President-elect Donald Trump has announced his choice of Fox News host and former U.S. Army veteran in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pete Hegseth, for the position of U.S. Secretary of Defense. This nomination has faced significant criticism from various American circles, especially among legislators in Congress who have expressed their discontent with this and other appointments revealed by Trump. Critics argue that these choices reflect a preference for individuals loyal to him who share his same worldview. Despite some Republicans opposing and criticizing Hegseth’s selection, the Republican-majority Senate is expected to confirm his appointment, though the process may be slow due to the loyalty of many Republican members to Trump and their fear of confronting him.
Reasons for Opposition
There are several reasons driving American politicians, lawmakers, and elites to criticize Trump’s selection of Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense (Pentagon). The following are the most notable points of contention:
Fear of Politicizing the Department of Defense: Many opponents of Hegseth’s appointment fear it signals an intent to politicize the Department of Defense to align its actions with the whims of the incoming Trump administration. This raises concerns about institutions shifting from long-term strategic outlooks to appeasing individual leaders. Hegseth’s views on various issues reflect a lack of military experience and balance, hinting at potentially far-right policies he may implement in the Pentagon. Notably, he has expressed a desire to purge some Pentagon leaders, such as General C.Q. Brown, for supporting progressive policies. It’s worth mentioning that there are conservative voices in Congress supporting Hegseth, seeing him capable of restructuring a Pentagon perceived as corrupt. Hegseth himself accused one-third of senior military officers of “politicizing the U.S. military” due to their support for progressive policies aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion, which bolstered LGBTQ+ service members during Joe Biden’s administration.
Lack of Experience: Many lawmakers criticize Trump’s choice of a Fox News host for a position that requires a significant level of expertise in various logistical matters related to the Department of Defense. While Hegseth has received two bronze stars for his military service, critics argue his experience is limited. He graduated from Harvard and Princeton and has been the executive director of “Concerned Veterans for America” since 2006 before joining Fox News in 2014 and becoming an on-air personality in 2017. Hegseth served as an infantry officer from 2002 to 2021, achieving the rank of Captain, and had some experience in the Middle East, including nearly a year in Iraq in 2006 and eight months in Afghanistan in 2011. Overall, while he has 20 years of military experience, it is viewed as that of a combat soldier rather than a seasoned administrator capable of managing a critical national security department with a budget exceeding $800 billion and millions of diverse employees.
Accusations Against Trump for Selecting Non-Opposing Figures: Some American politicians accuse Trump of deliberately choosing figures lacking strong expertise or visions to ensure no dissenting voices within his upcoming administration, prompting concerns of establishing an “imperial presidency,” as veteran journalist Bob Woodward has described, where the powers of the U.S. president expand alongside the institutions.
Concerns Over Hegseth’s Right-Wing Extremist Views: Fears abound that Hegseth holds extremist right-wing views. He mentioned being removed as a National Guard soldier from Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration due to a tattoo of a cross, which organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center associate with extremist anti-Muslim religious groups in the U.S. The National Guard confirmed that twelve soldiers were removed due to suspected connections to extremist groups, although specific identities were not disclosed.
Opposition to Women’s Involvement in the Military: Hegseth has publicly rejected the involvement of women in combat operations, criticizing former President Barack Obama’s decisions that allowed women to join various combat units, arguing that this weakened rather than strengthened the military. He described women in a discussion with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro as “givers of life, not savers of it,” prompting responses from veterans like Allison Jaslow, who advocate for inclusivity in cultural attitudes towards the military.
Ethical Concerns Regarding War Stance: Critics highlight Hegseth’s ethical positions on warfare, noting his support for troops accused of “war crimes.” In 2019, he secretly encouraged Trump to pardon veterans accused of such offenses, leading to widespread criticism of Trump’s interference in military judicial independence. Supporters view these veterans as being forced to undertake “dirty” work in combat.
Shared Views with Trump on Moscow and Beijing: Hegseth believes that Russia is unlikely to conquer all of Europe, challenging prevailing narratives and linking the Russian invasion of Ukraine to broader geopolitical stability concerns. He argues that continued support for Ukraine could provoke severe consequences for Washington, including potential nuclear conflict, while calling for an overhaul of Pentagon procurement to better counter the growing capabilities of the Chinese military.
The Dilemma of Experience
In summary, despite widespread criticism, Hegseth’s nomination is likely to be confirmed in the Senate. The real issue lies not just in Hegseth’s qualifications but in Trump’s pattern of appointing individuals who lack substantial expertise and are loyal to his administration’s ideals. This raises concerns about the upcoming administration’s alignment with Trump’s personal whims rather than a commitment to competent governance. The critique of the politicization of the Pentagon has been similarly directed at Biden’s administration for pursuing progressive initiatives, indicating a trend where each administration seeks to implement its agenda within U.S. institutions.
