Red Flags in Hegseth’s Hearing

The Results of Choosing Loyalty Over Competence

The Senate recently held a confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, a Fox News personality with limited military experience and virtually no executive background, to serve as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense. Since his nomination, critics have questioned Hegseth’s qualifications to lead the Department of Defense. As I noted in a previous Substack, Hegseth’s lack of expertise is compounded by his ties to far-right elements within American politics. At one point, he was classified as an “Insider Threat” within the military and barred from attending President Biden’s inauguration.

The hearing played out as expected. Hegseth’s testimony relied heavily on Republican culture-war rhetoric, including claims that “wokeness” and political correctness have undermined military effectiveness. He also scrambled to address concerns about his history with alcohol and womenizing and his controversial stance on women serving in the military.

One particularly revealing moment came during Senator Tammy Duckworth’s questioning. Duckworth asked Hegseth to demonstrate his understanding of ASEAN, including its member states and the U.S. relationship with the organization. Hegseth cited Japan, South Korea, and AUKUS—none of which are part of ASEAN. This was not a “gotcha” question but a fundamental test of his knowledge about a region he himself identified as a priority. His failure to answer correctly underscored his lack of preparation and basic understanding. It was akin to a Secretary of Defense nominee incorrectly naming Switzerland, Ukraine, and Morocco as NATO members—an error that would disqualify any credible candidate.

Even more troubling was a line of questioning from Senator Elissa Slotkin, who revealed that Hegseth may have already discussed plans with Trump or his team about deploying the military domestically. Whether this involved border enforcement, deportations of undocumented immigrants, or—most alarmingly—the suppression of protests, it evokes more frightening comparisons to former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s refusal to carry out such actions under Trump’s first term.

While it is theoretically possible for a few Republicans to oppose Hegseth’s nomination, the GOP’s near-total alignment with the MAGA movement makes such dissent unlikely. Beyond Hegseth’s clear lack of qualifications, the hearing represented two alarming displays of loyalty. First, Hegseth showcased his unwavering commitment to advancing the MAGA agenda, placing allegiance to Trump above expertise or leadership. The chants of Trump supporters in the chamber as Hegseth approached the dais transformed the hearing into what felt like a campaign rally rather than a serious confirmation process.

Second, Senate Republicans displayed their own loyalty to Trump by ignoring Hegseth’s glaring deficiencies. Senator Sheehy’s softball questions—such as asking what type of ammunition an M4 fires or how many pushups Hegseth could do—highlighted their willingness to prioritize Trump’s approval over national security.

What we witnessed on Tuesday was the “Vindman Rule” in action—a principle coined in the aftermath of the first Trump impeachment and re-introduced by Trump’s NSA Mike Waltz’s for staffing the incoming National Security Council. The incoming administration is prioritizing personal loyalty to Trump over competence, expertise, or the capacity to safeguard the nation. This approach endangers the safety and stability of the United States by placing Trump’s ego above the nation’s needs. Unfortunately, we must brace for a continued flow of MAGA loyalists into critical national security positions, further undermining the institutions tasked with protecting the country.