Jump to content

Pete Hegseth

From Wikiquote
Kill them all.

Peter Brian Hegseth (born June 6, 1980) is an American author, former television presenter, and former Army National Guard officer who has been the 29th United States Secretary of Defense since 2025.

On 9/11 I was a college student. Those attacks on New York City, the Pentagon, and in the skies reoriented the trajectory of my life- and the lives of an entire generation.
In an odd way, this rise of ISIS, followed by their defeat, crystallized even further the need to tell the long, winding, conflicted, and utterly courageous stories of the men who have been fighting since 9/11. Did we win? Did we lose? Was it worth it? The legacy of warriors is worthy of elevation- a reflection of what we should really value.
And then veterans come home, with hopes and dreams- and scars of war. They struggle to transition to civilian life; many are wounded (seen and unseen); many wrestle with post-traumatic stress; suicide was taking more lives than the battlefield ever did. We cannot allow ourselves to look away, to shrug, and say that's just the way it is.
I can't properly diagram a single sentence, and couldn't tell you the difference between a verb and an adverb. I write like I speak. It just is what it is. We were all failed by our government schools, and we didn't even know it.
Americans were proud to see the images of Afghans- including women- holding up their purple-stained fingers as they went to the polls to "elect" their new government. Democracy had arrived in Afghanistan! Girls were going to school, women were working in government jobs, and religious fanatics were relegated to the hinterlands of the country. Except, as I saw firsthand in 2011- and the world saw ten years later, in the summer of 2021- it was all a mirage. None of it was real; it was a house of cards, destined to collapse.
During the writing of this book, America's two-decade war in Afghanistan came to an inglorious end. After thousands of lives lost, and trillions of dollars spent, the Islamist Taliban are back in charge. It's a humbling, if illuminating, reality.

Quotes

[edit]

2019—2022

[edit]
  • Said during a Senate hearing before becoming Secretary of Defense:
I'm not going to have a drink at all. It's not hard for me because it's not a problem for me.
  • So this is the biggest deployment of my life, and there won't be a drop of alcohol on my lips while I'm doing it.
  • About a bombing raid against Iran:
President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success, resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war.

Modern Warriors (2020)

[edit]
  • This book is dedicated to the real 1 percent: the warriors- past, present and future- who answered freedom's call.
    • Dedication
  • On 9/11 I was a college student. Those attacks on New York City, the Pentagon, and in the skies reoriented the trajectory of my life- and the lives of an entire generation.
    • p. x
  • In an odd way, this rise of ISIS, followed by their defeat, crystallized even further the need to tell the long, winding, conflicted, and utterly courageous stories of the men who have been fighting since 9/11. Did we win? Did we lose? Was it worth it? The legacy of warriors is worthy of elevation- a reflection of what we should really value.
    • p. xiii
  • It was out of all these moments that the idea for Modern Warriors rose. While politicians and media can whitewash a conflict, the legacy always remains for those who fought there. The warriors who left their families, friends, and comfort to do the dirty work of their country. We need to tell those stories.
    And then veterans come home, with hopes and dreams- and scars of war. They struggle to transition to civilian life; many are wounded (seen and unseen); many wrestle with post-traumatic stress; suicide was taking more lives than the battlefield ever did. We cannot allow ourselves to look away, to shrug, and say that's just the way it is.
    • p. xiii
  • By their nature, these veterans are straight talkers. And they have strong, informed opinions. In the company of one another, keeping it in the family, they pull no punches. They share their stories for the benefit, as well as yours. They share a desire to step beyond the boundaries of their immediate military families- to include you. Each of the chapters in this book highlights an individual modern warrior who has agreed to share experiences and insights. The good, the bad, the weird, the beautiful, the ugly- the real story in their own words, from the interviews I conducted with them. I only interject as necessary for clarity and to make transitions smoother.
    • p. xiv
  • I'm privileged to call many of these warriors friends. These are great Americans. They are heroes- even if they reject that title. Working on this venture with them has made me even more proud to be an American- which I didn't know was possible. These men and women are true patriots and true warriors. Like those before them, some may have joined the military for a cause or for the college money, but that soon became secondary to the brotherhood of war. When the bullets start flying, there are no Republicans or Democrats, whites or blacks- only brothers, the greatest of our men and women. This book is dedicated to everyone who has answered America's call. Who put it all on the line- and especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on the altar of freedom. We never, ever forget them. Warriors forever, in life and death. May their stories live forever.
    • p. xv

Battle for the American Mind (2022)

[edit]
  • But it's not just schools. Do yourself a favor and visit your local Barnes & Noble bookstore. Check out the kids section, and notice what books are front and center. The last time I visited mine, of the forty children's books displayed, at least thirty were progressive, agenda-driven books. This bookstore was not in a "liberal" community- this was in a conservative area. Books by or about Michelle Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Kamala Harris were all front and center. There was A Is for Activist and multiple books about George Floyd and Black Lives Matter. Gender and sexuality were well represented, not to be outdone by at least five books about climate change and the environment. It is nearly impossible, without really digging, to find books that contain patriotic, Christian, or conservative themes.
    • p. 11
  • During the writing of this book, America's two-decade war in Afghanistan came to an inglorious end. After thousands of lives lost, and trillions of dollars spent, the Islamist Taliban are back in charge. It's a humbling, if illuminating, reality. Like most Americans, I was eager for "the folks who knocked those buildings down, to hear all of us soon," as President George W. Bush said atop the rubble of the World Trade Center in 2001. American military might quickly toppled the Taliban, and Al Qaeda scurried into Pakistan. What followed was a nineteen-year experiment in Afghanistan, during which I had a front-row seat.
    • p. 54-55
  • Americans were proud to see the images of Afghans- including women- holding up their purple-stained fingers as they went to the polls to "elect" their new government. Democracy had arrived in Afghanistan! Girls were going to school, women were working in government jobs, and religious fanatics were relegated to the hinterlands of the country. Except, as I saw firsthand in 2011- and the world saw ten years later, in the summer of 2021- it was all a mirage. None of it was real; it was a house of cards, destined to collapse.
    Why? Conventional answers abound: the Afghan Army was built in the image of the American Army, unable to operate effectively without air support. Or the Afghan government was irredeemably corrupt and beholden to Western aid. Or, my personal favorite, "the Americans have the watches, but we [the Taliban] have the time"- American political will was destined to break. (Osama bin Laden did predict as much.) All of these explanations touch on aspects of America's failure, but none explain the deeper reason. For two decades of work to collapse in two weeks, something more fundamental was at play.
    • p. 55
  • I also have a chip on my shoulder as it relates to "fancy pants" private schools. You know, the ones with the fancy uniforms and family legacies. I don't like the so-called elite status, and I don't like the arrogance. Families pay their way in, in the hopes that their (average) kids will go to "elite" universities. That was my view of most private schools, and, frankly, it still is (excepting classical Christian schools, which reject these forms of elitism). Using money to get a progressive high school diploma in order to get privileged kids into a progressive university just reinforces the failing status quo- pumping more "good kids" into a system designed to turn them into obedient social justice warriors. This privileged path only reinforces the progressive pipeline and power structure.
    • p. 240
  • We all come at the subject of education- of "school"- with our own backgrounds. The Left calls this concept "implicit bias." They cynically apply it to race and gender, but it's very true when it comes to schooling. The goal of this book has been to challenge our long-held assumptions- our biases- about what we think is good for kids, and good for this country.
    • p. 240
  • Just doing what we are doing, and hoping our kids turn out "just fine," is not a strategy. I know many good families, good parents, who believe that living in a good neighborhood, with other good families, and going to "good schools" will insulate their kids. Instead, the story unfolds otherwise. The school tells students that their parents' beliefs are backward; they are young and naive if they hold traditional values, it's much easier to follow the crowd, social media reinforces every "woke" message, Hollywood does the same, and, voila, you have a high school graduate you don't recognize. Or, just as bad, a falsely fortified graduate who heads off to college and is completely consumed by the next level of "woke" educational and social pressure. If I had a dollar for every parent or grandparent who lamented as much to me during my travels, I would be a very rich man.
    • p. 242
  • As soon as I found classical Christian education, I realized how little I knew. I am a graduate of two of the most "prestigious" universities in America- Princeton and Harvard- yet I've never read most of the classics. Homer or Virgil, Plato or Aristotle? I've read next to nothing of them in school. I don't know a word of Latin or Greek, let alone really understanding the histories of Rome and Greece. I never had my faith infused into my education; it was always just an accessory. I can't properly diagram a single sentence, and couldn't tell you the difference between a verb and an adverb. I write like I speak. It just is what it is. We were all failed by our government schools, and we didn't even know it.
    • p. 246
  • During this project, I've visited many classical Christian schools as well. Some small, some large. Some urban, others rural. All of them are bursting at the seams and full of life. What strikes you when you enter them is how much more simple- or classic- they are aesthetically. The hallways and classrooms are simple, walls adorned with Bible verses, portraits of the founding fathers, cursive writing, and the American flag. If you enter a public school classroom, you are immediately hit with the opposite- bright colors and flowery slogans. At first the contrast seems stark, but it's intentional. The "beauty" in classical Christian schools is the knowledge and love of learning fostered in the classroom. The energy is not on the walls, but instead in the mission and the kids. It's the opposite of government schools, which have colorful walls and fancy technology, but an empty mission.
    • p. 247-248
  • The same thing goes for elite private schools, and many Catholic schools. Social justice has become the gospel for most parochial schools in our country. It's no better than government schools; in fact, in some ways it's worse. Government schools are silent on faith, but many religious schools are self-loathing- apologizing for our faith and our history. No matter the school, I know something for certain: two or three hours of "church" each week is not sufficient to counteract forty hours (or more) of social justice indoctrination. Following the crowd = enabling the enemy. Or, as the Left often puts it, status quo = complicit.
    • p. 248
  • More importantly, the state of our country right now requires future citizens who are more than survivors of progressive education. Our Republic cannot survive if future generations blindly follow the progressive pipeline and become ambivalent followers of conventional thinking. In this day and age, in 2022 America, our country needs leaders. We need fighters. We need men and women of wisdom and courage. We need the next generation of founding fathers. It's no wonder our culture and politics is so divisive, negative, and toxic today- it's all a product of the massive project turned Cultural Marxist Paideia. Most Americans don't know any better. A great example is Congresswoman "Comrade" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; you can hardly blame her for her politics; she is a product of a system that worships what she preaches. She is not an outlier; she is the result.
    • p. 248
  • Without the grace of Jesus Christ, and of many others, I would not be here today. Our kids need Christ. We all need Christ. Without a grace-filled life with conviction, children cannot thrive- something I desperately want for my kids. The church, the school, and the family must be dedicated to the reality of God's grace alone, and each child's faith alone. The call to discipleship begins with faith, but this is where classical Christian education picks up. That faith can be made stronger when wisdom and virtue are cultivated.
    • p. 250
  • We've heard it before: get married, have lots of kids, and raise them in Christian homes. To that I add this: never let them set foot in progressive government schools. Break the cycle! Instead, join a movement- an insurgency- that contributes to something that will outlast your life. In an upside-down world, classical Christian education is the only comprehensive educational model that can restore our Western Christian Paideia, and give our kids at least a fighting chance to save America and Christendom. Join the insurgency! And then spread the word.
    • p. 251

2023—2024

[edit]
  • Using my platform to share my Christian faith is the most valuable use of my time and resources.
  • I’ve got a bunch of kids and realize the only thing that matters is introducing them to Jesus Christ.
  • Truly inviting [Jesus] into my heart—to command my life—has been edifying and liberating.
  • The power of prayer is real. Parents plant seeds that may take a while to sprout and grow, but God uses it all to make us into who we are. I’m so grateful to belong to God and be His servant.
  • Godlessness ends great nations. The one thing we can all do is get on our knees and pray
  • About being characterized as a 'serial cheater':
It was a fair characterisation of me, before I truly was changed by Jen and my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The War on Warriors (2024)

[edit]
  • You don’t need any more explanations of why our enemies hate us. We can all turn on MSNBC if we want to hear that. We need more reminders that America is good, young American men can be brave, and that there’s a damn good reason why people flee their shithole countries to reach our shores.
    • p. 16, Introduction
  • Unlike our enemies, we don’t fight because we hate what’s in front of us, we fight because we love what’s behind us.
    • p. 16, Introduction
  • To state it bluntly, the realities of warfare—especially for those of us who have seen it firsthand—supersede the necessity to obey illegal commands that manifest in weakening the force and getting troops killed. This understanding, which requires fidelity to the Constitution, military values, and actual readiness, is what should keep our soldiers from the manipulations of leaders who want to use the military for their own social experiments. Every soldier swears an oath to the Constitution, nothing else, and should never bend a knee to a politician, a party, or a philosophy—let alone one that is an enemy to that very same Constitution.
    • p. 21
  • Our military men and women take an oath that is very similar to the oaths taken by every branch of government and every civil servant. The oath is as follows . . .
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
We do not take an oath solely to follow the orders of the president or solely to follow the orders of our leadership. Our first and foremost understanding as soldiers is that we, alongside every other member of government, fight to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    • p. 45-46
  • FOX News alert: I am pro-Trump. Everybody knew that before I joined the DC National Guard, and didn’t have a problem with it. In fact, most of my fellow soldiers—even in DC—felt the same way. Frankly, so did most of the military—especially combat arms. President Trump was, and is, beloved by warfighters. He funded them, untied their hands, didn’t use them unnecessarily, and let them win.
    • p. 91-92
  • Speaking of “kill or capture,” the rules of engagement in Iraq in 2005 were complicated, confusing, and sometimes upside down. Different units had different policies, even though there was supposed to be one, uniform standard. Different unit missions, different leadership ethos, different areas of operation, and different enemy tactics equals lots of confusion. So upon arrival in Iraq, we were briefed by a judge advocate general (JAG)—an Army lawyer—regarding the latest “in theater” rules of engagement. Needless to say, no infantrymen like Army lawyers—which is why JAG officers are often not so affectionately known as “jagoffs.” There are some good ones out there, but most spend more time prosecuting our troops than they do putting away bad guys. It’s easier to get promoted that way.
Near the end of this particular jagoff’s talk, he used the example of an identified enemy holding a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG):
“Do you shoot at him?” The JAG officer stood in front of my platoon with his arms folded.
And my guys were like, “Hell, yeah, we light him up.”
“Wrong answer, men. You are not authorized to fire at that man, until that RPG becomes a threat. It must be pointed at you with the intent to fire. That makes it a legal and proper engagement.”
We sat in silence, stunned.
After this briefing I pulled my platoon together, huddling amid their confusion to tell them, “I will not allow that nonsense to filter into your brains. Men, if you see an enemy who you believe is a threat, you engage and destroy the threat. That’s a bullshit rule that’s going to get people killed. And I will have your back—just like our commander. We are coming home, the enemy will not. That’s our view. We’re not going to kick down doors and just start shooting people, but we’re going to be aggressive.”
    • p. 140-141
  • We waited, in darkness.
Just under an hour later, two men strolled up the driveway, looking around for any signs of Americans in hiding.
This was like Publishers Clearing House dropping off a big carboard check at our front door. For an hour we were watching . . . and then the adrenaline immediately spiked. I was excited. This was the type of moment I had wanted. A yearlong deployment to Guantanamo Bay promised some action. But it was minimal, mostly watching Al Qaeda terrorists playing soccer and eating sandwiches. All we wanted was to take part of the kinetic action that made a difference. This was my first time out on mission leading an element. And these two fools walking into the house made my heart pump out of my interceptor ballistic vest.
Our guys were good, and the two insurgents were unarmed. As they approached the door, soldiers swarmed them from all sides. We threw them down, threw on zip ties, and whisked them into the house. No lights. No loud noises. If more were coming, we didn’t want to tip them off.
The edifying nature of watching these arrogant thugs just walking toward the driveway, thinking they were good to go, and the looks on their faces when a squad of boys from Tennessee and Kentucky popped out was a life-changing moment for me.
’Merica, fuck yeah.
    • p. 148
  • Saint Augustine wrote in the classic City of God, over four hundred years after Christ’s death:
They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Saint Augustine, coincidentally during the time when Christians were being persecuted, articulated a way that God called his followers to be proactive toward evil. He believed that war was not inherently evil but, if done in the name of righteousness and for the proper reasons, was something God required us to do.
    • p. 153-154
  • Jus ad bellum, established in the UN Charter after World War II, lays out the conditions under which states may resort to war. It’s how you go to war justly. Once the firing starts, modern countries are directed to follow the “laws of war,” referred to as Jus in bello. This is how you fight war justly. It was supposed to be a global remedy—a rulebook—to end senseless violence.
Before you break glass for war, Jus ad bellum asks:
Is this a just cause? Do you have the right authority? Do you maintain the right intention? Is there a reason for the chance of success? Will you display proportionality? Is this a last resort?
Then, once you are separating meat from bone in battle, once the carnage has commenced, jus in bello asks: Are you fighting with proportionality? Are you discriminating between civilian and military targets? Are the objectives strictly military?
    • p. 154
  • World War I was so brutal, so unabashed, there was a clamoring for some formally imposed restrictions on what countries could do to each other. The Geneva Conventions became a Jus in bello international law of sorts. Limiting the barbarity of conflict between nations. Guaranteeing that a military force would wear a uniform. Honor a chain of command. The conventions post–World War I established what would happen if you surrendered on the battlefield. The conventions signed at Geneva were to make humane what was never thought of to be humane: warfare.
With “rules” in war, if you wear a uniform and surrender, all your soldiers will also put down their rifles.
More lives are spared.
If you wear a uniform, you don’t fire on civilians who are not in uniform.
More lives are spared.
And if you promise to protect soldiers who surrender, more soldiers will be incentivized to not fight to the death.
More lives are spared.
The problem with “international law,” of course, is that there’s no such thing as international police to enforce it. The key question of our generation—of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—is way more complicated: What do you do if your enemy does not honor the Geneva Conventions? We asked it all the time—especially if we want to win. And, for all the briefings, PowerPoint slide decks, and lectures, it was never clear.
We never got an answer. Only more war. More casualties. And no victory.
    • p. 154-155
  • Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: If you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs. Makes me wonder, in 2024—if you want to win—how can anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict? Especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance. Maybe, instead, we are just fighting with one hand behind our back—and the enemy knows it.
This is a big reason there hasn’t been a war declared globally since the 1950s and, quite frankly, why America hasn’t won a war since World War II.
    • p. 155
  • If the world cannot agree on principles of honor or morality, how can we ever prescribe global terms of fair war? Land warfare, historically understood, is defined by how many people you can slaughter in one space, at one time—limiting the will and capacity of your enemy to fight. (Same goes for bombing, missiles, and drone strikes; just a different delivery mechanism.) War will never be anything but hell as long as human nature stays deceptive, vengeful, and angry. Much to the chagrin of utopians and progressives, human nature has not changed. And will not change. We are flawed. We are sinful. Men will always fight other men.
    • p. 155
  • If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think. The question we have to ask ourselves is, if we are forced to fight, are we going to fight to win? Or will we fight to make leftists feel good—which means not wining [sic] and fighting forever.
    • p. 156
  • Why should America, the European “emergency contact number” for the past century, listen to self-righteous and impotent nations asking us to honor outdated and one-sided defense arrangements they no longer live up to? Maybe if NATO countries actually ponied up for their own defense—but they don’t. They just yell about the rules while gutting their militaries and yelling at America for help.
    • p. 156
  • History regards the Greatest Generation not for their poetry, artistic endeavors, or their culinary brilliance. That title was bestowed because they were two-time world war champions. They were great because they understood they were at war and that the consequence for losing the war was annihilation. They killed the enemy. Sometimes in ways that would offend modern sensibilities. Two nuclear bombs ended a war that could have dragged on for years, costing millions more American lives. They won. Who cares.
    • p. 156
  • For decades, the United States opposed any international-law presumption that “persons or objects in combat zones are civilians.” Especially in modern times, the battlefield is complex—and the enemy uses that against us. They never want to fight us toe to toe; civilians are central to their strategy.
Making such a presumption endangers American troops and gives an advantage to savage enemies—who don’t play by the rules. Citing no new evidence, the Biden administration simply reversed course in July 2023. Now persons and objects in combat zones—in places where US troops are fighting—must be presumed to be civilian. They must be assumed to be innocent. In short, this means our troops are going to have to hesitate every time they fire.
    • p. 157
  • When you send Americans to war, their mandate should be to lethally dominate the battlefield. If that makes you uneasy, keep us at home.
    • p. 157
  • But if we’re going to send our boys to fight—and it should be boys—we need to unleash them to win. They need them to be the most ruthless. The most uncompromising. The most overwhelmingly lethal as they can be. We must break the enemy’s will. Our troops will make mistakes, and when they do, they should get the overwhelming benefit of the doubt.
    • p. 157
  • And one more thing . . . the next president should also change the name of the Department of Defense back to the War Department. Sure, our military defends us. And in a perfect world it exists to deter threats and preserve peace. But ultimately its job is to conduct war. We either win or lose wars. And we have warriors, not “defenders.” Bringing back the War Department may remind a few people in Washington, DC, what the military is supposed to do, and do well.
    • p. 158
  • When we lose sight of the fact that the primary responsibility of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, then everything else falls apart.
    • p. 177
  • To that end, you are blessed to have been born in the greatest country in human history. You have all studied history, extensively. There have been kingdoms, empires, tyrants, and tribes over thousands of years—but none like America.
    • p. 189, Epilogue: A Letter to My Sons
  • But we only got this far because men and women—but mostly men—were willing to fight for that freedom, with their “lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.”
    • p. 189, Epilogue: A Letter to My Sons
  • It’s up to you to decide if service to country is still worth it.
Is America still worth fighting for?
Is America still worth dying for?
    • p. 190, Epilogue: A Letter to My Sons
  • Even with those questions—and even with all the uncertainty—I hope you join the ranks of American fighting men. I encourage you to serve, asking yourself this simple question: If not me, then who? If not Gunner, Jackson, Boone, Luke, or Rex Hegseth—who is going to protect America? Are you going to rely on other men, or on women, who have other worldviews to fill the ranks?
    • p. 190, Epilogue: A Letter to My Sons
  • Pete has a bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and (used to have) a master’s degree from Harvard University—but he mailed it back, because Harvard is a leftist indoctrination camp.
    • p. 193, About the Author

2025

[edit]
  • It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon leading commands around the country and the world. [...] It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the secretary of War can do regular, hard PT [physical training], so can every member of our joint force. [...] Today, at my direction, every member of the joint force, at every rank, is required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight requirements twice a year, every year of service.

2026

[edit]
  • We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it. Their war on Americans has become our retribution against their ayatollah and his death cult. It took the 47th president, a fighter who always puts America first, to finally draw the line after 47 years of Iranian belligerence. He reminded the world, as he has time and time again, being an American means something unbreakable. If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation and we will kill you.

Quotes about Hegseth

[edit]
Hegseth is unqualified. He is unprepared. He is unethical. And most of all, he is unfit. ~ Tammy Duckworth
Who's Pete Hegseth? ~ South Park
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to take the rare step of renaming a ship, one that bears the name of a gay rights icon, documents and sources show. [A defense department official] also said that the timing of the announcement -- occurring during Pride month -- was intentional. ~ Konstantin Toropin
The model of masculinity offered by MAGA, from Donald Trump on down, has always been one of inadequate men pretending at greatness, but only a few are as laughably obvious as Pete Hegseth, a man whose every bellowed word bespeaks an unsubtle small-D energy that fuels him. ~ Amanda Marcotte
I’m sure he can do push-ups, as he constantly brags. But the real test of someone’s mettle isn’t how ripped they are but whether they can handle the complexities of a world that hasn’t been sculpted to shield their egos. Even by MAGA standards, Hegseth is the most delicate of snowflakes. ~ Amanda Marcotte
  • Pete Hegseth is a New York Times bestselling author and the cohost of FOX & Friends Weekend- America's number one cable morning show. He is also the host of multiple FOX Nation documentaries, including The MisEducation of America. Pete is an army combat veteran and proud father of seven children.
    • About the author from The Battle for the American Mind (2022) by Pete Hegseth with David Goodwin
  • In these serious times, we need a serious candidate to lead our military. We need someone with merit to lead our meritocracy. Someone with moral strength to be in charge of protecting our national strength.
    Our troops deserve better than a guy who was seemingly only nominated because he used to host Trump’s favorite show on Fox News.
    Pete Hegseth is unqualified. He is unprepared. He is unethical. And most of all, he is unfit.
    The Secretary of Defense oversees the federal government’s largest agency. They manage a $900 billion budget, along with the 3 million servicemembers and civilians who fall under its umbrella. During his time in uniform, Pete Hegseth never commanded a unit with more than 200 personnel. Meanwhile, on the civilian side, both organizations he led went into debt. In fact, he so badly mismanaged one of them that they had to bring in a forensic accountant to clean up the mess he had made.
    Who knows why Donald Trump picked this guy. Maybe Hegseth’s business failures make Trump feel better about his own bankruptcies. Maybe it’s because Hegseth spent years fawning over Trump on Fox News—and Trump’s dream Cabinet is a bunch of yes-men who know how to kiss up to him on TV. Or maybe it’s just that all of Cadet Bone Spurs’ draft-dodging has left him with no clue what kind of leader our military needs.
    At his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, I gave Mr. Hegseth every opportunity to show me that I was wrong. To prove that he could do this job. That he does know the first thing—or anything—about what it takes to take on this massive responsibility. I asked him basic questions that even the most junior folks working in the Pentagon would know, like naming one of the main international agreements he’d be responsible for leading. He couldn’t name one. I asked him to tell me just a single country in ASEAN. Again, he couldn’t give me one. Not one. This was shocking—yet not surprising—from a man whose main form of policy education has come from reading the Fox News teleprompter.
    These are dangerous times on the geopolitical stage. Our adversaries are watching to see if we really will put in power someone so obviously unqualified. And Mr. Hegseth made a point of saying at Tuesday’s hearing that every single warfighter should be hired based on performance, readiness and merit. I agree. And he fails to meet every single one of those metrics.
    Part of being a leader is knowing when you’re not competent enough to do the job.
    Mr. Hegseth, you are not technically proficient. You are not tactically proficient. And your nomination is an insult to those brave enough to be serving our nation.
  • Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness. In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.
    In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering. DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge. The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.
  • In his book, Hegseth wrote he was getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan when the repeal of DADT was put into effect. “Our commander briefed the unit, peppered with a few jokes,” he wrote. “You know, infantry stuff. We mostly laughed it off and moved on. America was at war. Gays and lesbians were already serving in the military. I had seen the enemy with my own eyes. We needed everybody.”
    Hegseth says he now regrets that view, “Not because I have a newfound ax to grind with gay Americans,” he wrote. “But because I naïvely believed that’s what ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was all about. Once again, our good faith was used against us,” he added. “The Left never gives an inch, and always takes a mile.”
    Hegseth has been outspoken about what he calls “woke” policies that he believes have undermined the US military, including allowing women to serve in combat roles and transgender members to serve openly. Hegseth writes these changes are the consequence of the “social justice tinkering” that started with DADT.
    • Andrew Kaczynski & Em Steck, "Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Defense pick, says allowing gay troops to serve openly reflects a Marxist agenda", CNN (12 December 2024)
  • Speaking on Fox News in 2015, Hegseth expanded on his criticism, claiming that such policies were an erosion of standards. “And what you’re seeing is a military right now that is more interested in social engineering led by this president than they are in war fighting,” he said in comments first reported by Meidas News. “So as a result, through ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and women in the military and these standards, they’re going to inevitably start to erode standards because they want that one female special operator, that one female Green Beret, that one female Army Ranger, that one female Navy SEAL.” “So they can put them on a recruiting poster and feel good about themselves and has nothing to do with national security,” he added. “And these war fighters are realizing they’re just going to start ticking away at the standards until they get one.”
    Hegseth in his book does not reference any specific examples of incidents to support his argument that gay individuals openly serving has been detrimental to the military.
    • Andrew Kaczynski & Em Steck, "Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Defense pick, says allowing gay troops to serve openly reflects a Marxist agenda", CNN (12 December 2024)
  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth really wants you to think he’s a tough guy. The former Fox News host and reported makeup-studio enthusiast is forever bragging out how brave and manly he is, with a length and volume that screams “overcompensation” to anyone actually possessing internal fortitude. With his perfectly coiffed hair and belligerent posture, Hegseth has long made it clear that his idea of “strength” is strictly a matter of showmanship. He eschews the term “soldier” in favor of “warfighter.” He rejects the term “defense” in favor of “lethality.” He even tried to rename the Defense Department the “Department of War,” which is the bureaucratic equivalent of buying an oversized pickup because your wife left you for her spin instructor.
    He forced the military’s top brass to sit still for a lecture about the “warrior ethos,” convened for no other apparent reason than Hegseth’s adolescent desire to pretend that he’s Mel Gibson in “Braveheart.” He goes on and on about his imaginary “male standard” or “male-level” fitness ideals, mostly because women don’t fit his image of what “warfighters” look like, which seems entirely drawn from the G.I. Joe figurines he played with as a child. He was pushed out of the Army, quitting of his own accord because of too much perceived wokeness. As defense secretary, he’s been systematically trying to purge all women who have performed their military duties beyond his capablities. Heaven forbid he endure reminders that many female members of the species are stronger and more capable than he could ever imagine being.
  • To be clear, real men of courage are not intimidated by women’s success. Hegseth’s hostility to female service members has always served as a leading indicator that beneath all that bluster the man is a sniveling coward. The growing scandal over his role in killing civilians in boats off the coast of Venezuela confirms his lily-livered nature beyond all doubt. The model of masculinity offered by MAGA, from Donald Trump on down, has always been one of inadequate men pretending at greatness, but only a few are as laughably obvious as Pete Hegseth, a man whose every bellowed word bespeaks an unsubtle small-D energy that fuels him.
    To recap: For months now, the Trump administration has been arbitrarily killing civilians in boats off the coast of Venezuela, justifying these extrajudicial attacks with accusations that everyone on such a boat is a drug dealer, although administration officials prefer to use overblown and meaningless terms like “narcoterrorist,” betraying the insecurity of their position. Killing accused drug dealers is almost certainly illegal in itself, and the administration has offered no meaningful evidence to back up its accusations, even as it becomes evident that the real goal is to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to resign. (Maduro is a dictatorial strongman who rigged the last presidential election, facts that would impress Trump under other circumstances. He also identifies as an anti-American leftist, making him No. 1 villain for the MAGA crowd.)
    The Washington Post reported this week that in one such attack on Sept. 2, U.S. forces launched a second missile to kill survivors of the initial strike, which would be a war crime at best and likely just straight-up murder.
    • Amanda Marcotte, "Pete Hegseth’s “warrior ethos” is plain old cowardice", Salon (3 December 2025)
  • Hegseth is the classic bully, hiding his insecurity by dominating those who are weaker or more vulnerable, and pretending that’s cool instead of pitiful. During his Senate confirmation hearing, reports circulated that Hegseth had been accused of rape, in a case settled out of court.
    Whether that was true never really mattered, since rape allegations would make Trump more likely to nominate someone to high office, not less. Still, the details are worth revisiting. The accuser in that incident said she had been too drunk to resist Hegseth’s alleged assault. Rape is a cowardly crime no matter what, most often committed by men who are afraid to pick on someone their own size. Selecting a victim who is too incapacitated to defend herself is unfortunately common, which makes the masculine preening of men who commit these kinds of crimes even more ludicrous.
    Hegseth has denied that allegation, but his entire adult life has been defined by a tendency to brag about how strong he is while running away from anything that resembles a real challenge. He’s on his third marriage at the moment, and belongs to a church that preaches an especially extreme doctrine of female submission. You don’t need a degree in psychology to understand that only weaker men crave women trained not to talk back, because they’re incapable of handling a mutual relationship based on adult communication.
    • Amanda Marcotte, "Pete Hegseth’s “warrior ethos” is plain old cowardice", Salon (3 December 2025)
  • Hegseth’s brief tenure at the Pentagon has been dominated by his quivering inability to deal with any kind of challenge or discomfort. He’s tried to purge all military schools and libraries of any historical information that might makes him feel icky, such as reminders that racism exists or that slavery was a bad thing. I’m sure he can do push-ups, as he constantly brags. But the real test of someone’s mettle isn’t how ripped they are but whether they can handle the complexities of a world that hasn’t been sculpted to shield their egos. Even by MAGA standards, Hegseth is the most delicate of snowflakes.
    Indeed, Secretary Warfighter’s need for constant coddling is being ever more severely exposed as this scandal unfolds. As the Washington Post reported this week, Hegseth is now hiding behind the skirts of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. She’s an accomplished liar, but has been reading carefully crafted statements that redirect the blame for the Sept. 2 killings to Bradley and insist, without offering any evidence, that everything Hegseth did was legal. “This is ‘protect Pete’ bull—,” as one anonymous military official told the Post.
    Operation “Protect Pete” seems like a fitting description of this guy’s entire career of evading accountability. Perhaps he should make that his next tattoo, so he can brag about how much the needle hurt while ducking any consequences that might truly sting.
    • Amanda Marcotte, "Pete Hegseth’s “warrior ethos” is plain old cowardice", Salon (3 December 2025)
  • Pete Hegseth has a worldview, which is contorted toward thinking that this administration has a particular divine calling. He believes – because he said it – that God has uniquely ordained Donald Trump and those that he chooses to accomplish very specific purposes in the world. ... Pete Hegseth’s own version of Christianity is one that’s built around a certain Christian advancement that comes through the domination of the governments of nations. He believes that not only is the military at his disposal to use for his purposes but it’s there to fulfill God’s agenda for the world.
  • A bombshell Washington Post investigation revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally ordered U.S. forces to “kill them all” during a September 2 maritime strike off the coast of Trinidad, an unprecedented escalation in America’s counter-drug operations and one that legal experts say may violate international law.
    According to officials with direct knowledge of the mission, U.S. special operations forces targeted a small vessel suspected of transporting narcotics. After the first missile strike destroyed the boat and killed most of the crew, observers reported seeing at least two survivors clinging to debris. Hegseth allegedly directed forces to launch a second strike to eliminate the remaining survivors, a move experts describe as potentially unlawful under long-standing rules of armed conflict, which prohibit killing combatants who are “hors de combat,” or out of the fight.
    The strike was not part of any declared war, raising even more questions about how the administration has justified such lethal operations. A Justice Department memo reportedly classifies drug trafficking networks as part of a “non-international armed conflict,” effectively granting the executive branch sweeping authority to kill suspected traffickers on the high seas. Critics argue that this interpretation is legally flimsy and dangerously broad.
  • Human rights groups and former military lawyers warn the decision could set a precedent for unchecked lethal force far beyond U.S. borders. “If this stands, the U.S. is claiming the right to kill anyone, anywhere, based on secret intelligence and no transparency,” one legal expert told the Post.
    Hegseth took to his official social media account to respond and defend the strikes on Friday. He called the reports “fabricated” and framing the operations as lawful efforts to stop narco-terrorists and destroy drug-trafficking vessels, with all actions reviewed by military and civilian lawyers. He emphasized his support for the Southcom forces carrying out the missions.
    Members of Congress are now calling for hearings, though it remains unclear whether the Republican-controlled committees will challenge one of the administration’s most aggressive national-security operations to date. For now, the revelations leave the White House with mounting questions — and the families of the dead without answers.
    • CK Smith, "“Kill them all”: Hegseth ordered strike on survivors of US attack"], Salon (29 November 2025)
  • Who's Pete Hegseth?
    • South Park, Season 28, Episode 4: "Turkey Trot", first aired 26 November 2025; dialogue is spoken by character Sergeant Harrison Yates.
  • A 2015 RAND Corporation survey found that 5.8% of active-duty service members identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and 0.6% identified as transgender, reflecting a similar proportion to the civilian population. Still, a 2020 study in the journal “Sexuality Research and Social Policy” found that 59% of LGBTQ+ service members were uncomfortable being “out.”
    This October, the Pentagon updated more than 800 records of service members who were kicked out of the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to receive honorable discharges. The change now allows service members to access eligible benefits previously denied to them, such as home loans, healthcare and GI Bill tuition assistance.
    In an episode of “the Ben Shapiro Show” this summer, Hegseth claimed that “a lot of people” who initially supported the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” now regret their involvement in the policy change, citing one example of an anonymous gay soldier who says he now regrets supporting the repeal of DADT because it opened the door to a “trans agenda” in the military.
  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to take the rare step of renaming a ship, one that bears the name of a gay rights icon, documents and sources show. Military-dot-com reviewed a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy -- the official who holds the power to name Navy ships -- that showed the sea service had come up with rollout plans for the renaming of the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk. A defense official confirmed that the Navy was making preparations to strip the ship of its name but noted that Navy Secretary John Phelan was ordered to do so by Hegseth. The official also said that the timing of the announcement -- occurring during Pride month -- was intentional.
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former House Speaker who represents much of San Francisco, in a statement Tuesday called the decision to rename the ship "a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country."
    The Harvey Milk is a John Lewis-class oiler, a group of ships that are to be named after prominent civil rights leaders and activists. CBS reported Tuesday that the Navy is also considering renaming other John Lewis-class oilers including the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and USNS Harriet Tubman. Both Marshall and Ginsburg were Supreme Court justices, and Tubman was a Black abolitionist who helped slaves escape the South via the Underground Railroad. Unlike the Milk, though, some of the ships being considered for renaming have yet to be completed.
    Pelosi called that possibility "a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream." "Our military is the most powerful in the world -- but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the 'warrior' ethos," she added.
    • Konstantin Toropin, "Hegseth Orders Navy to Strip Name of Gay Rights Icon Harvey Milk from Ship" (3 June 2025)
  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly supported his church’s Christian Nationalist pastor Doug Wilson, reposting a CNN interview in which Wilson says he’d like to re-criminalize consensual same-sex sexual encounters and deny women the right to vote. Hegseth has previously said that it was a mistake to allow homosexuals and bisexuals into the U.S. military.
    “In the late ’70s and early ’80s, sodomy was a felony in all 50 states. That America of that day was not a totalitarian hellhole,” Wilson tells CNN in the interview clip, which Hegseth reposted to his personal X account this past weekend. When asked if he’d like those laws to be reinstated, Wilson answers, “Yep.”
  • In a June 2024 episode of The Ben Shapiro Show, Hegseth said he thinks the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — the military’s ban on out lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members — was part of the “Marxist” and “leftist” shift that led to “the trans agenda being pushed into the military,” thus undermining the military’s overall effectiveness. While he later walked back his opposition to LGB military members at a Senate confirmation hearing the following December, he has since helped implement the current president’s purge of transgender military members, alluding to trans individuals as mentally ill, selfish, dishonorable, deceitful, undisciplined, and unfit for military service.
    • Daniel Villareal, "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praises pastor who wants to criminalize homosexuality", LGBTQ Nation (11 August 2025)
  • Hegseth spent his college days at Princeton campaigning against LGBTQ+ rights. As publisher of the conservative magazine The Princeton Tory in the early 2000s, he oversaw a team that railed against the “homosexual lifestyle,” and in one 2002 issue, argued that “The movement to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriages is strong and must be vigorously opposed.” It called homosexuality “abnormal and immoral.”
    In that same issue, Hegseth wrote in his “Notes from the Publisher” that the “glorification of diversity” is “a problem that plagues most of American academia today.” He said Western ideas “deserve priority over other areas of study” because the fact that the United States is a global superpower “demonstrates the[ir] enduring strength.”
    Another issue of The Princeton Tory published by Hegseth slammed the New York Times for its decision to start covering same-sex marriage announcements, calling it “dangerous” because it could inspire people to want to marry siblings, children, or dogs.
    • Daniel Villareal, "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praises pastor who wants to criminalize homosexuality", LGBTQ Nation (11 August 2025)
[edit]
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Hegseth&oldid=3938124"