When a scandal-plagued top official requires a public vote of confidence from a president, it’s usually a clear indication they are moving toward the exit.
However, Pete Hegseth is beginning to resemble a defense secretary with nine lives. Following a difficult confirmation battle that revealed damaging aspects of his private life, he is now embroiled in further controversies that would have ended careers in more typical political eras.
Hegseth, who prefers the title secretary of war, was on Thursday caught up in two intense Washington dramas spurring demands for his resignation. Yet, President Donald Trump remains steadfast.
— A fresh government watchdog document reveals that Hegseth jeopardized sensitive military intelligence, which could have imperiled US forces and mission goals, by employing Signal in March of this year to transmit highly-sensitive attack blueprints targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen, CNN exclusively reported, referencing four sources familiar with the contents of a classified evaluation.
— An uproar is brewing concerning the directives Hegseth issued and his awareness regarding a subsequent strike on a vessel rumored to be involved in drug trafficking in the Caribbean on September 2, which purportedly killed surviving crew members, leading Democrats to assert those involved may have perpetrated a war crime. Hegseth maintains he had no foreknowledge of the second strike, but asserts the admiral he credits with ordering it, Frank “Mitch” Bradley, has his complete backing.
The reaction from both incidents is introducing fresh complications for a leader whose approval scores have plummeted and a Republican Party approaching next year’s congressional elections with apprehension. Under such conditions, administrations frequently determine it is best to jettison the official mired in scandal.
But this is not a conventional administration.
A blow such as the one delivered to Hegseth via an inspector general’s review would have most public figures contemplating their tenure. However, Trump has dismantled the government’s structure for accountability. He has dismissed numerous inspectors general and transformed the Justice Department into an instrument to pursue his adversaries. Hegseth has zealously followed this pattern at the Defense Department, dismissing military counsel and cleansing senior ranks he deemed insufficiently devoted to Trump.
In an administration intent on eradicating the “deep state,” an unfavorable finding from an inspector general barely registers as a tremor.
Yet, Hegseth’s utility to Trump runs deeper.
The former Fox News host may generate unfavorable news, but he also embodies a pure essence of the president’s norm-breaking mindset—an outsider determined to demolish the existing order, a combatant who shares his superior’s foes and views statutes and rules of engagement as obstacles to be challenged in the pursuit of unleashing American strength.
Trump ‘stands by’ Hegseth
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt informed CNN in a statement Wednesday that “President Trump stands by Secretary Hegseth” and contended the IG report confirmed no confidential information was shared and operational safety wasn’t compromised in Hegseth’s messages to senior staff on Signal.
For the moment, Hegseth appears secure.
Indeed, Trump’s declarations of trust have occasionally been short-lived. He initially supported first-term Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson before dismissing them. His initial endorsement of Matt Gaetz, his first nominee for attorney general in a second term, could not prevent his nomination from rapidly collapsing. Furthermore, many Trump subordinates have discovered that allegiance often flows just one way once they become a burden to a pragmatic president.
The president’s belief in Hegseth is scarcely mirrored on Capitol Hill. Leading Republicans navigated carefully when asked if they shared his appraisal. Hegseth “serves at the pleasure of the president,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune conveyed to CNN’s Manu Raju, asserting he contributed to efforts making America more secure. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker noted the defense secretary was in a “fairly solid situation” regarding the IG report but made no comment when Raju inquired if he had faith in him.
Other Republicans are less reserved. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul implied this week that Hegseth had been untruthful about the September 2 vessel incident. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski highlighted that she had never endorsed Hegseth. “I had suggested that perhaps we can and should perform better,” she commented.
Democrats strongly desire Hegseth’s departure. This group includes Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, who is engaged in a dispute with the defense secretary after the Pentagon cautioned he might be recalled to active duty and court-martialed over a video where he and other Democrats reminded service members they need not obey unlawful orders. “Pete Hegseth certainly should have been dismissed,” stated Kelly, a retired Navy aviator, decorated veteran, and astronaut, referencing the “Signalgate” mishap.
Hegseth walks a precarious path
Beyond Hegseth’s evolving accounts of the boat strike and Signalgate, he has provided his detractors ample material to support the claim that his deficit of high-level governmental experience, temperament, and intensely partisan conduct render him unsuitable to lead the Pentagon.
There was the vehement verbal assault against the “bogus news” media at the White House Easter Egg roll and another exaggerated tirade against the press in Hawaii. Hegseth’s Defense Department expelled the press contingent that declined to sign onto restrictive censorship guidelines and welcomed compliant MAGA-aligned replacements.
His readiness to introduce the theatrics and drama of conservative news into confrontations with foreign dignitaries surely appeals to a president who is a virtuoso of calculated displays.
And despite being a vexation, losing Hegseth would be an inconvenience for Trump. No administration anticipates a difficult confirmation process for a new nominee, particularly one that would subject its own actions to unwelcome scrutiny.
And the president will face difficulty securing an equivalent substitute.
Hegseth may be secure for now because he has avoided the error made by two of Trump’s first-term defense secretaries. Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis attempted to moderate the president’s “America First” geopolitical leanings. He resigned when Trump mandated the withdrawal of US personnel from Syria. Another of Trump’s previous defense secretaries, Mark Esper, drafted his resignation correspondence months before a departure that became unavoidable when he publicly stated he would resist deploying troops to control domestic political unrest.
Hegseth has been an eager proponent of Trump’s ambition to deploy US reservists and even active-duty Marine contingents into American municipalities for law enforcement duties that several jurists deemed in defiance of the Constitution and the law.
Hegseth’s political utility to Trump
It is not merely that Hegseth’s drive against “woke” military leaders and diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Defense Department mirrors the president’s own cultural battles.
He is a symbol for the MAGA movement and America First. Similar to the president, he maintains that many of the precepts the US military has long strived to uphold signify weakness. If Trump were to reject Hegseth, he would not just be sacrificing a key proponent; he would be repudiating a set of principles that reflect those of his own.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth observes as President Donald Trump addresses a Cabinet meeting at the White House, on December 2, 2025
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth observes as President Donald Trump addresses a Cabinet meeting at the White House, on December 2, 2025 Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Trump has long decried what he views as overly sensitive conduct and adherence to regulations that he believes elevate the stature of the US military. He has articulated admiration for authoritarian figures like Chinese President Xi Jinping and former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who eliminated drug traffickers without established legal processes—statements that appear particularly pertinent to the administration’s assaults on those they have labeled narco-terrorists in the Caribbean Sea.
Hegseth emerged from his own distinguished military service in the Army National Guard and overseas tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with resolute views against what he perceived as left-leaning war doctrines and even the Geneva Accords.
In his book “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth composed, “When you deploy Americans into conflict, their directive ought to be to decisively overwhelm the battlefield.” He added: “Must we adhere to the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the adversary as they treated us? … Leads me to question, in 2024—if one desires triumph—how can anyone establish universal guidelines regarding the termination of human life in open confrontation?”
Such opinions alarmed Hegseth’s numerous critics on Capitol Hill as well as past senior military personnel who believed the United States had a duty to exhibit moral leadership on the martial stage.
Hegseth sought to temper his views during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. He asserted that legal experts concerned with ethics and international treaties were impeding field troops, and that certain rules of engagement are outdated given the presence of non-state actors and terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS encountered by US forces in the global war on terror.
One of Hegseth’s most notable detractors, Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the leading Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on Wednesday that Hegseth demonstrated an insufficient grasp of why the US should conduct military operations in accordance with international law or that a soldier’s primary allegiance was to the Constitution, not a single political figure.
“They’re refusing to give us information that by law we are entitled to”: Sen. Jack Reed on the Pentagon’s cooperation
5:49
“We do that for our own benefit,” Reed contended. “If we disregard the law, how can we anticipate our adversaries will treat our captives, or the wounded or those no longer hostile—to treat them justly and according to what the law dictates.”
About the Author
