Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
A necessary feature of democracy is civilian control of the military. Sufficiency can only be assured, however, when that leadership is competent. Even before the latest controversy over US strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean, Pete Hegseth had shown himself unfit to run the Pentagon.
The defence secretary is under intense scrutiny over a report that he gave a verbal directive to “kill everybody” in a September 2 strike off the coast of Venezuela — which, if true, would convey intolerable recklessness. The White House has denied the reporting and Hegseth has labelled it “fabricated”. President Donald Trump said he believed Hegseth’s denial that he gave an order to strike a wrecked boat a second time, killing two survivors, which could constitute a war crime. Congress is rightly demanding answers.
Hegseth, however, having early in his tenure fired the Pentagon’s most senior military lawyers (the judge advocates general) who advise on the legality of combat orders, made his broad intentions plain.
In addition to purging senior brass, Hegseth lectured the 800 most senior Pentagon generals and admirals in October on the need to scrap “politically correct” rules of engagement. This included removing women from combat roles. Summoning top brass from around the world for a lecture on the “warrior ethos” was unprecedented. That Hegseth’s words were received in stony silence spoke volumes about his standing with US military leaders.
The buck ultimately stops with Trump. The problem is that Hegseth is behaving exactly as he signalled he would when he was, in essence, auditioning for the role. He first came to the president’s attention in Trump’s first term, as a Fox News anchor who campaigned against diversity in the military and against restrictive rules of combat.
Hegseth was also key in persuading Trump during his first term to grant clemency to armed services members who had been tried for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hegseth called the most notorious of them, Edward Gallagher, a “war hero”. Trump agreed with Hegseth and fired his then navy secretary, Richard Spencer, who did not. In other words, Trump picked Hegseth on the basis of his no-holds-barred philosophy of combat.
Since September, when the US launched the first of more than 20 strikes that have killed more than 80 people in international waters, Hegseth has been true to form. Many military lawyers deem his orders illegal — on the grounds that these are law enforcement operations — in which case, the targets do not qualify as combatants. Congress has not authorised this war and has been kept largely in the dark. That explains why senior Republicans are backing investigations.
Even if Hegseth is absolved of ordering the follow-up strike to kill the two survivors of the September 2 attack — he has said he did not “stick around” for the subsequent attack and blamed a senior admiral — there is a good case to say all the strikes are unlawful. Hegseth has dismissed critics as ignorant of the “fog of war”. But the stream of leaks about his conduct have apparently come from inside the Pentagon. Soldiers are trained not to follow illegal orders. Morale in the building is reportedly at rock bottom.
The odds are that Hegseth will escape accountability for his Caribbean strikes. But he amply conveyed his lack of character for the job much earlier. In March, Hegseth disclosed highly classified information about an imminent strike in Yemen over an unsecured group chat on the Signal app. Unbeknown to Hegseth, a journalist was on the chat. With “Signalgate”, Hegseth had already revealed his poor judgment. Even Trump should see the folly of keeping a man like him in such a critical role.