket. Flags adorned his socks. At least when it came to attire, no one was going to out-patriot Hegseth. Not on this day.
Hegseth came in waving flags, both literal and metaphoric. He was on a mission to make it clear that he had nothing but the best interest of America at heart. He said he wanted a military rooted in a meritocracy because it is now rooted in diversity, equity and inclusivity nonsense.
“The military was a forerunner in courageous racial integration,” Hegseth said. “However, the DEI policies of today are not the same as what happened back then. They are dividing troops inside formations and causing commanders to walk on eggshells.”
The prescription he ordered over the entire afternoon was to bring back a lethal fighting force rather than one hamstrung by DEI silliness. He wanted a fiscally responsible Pentagon instead of one spending time and money on DEI bunk. He wanted America to be the best and not a nation obsessed with DEI.
“I would support you as a spokesperson for the Pentagon,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to the man who was vying to run the Pentagon. “I do not dispute your communication skills.”
He scooted around a pointed question from Sen. Elissa Slotkin, the newly elected Democrat from Michigan, a state Trump won, when she tried to get a sense of whether Hegseth would be willing to let loose the military on Americans if the incoming commander in chief ordered him to do so. Slotkin’s query wasn’t based on a hypothetical situation but rather precedent, as Trump made use of the military during the racial justice marches of 2021, when officers cleared Lafayette Square of peaceful protesters and flew helicopters low over others.
Most concerns raised about Hegseth were related to his denigration of women in the military, particularly those who served in combat roles. Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) referenced Hegseth’s blunt declarations over the years that women did not belong in combat roles. He tried valiantly to overtalk them, arguing that women in combat positions were swell and that the senators had completely misunderstood his previous words.
Gillibrand described his remarks as “hurtful,” “harmful,” “disrespectful” and “mean.”
“You said in your statement, you don’t want politics in the DOD. Everything you’ve said in these public statements has been politics: ‘I don’t want women. I don’t want moms,’” Gillibrand said. “You’re basically saying that women, after they have children, can never serve in the military in a combat role. It’s a silly thing to say and beneath the position that you’re aspiring to.”
Hegseth has insisted that he was only concerned about maintaining the highest standards possible in the military. “I very much appreciate you bringing up my comments from 2013,” he said to Warren. “For me, this issue has always been about standards.”
Warren wasn’t buying that argument. “Let’s just stop right there, Mr. Hegseth. I’m quoting you from the podcast: ‘Women shouldn’t be in combat at all.’ Where is your reference to standards?”
What does Hegseth believe? Hegseth asserted that he has fought alongside men and women, Black and White, liberal and conservative. And as long as they were united for a singular purpose, for a love of country, all was well. That may indeed be true. But he has also made it clear that the standard by which he judges all others is one based on the data points rooted in being a straight, white man. He doesn’t want the military engaged in programs that shine a light on differences – never once considering that differences are dependent on one’s point of view.
He boasted about fighting alongside Americans of varying ethnicities and beliefs. And surely he had their backs as much as they had his. But one wonders what it was like to dine next to him. To bunk near him? To be seen through his eyes?
For Hegseth, a meritocracy is one in which he merits the spoils. One in which his past failures are forgiven. In which his mistakes are redeemed. In which a résumé unlike previous secretaries of defense is considered a benefit rather than a hindrance.
In Hegseth’s version of a meritocracy, he looks exceptional. No matter what.
Follow Robin Givhan on X @RobinGivhan.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
