Pete Hegseth, the newly confirmed U.S. Secretary of Defense, has already raised eyebrows with his nomination. He hinted he might defy a federal district court order banning the use of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles. During that same momentous hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth was put on the defensive. He staunchly defended his plans to have military forces involved in domestic issues, which set off a furious battle.
At that rare moment in the session, Hegseth was unprepared to answer questions regarding deploying troops to California. The real discussion there should have been about their authority to interact with civilians. He responded affirmatively when asked if troops could take action if necessary, stating, “If necessary, in their own self-defense, they could temporarily detain and hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But there’s no arresting going on.” His innocuous comments nonetheless touched on the serious issue of military overreach into civilian life.
The Senate hearing would prove to be a watershed moment for Hegseth. He was confirmed to lead the Pentagon after an unusual tie vote on his cabinet nomination. Remarkably, three Republican senators joined every Democratic senator in voting against his appointment. This split, more than anything else, mirrors the backlash brewing around Hegseth’s approach to national security, sidelined concerns around his style of governance.
In answer to questions about the process that’s led to deploying troops, including whether these troops would have authority over protesters, Hegseth’s attitude was flippant. When asked during a press briefing if troops were allowed to shoot protesters in the legs, he literally laughed. This move triggered outrage from the public. Senator Elissa Slotkin pointedly questioned Hegseth on the impact of his power. In response, he claimed she would be called on to make strategic decisions about military operations.
“Senator, I’d be careful what you read in books and believing in, except for the Bible.” – Pete Hegseth
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island pressed Hegseth about his knowledge of future military deployments, but got a muddled answer. Hegseth announced at that time that there were no plans that we know of for troop deployment. That left even friendly senators questioning whether he grasped the full extent of the crisis.
The feud really heated up when Senator Jacky Rosen challenged Hegseth on his dominion over the DOD. Rosen was not shy about expressing her disappointment. Make no mistake, you have no right to determine when my time should be over. And I’m just gonna tell you, Mr. Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department. This confrontation signaled increasing frustration among lawmakers with Hegseth’s leadership and decision-making abilities.
Hegseth had a thing or two to say about judicial intervention on national security matters, too. As he said, “I don’t think it’s the role of district courts to be setting national security policy. When that goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll find out.” In it, he conceded that his department would comply with Supreme Court decisions. He was much more willing to reverse lower court rulings.
Further fueling the backlash over Hegseth’s leadership are accusations over his recent appointment of Kingsley Wilson as the Pentagon’s head press secretary. Wilson has previously been criticized for sharing antisemitic conspiracy theories on social media, raising questions about the administration’s stance on sensitive social issues.
Even with these qualms, Hegseth insisted that the military’s intervention in Los Angeles is crucial to restoring safety and security. Crucially, he underscored, “We have a plan for each, you know,” indicating a preparedness to use hardline military tactics whenever they are considered necessary.
This has created a storm of tensions between Secretary of Defense and lawmakers. Beyond concerns about Hegseth’s leadership style, the consequences of military involvement in domestic issues must be considered. The discussions within the Senate Armed Services Committee reflect a critical moment in U.S. governance as officials grapple with balancing national security and civil liberties.