Republicans rally around Hegseth at hearing, setting him up for confirmation

Democrats raised doubts about Pete Hegseth, but Republicans closed ranks around the Trump nominee for defense secretary, at a contentious confirmation hearing.

|
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to be Defense secretary, appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025.

Republican senators uniformly rallied around Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, during his Tuesday confirmation hearing – a sign that he’s on a likely glide path to confirmation, just one month after his nomination appeared to be in serious jeopardy.

In the four-hour hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrats raised sharp questions about the former Fox News host’s qualifications, his personal conduct, and his views on women in the military. Republicans, on the other hand, expressed strong support for his years of military service and his outspoken opposition to what he described as the Biden administration’s fight to prioritize diversity over lethality in the military. Not a single Republican on the committee indicated that they were likely to oppose Mr. Hegseth, suggesting that he’ll win confirmation in the GOP-controlled Senate, where he can lose no more than three Republican senators.

The hearing’s most telling moment came when GOP Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa offered him a chance to clarify his previous statements criticizing women serving in combat roles. Senator Ernst, an Army veteran who had been blocked by military policy from serving in a combat role because of her gender, had expressed concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s nomination, both over that issue as well as concerns about his personal conduct. But she appeared to have had a change of heart after a private meeting in which Mr. Hegseth promised her that he would support women in combat roles, amid a concerted pressure campaign from Trump allies to back him or face a Trump-backed primary opponent.

On Tuesday, she used her time not to grill Mr. Hegseth but to allow him to publicly commit to a position that women will still be allowed to serve in combat roles, so long as they meet the same physical qualifications as male troops.

“Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles – given the standards remain high,” Mr. Hegseth said. Seemingly mollified, Senator Ernst spent much of her time focused on her agreement with Mr. Hegseth that the Pentagon needed to undergo an audit. (More Monitor coverage: High stakes for women fighting for respect and justice within the military.)

The hearing marks the conclusion of a remarkable about-face for many wavering Republicans. Just a month ago, it appeared that the military veteran and Fox News host would be sunk by reports that he had been publicly intoxicated at different jobs he held after leaving the military, past marital infidelities, and a 2017 allegation of sexual assault (he has repeatedly denied the accusation, but paid a confidential financial settlement to his accuser to keep the incident quiet).

Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation prospects looked so dicey at one point that Mr. Trump reportedly discussed replacing him with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But now, it looks like he’ll be able to win enough votes to be confirmed in the GOP-controlled Senate.

During the hearing, Democrats pushed hard on Mr. Hegseth’s personal history and past public remarks on women in combat.

Multiple senators asked him about repeated comments he made over the span of a decade that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles. That includes an unequivocal remark made on a conservative podcast just last summer that “Women shouldn’t be in combat at all.”

Mr. Hegseth repeatedly refused to admit his position had shifted but reiterated that he now supported women in combat roles so long as they could meet the physical requirements.

He dodged Democrats’ other questions throughout the hearing, including whether he’d obey a directive from the president to order troops to fire on protesters. He refused to say whether Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who served during President-elect Trump’s first term, was right to apologize for using troops to clear out unarmed protesters from in front of the White House. He repeatedly refused to answer questions from Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan about whether he’d personally been involved in discussions of using the active duty military inside the United States, or whether he’d allow soldiers to be used at detention camps to deport unauthorized immigrants.

Democrats complained that Mr. Hegseth broke with longstanding norms by refusing to meet with any of them before the hearing. They were also frustrated that his FBI background check was only shared with the committee’s chairman and ranking member, only came in a few days ago, and wasn’t more thorough – it didn’t include interviews with his sexual-assault accuser or one of his ex-wives. And they expressed frustration that they were limited to one round of questioning, unlike at some previous confirmation hearings.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Republicans rally around Hegseth at hearing, setting him up for confirmation
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0114/hegseth-defense-confirmation-hearing-military
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe