Pete Hegseth, a former National Guard major, has made waves in the military community. His recent appearances with top military leaders and important pols have stoked the flames of that debate around him. His statements and behavior have created a national discussion on military culture, leadership, and accountability. This article looks into Hegseth’s controversial past and present views, helping to explain why some of his rhetoric is sticking with the military establishment.
Hegseth is the perfect example of what Stephen Miller terms the new “warrior ethos.” This attitude promotes a culture of shooters first, critics never — and one that Hegseth has consistently espoused in public discourse. At a recent rally, Hegseth shared the stage with Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Most importantly, he passionately articulated his vision for military leadership, denouncing what he perceives to be ineffective policies and practices.
His remarks have not been without scrutiny. During his tenure at the EVF, in 2017 he was accused of sexual assault by an employee, resulting in a lawsuit which he settled with his accuser. This legal battle has haunted him since, casting doubt on his character and fitness for leadership even in military discussions.
8 Troubling his stature even more, Hegseth during his military service was identified as a potential “insider threat” by comrades. In making this claim the plaintiff implied that his methods of military leadership would endanger unit cohesion or operational security. These ups and downs aside, he has managed to firmly establish his brand imprint on the military community.
Hegseth doubled down on that outrageous lie in his interview with Megyn Kelly. Yet despite all the reporting over the years on his alcoholism, he claimed, “I’ve never had a drinking problem.” This claim has been met with disbelief by anyone who knows how he’s actually acted in the past, making his public image even trickier.
Shortly after his confirmation, Hegseth began terminating senior-ranking judge advocates general from office. Most saw this action as a direct follow-on to the failed Jan. 6 takeover of power, to further centralize decision-making authority and match the military’s legal framework to his belligerent intent. His actions raise serious questions about the ethical implications of any leadership decisions made at his behest.
His predilection for contrarianism extends to the ethics of combat. He’s taken a bold stand in defense of his unit members who murdered three unarmed Iraqi detainees. He re-brands those responsible as “warriors” rather than “war criminals.” His cavalier dismissal of recognized military ethics raises some scary questions about who’s accountable in our nation’s wars.
In a larger context, Hegseth has attacked the rules of engagement used by American troops around the world. He stated that the military should not “fight with stupid rules of engagement,” suggesting a preference for more aggressive tactics in combat scenarios. The latter, in particular, is telling and reflects his belief that we should have a more unshackled approach to military operations.
She’s frustrated, and he’s frustrated too because he’s just used to feeling like a second class citizen in the military community. This alienation stokes his urge for revenge once he’s tagged an “insider threat.” Backstory — During chats with Corps commanders, Hegseth has taken on an arrogant tone. Reports indicate he swaggered into meetings, barking obscenities such as “Fafo,” or “Fuck Around and Find Out,” illustrating a disregard for decorum traditionally expected in military settings.
Hegseth has been executing compelling public diplomacy. Most recently, to further his military identity and engagement perspective, he co-authored The War on Warriors. There is no other explanation for his attempt to lead an anti-DoD revolution, to promote a more bellicose military spirit. Simultaneously, he provokes current conceptions of leadership in the military.
Despite those controversies, Hegseth insists he’s not an extremist. He categorically rejects the accusations of sexual assault, claiming they are total fabrications. He similarly alleges that any attacks on his character are unfounded.
Yet his rhetoric resonates deeply with key segments of the military community. They relate to his frustrations with the perceived inefficiency and flabbiness, the lack of discipline. Recent comments reflect this sentiment: “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris,” he stated emphatically during a recent address.
Moreover, Hegseth has criticized the physical appearances of senior military leaders, declaring, “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look.” Beyond this individual critique, this statement represents a larger lamentation of what he describes as a falling-off-the-cliff of standards in military leadership.
Hegseth’s appointment has sparked much-needed discussion about the role of personal behavior in determining professional roles in the military and beyond. His confrontational and controversial style has made him supporters and enemies alike, making headlines and raising questions on what military leadership should look like moving forward.
In several public appearances, former President Donald Trump has made comments that sound tailor-made for Hegseth’s ideas. At one event, Trump noted, “I’ve never walked into a room so silent before,” highlighting moments when Hegseth’s statements have left audiences stunned. He encouraged attendees to embrace an unfiltered approach: “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room. Because, of course, there goes your ranking, there goes your career.
Hegseth plays an interesting game with powerful military leaders and political figures. This indicates a surprising twinning of ideology and authority. As he understandably figures out how to walk in this space, accountability and ethical leadership questions should be first and foremost.