Hegseth beats back blows from Democrats in blistering hearing: 5 takeaways
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump's choice for Defense secretary, on Tuesday emerged largely unscathed from an at times blistering confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Democratic lawmakers on the panel took aim at Hegseth’s lack of experience leading an agency as large and complex as the Pentagon, claims related to his treatment of women and excessive drinking, and his past comments on the role of women in the military.
Multiple Democrats also expressed concerns that an FBI background check on Hegseth, an Army veteran, left out crucial details about major allegations levied against him. The report was viewed by the panel’s top two members on Friday.
Committee Republicans, however, rallied around the former Fox News host. Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) declared the hearing a “tour de force” and “triumph” on the part of Hegseth.
“Mr. Hegseth had three audiences: the committee, the United States Senate and the American general public. I think it was a magnificent display of his knowledge and his ability to communicate his leadership abilities and I feel very good about this hearing today,” Wicker told reporters. “I don’t think [it] could have gone any better.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who had been considered a make-or-break vote for Hegseth, announced on Simon Conway's radio show after the hearing that she would vote for the nominee.
Here are five takeaways from the hearing.
Hegseth survives
Republicans on the panel expressed confidence following the hearing that Hegseth will ultimately win confirmation.
They believe he performed well and heeded calls from Republicans to keep his cool, despite attempts by Democrats on the panel to goad him into a misstep that could hurt his chances before the full Senate.
“I think he helped himself immensely today,” Wicker told reporters after the hearing.
Unlike other nominees, Hegseth has focused on keeping hold of the requisite number of Republicans rather than trying to win over Democrats who are considered long shots.
He met multiple times with Ernst in an attempt to assuage her concerns. By contrast, he only met with one Democrat on the panel.
Democrats on Tuesday complained about the lack of communication, but the playbook could be paying off after he stuck to the script and did not make any obvious missteps that could deprive him of the four Republican votes required to sink him.
“This is kind of what we had expected would happen. Most certainly, I think Mr. Hegseth has done a good job in many cases,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the committee, told reporters.
Rounds said it didn’t appear pointed questions from Democrats such as Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), who had a fiery exchange with Hegseth about past infidelity, would ultimately harm the nominee.
“We knew that it would come up, simply because it was part of the discussion early only, so it doesn’t surprise us that it would come up in that fashion,” Rounds said. “Mr. Hegseth responded, and now it’s a matter of moving forward and finding out whether or not it made anybody else think twice about whether they would support Mr. Hegseth. I don’t think that it changed any minds.”
Hegseth pushes back on 'smear campaign'
The Hegseth who showed up before the dais on Tuesday was similar to the one lawmakers and reporters saw on Capitol Hill in early December when he went on an all-out blitz to salvage a flatlining nomination: defiant and media savvy.
That was evident as he pushed back against allegations in a preemptive acknowledgement of what Democrats were planning to ask about.
“What became very evident to us from the beginning — there was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. That was clear from moment one,” Hegseth said during his opening statement. “And what we knew is it wasn’t about me. Most of it was against President Donald Trump.”
Democrats repeatedly attacked and grilled him on his past comments about women in combat, the 2017 sexual assault accusation, his drinking and his infidelity — all of which he attempted to parry away by claiming they were made by anonymous individuals who were hell-bent on taking him down.
He also got some backup from Republicans throughout the day. Vice President-elect JD Vance complained Democrats were “grandstanding.”
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a leading Trump ally, was perhaps the foremost detractor of the Democratic questions, including those by Kaine about Hegseth’s personal life and three marriages.
“The senator from Virginia starts bringing up the fact that, what if you showed up drunk to your job? How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job?” Mullin asked.
“Don’t tell me you haven’t seen it, because I know you have,” Mullin said. “How many senators do you know have gotten a divorce for cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to step down? No, because it’s for show. You guys make sure you make a big show. ... [It’s] hypocrisy because a man’s made a mistake, and you want to sit there and say that he’s not qualified.”
Women in combat emerges as key issue
No past comments made by Hegseth seemed to generate as much blowback as did his public assertion in November that women should not be allowed in combat roles.
On Tuesday several senators from both sides of the aisle pressed him on his remarks, including Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), who asked how he could lead an active-duty military that is 18 percent women.
Gillibrand pointed out that as recently as Nov. 7 Hegseth said in a podcast interview the U.S. military “should not have women in combat roles,” as it “hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.”
“Please explain these types of statements because they’re brutal and they’re mean and they disrespect men and women who are willing to die for this country,” she told Hegseth.
Hegseth responded that he respects women in uniform but takes issue with what he said were “eroded” physical fitness standards to reach “quotas” for women in infantry positions. Gillibrand and others pushed back on this claim, saying standards remain equal across the board.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a former Army helicopter pilot who lost both her legs when her aircraft was shot down in Iraq, at times raised her voice as she spoke on the topic.
“You say you want to keep our forces strong by not lowering standards [for women],” she said. “Then let’s not lower our standards for you.”
But Republicans largely seemed to give Hegseth the benefit of the doubt, with Ernst — a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel — starting off her questioning by introducing a letter from a Hegseth supporter, giving him an opening to explain his comments.
“Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat roles, given the standards remain high," Hegseth said when asked by Ernst if he would support women continuing to serve in such jobs.
“We’ll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases,” Hegseth told Ernst, who noted that the pair discussed this issue intensely during their multiple “frank” private conversations ahead of Tuesday.
Hegseth draws ire by dodging questions
Multiple Democrats became visibly upset during the hearing that Hegseth sidestepped their questions, painting him as unwilling to answer tough inquiries.
At various points in the hearing, the nominee declined to directly answer questions on Trump’s potential military actions related to Greenland and the Panama Canal, the use of active-duty military in U.S. detention camps and his handling of a pair of veterans organizations.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) likened his answers to the movie “Dodgeball.”
“Unfortunately for Mr. Hegseth, his testimony thus far has failed to address the disturbing questions that plague his nomination,” Schumer said on the floor during Hegseth’s hearing. “It appears Mr. Hegseth’s strategy is to follow the five Ds of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.”
“Mr. Hegseth failed to explain, for one, why someone with his lack of qualifications should be entrusted to lead our armed forces. Why should America entrust our military to a television personality who has never led any large organization?” he continued. “It’s a huge organization, the [Defense Department]. He hasn't come close to having any of that kind of administrative experience. We didn’t hear any good answer to that question.”
Hegseth declines to speculate on potential Trump orders
At several points in the hearing, Democrats questioned Hegseth on whether he would follow a direct order from the incoming commander in chief even if it proved unconstitutional.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked Hegseth if he would deploy the U.S. military to seize Greenland or the Panama Canal, referencing Trump’s expansionist rhetoric from last week.
“Would you carry on an order from President Trump to seize Greenland, a territory of our NATO ally, Denmark, by force? Or would you take over the Panama Canal?” Hirono asked.
“Senator, I will emphasize that President Trump received 77 million votes to be the lawful commander,” Hegseth said, declining to say whether he would invade the territories.
Later, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA analyst and new member of the committee, pressed Hegseth on whether he would use active-duty military on the American people amid fears Trump would deploy troops on protesters, to round up undocumented immigrants or for border enforcement.
“You will be the one man standing in the breach should President Trump give an illegal order, right? I'm not saying he will, but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order,” she said. “Do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the commander in chief that would violate the U.S. Constitution?”
Hegseth largely sidestepped the queries, citing hypothetical conversations he wouldn’t get in front of, but he allowed that “there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed.”
Hegseth also said he has been in conversations with Trump about securing the southern border, but that “everything we will do would be lawful and under the Constitution.”