[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We're going to do a Special Coverage edition of the show today to cover the confirmation hearing, which began a few minutes ago, for President-elect Trump's nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. We will also touch on the breaking news overnight, that special counsel Jack Smith released his final report on the criminal charges against Trump that had to be dropped because of the election, but described what the report called Trump's "unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power." Mostly, it's the Hegseth confirmation hearing this morning. Why are we doing this if we don't plan to do it for all the nominees? Well, who the defense secretary is matters tremendously to the United States and to the world. Hegseth is highly controversial for a number of reasons. They range from his personal conduct with women, to his lack of experience running large organizations, and failures running small ones, to his worldview that he has laid out in detail as an author and as a Fox News host.

For example, he predicted in a book of his in 2020 that if Joe Biden won that presidential election, there would be some sort of civil war, used the term civil war, in which the military and the police would be forced to make a choice. His words. Another way he put it, "America will decline and die. A national divorce will ensue. Outnumbered freedom lovers will fight back." I'd say it's one thing for a politician to have those views just as a matter of politics. It's potentially a whole other thing if the leader of the armed forces does. So, there will be a lot to question Pete Hegseth about. We'll see how Democrats and Republicans do it.

It's not purely a left-right split. For example, you can count The Wall Street Journal editorial board as Hegseth skeptical. They wrote today, "It's still puzzling that President-elect Trump chose Mr. Hegseth for such a senior post. Mr. Hegseth lacks the experience typically required. He has never run an organization of any size." On the sexual assault allegation, even if Hegseth did not sexually assault the woman he paid to be quiet about her accusation against him, the Journal says, "The real concern is judgment. Why was Mr. Hegseth, by then a well-known TV personality, cavorting with a woman whose husband was at the same hotel?"

"Also, the episode seems to have caught the Trump transition by surprise," the Journal writes, "and someone should ask if Mr. Hegseth was forthcoming when under consideration for the job." It continues, "The defense secretary has to make difficult calls on the behavior of general officers who violate military rules. Will the accused cite Mr. Hegseth's conduct as a defense? Moral authority matters to command authority." So count The Wall Street Journal editorial board as Hegseth skeptical.

Joining us for analysis of the hearing this hour, and to talk a little about the Jack Smith report, is Susan Glasser, who writes The New Yorker's weekly Washington column, leads the magazine's Political Scene podcast, and is author of the books, Kremlin Rising, The Man Who Ran Washington, and The Divider, which was the bestselling history of the first Trump term. One of her recent articles is called, The Scandal of Trump's Cabinet Picks Isn't Just Their Personal Failings. Susan, thanks so much for some time on this eventful morning. Welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Glasser: Oh, thank you, Brian. Great to be with you this morning.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start on the Jack Smith report for a few minutes before we go to the hearing. The report is about 130 pages. One line from the report says, "The through line of all of Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit. Knowingly false claims of election." Smith writes that the evidence would have brought a conviction at trial, even after the Supreme Court's immunity decision. Why do you think he argues that even after the immunity decision, they could have won a conviction against Trump?

Susan Glasser: Well, I think the argument that the Justice Department in the form of Jack Smith was prepared to make was that Donald Trump was acting not in the course of his official duties, but very much as a private citizen, as a candidate for office. This is, I think, a really fundamental argument, by the way, because if you don't believe in that, then you believe that the Supreme Court really was saying that the president of the United States can literally do anything, no matter how criminal, because he can make the argument that everything he does falls under his official duty.

I think it was an important point. It's not one that will be litigated, and of course, what people are going to remember about this, Brian, is failure. This was literally the dead of the night. This report was released at 1:00 AM, after the latest legal maneuverings by Trump's team failed, and Judge Aileen Cannon refused to put a stay on this part of the report. She's already successfully blocked the other part of Jack Smith's report dealing with the classified documents that Trump is alleged to have taken with him improperly after he left office.

For me, I think for many critics of Donald Trump there'll be a sense, not that this is a report that holds Donald Trump accountable, but that it stands in a way as a document that reinforces the failure to hold Donald Trump accountable for a variety of reasons that we can talk about.

Brian Lehrer: Why do you think Smith just released the report in writing in the middle of the night, rather than, say, hold a news conference this afternoon and say it out loud before the Washington press corps and therefore before the public?

Susan Glasser: That's a good question. There's nothing stopping him from doing that. As I understand it, he's already resigned from the Justice Department, so there's nothing stopping him from holding a press conference as well and going over it, but given all the legal maneuverings, my guess is that they wanted to get it out before Trump and his lawyers found a way to block it once again. So that when that midnight deadline came and went, I imagine that they wanted to get it out as soon as possible.

Brian Lehrer: All right. On to the Pete Hegseth hearing. What are you going to be watching for this morning?

Susan Glasser: Well, you know, it looks like Hegseth has just begun his opening statement. I watched the first part of the hearing, which began at 9:30, with extremely partisan opening statements from the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member. This is a committee that historically has been quite bipartisan. I was really struck that Jack Reed, who's the Democratic ranking member from Rhode Island, he offered a pretty scathing point by point recitation of all of the controversies and allegations involving Hegseth. All the ways in which he said Hegseth was unqualified.

What leapt out to me, Brian, was he said, "I've been on this committee so long. I've had nine Secretary of Defense nominees, Democrats and Republicans, come before this committee. I voted for every single one except for you," he said, addressing Hegseth directly, "I cannot vote for you." I think we're looking at a rupture, in many ways. A reminder, today is probably the biggest moment yet where we see that Trump 2.0 is a pretty decisive break with many of our previous traditions, including ones that continued even if under attack in Trump 1.0.

Brian Lehrer: I just want to get your take on some of the things that I mentioned in the intro before we go to the hearing. We'll take Hegseth's remarks from the beginning. We'll roll it back by just a couple of minutes, so that we can hear his opening remarks from the top. It seems to me that so much of the media reporting on Hegseth has focused on his personal behavior, or the fact that he hasn't run a large organization. That's certainly important. Both things are certainly important. Less so on his worldview as a Christian nationalist who has written that Christianity should be the guiding light by which the government is run.

He has a tattoo that seems to refer back to the Crusades. He's written explicitly in support of the Crusades. Those quotes from his 2020 book that I cited before, about the potential for civil war in this country if a Democrat is elected president and that the military and the police around the country would have to choose up sides. If he's going to be in charge of the military, that worldview is a really big deal, isn't it?

Susan Glasser: [laughs] Absolutely. I mean, it's breathtaking and in a way it's kind of a metaphor for all of these Trump nominees and scandals and controversies. We're overwhelmed with so much, it's hard to even know what to focus on. That is certainly the case with Pete Hegseth. In fact, Jack Reed listed through a few more that you haven't even mentioned, that go to his substantive views as opposed to potential personal feelings. For example, being quoted questioning whether the United States military should follow the Geneva Convention.

A quote recently on a podcast, "I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles." Calling modern leftists people who literally hate the foundational ideas of America, and other examples that suggest that he holds views that are in direct contrast with the vast majority of what Americans believe. He is an extreme nominee, even extreme in the context of the Trumpified Republican Party, Brian. I'll be interested to see what is the balance for Democratic senators between questioning those ideas versus trying to bring up the important investigative reporting by my colleague, Jane Mayer, and others about his own very flawed personal record.

Brian Lehrer: All right. It's a Special Coverage edition of the show today to cover the confirmation hearing, which began a few minutes ago, for President-elect Trump's nominee for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth. Susan Glasser, from The New Yorker, will come back during the hour with a few thoughts on the hearing as it progresses. What we're going to do is kind of roll back the tape just about exactly five minutes to when Hegseth started his opening remarks, and we'll pick it up from there and hear his opening remarks in full. Here we go.

Pete Hegseth: Well, thank you, Chairman Wicker, ranking member Reed, and all the members of this committee for this opportunity today. I'm grateful for and have learned a great deal from this advice and consent process. Our founders knew what they were doing. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee, senators from both parties, to secure our nation. I want to thank the former Senator for Minnesota, Norm Coleman, for his mentorship and friendship in this process. The incoming National Security Advisor, Congressman, and more importantly, for our purposes, Colonel, Mike Waltz, for his powerful words. I'm grateful to them both.

Thank you to my incredible wife, Jennifer, who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. I love you, sweetheart, and I thank God for you. As Jenny and I pray together every morning, all glory, regardless of the outcome, belongs to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His grace and mercy abounds each day. May His will be done. Thank you to my father, Brian, and mother, Penny, as well as our entire family, including our seven wonderful kids. Gunner, Jackson, Peter Boone, Kensington, Luke, Rex. Sorry, it's a lot of them.

[laughter]

Pete Hegseth: And Gwendolyn. Their future safety and security is in all of our hands. To all the troops and veterans watching and here in the room, Navy SEALs, Green Berets, soldiers, pilots, sailors, Marines, Gold Stars and more, too many friends to name. Officers enlisted. Black and white, young and old, men and women, all Americans, all warriors. This hearing is for you. Thank you for figuratively and literally having my back.

Protester 1: [crosstalk] Vietnam War. You are a misogynist. Not only that, you are a Christian [inaudible 00:13:29].

Brian Lehrer: There is a protester interrupting the proceedings. That protester has been escorted out first.

Chairman Roger Wicker: I want to thank the authorities for the swift reaction to that outburst, and state that similar-

Brian Lehrer: Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman Wicker.

Chairman Roger Wicker: -interruptions will be treated in like manner. Mr. Hegseth, you may continue.

Pete Hegseth: As I'll say again, thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. I pledge to do the same for all of you. It's an honor to come before this committee today as President Donald Trump's nominee for the Office of Secretary of Defense. Two months ago, 77 million Americans gave President Trump a powerful mandate for change. To put America first at home and abroad. I want to thank President Trump for his faith in me and his selfless leadership for our republic. The troops have no better commander-in-chief than Donald Trump.

As I've said to many of you in private meetings, when President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense. He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser focused on lethality, meritocracy, war fighting, accountability, and readiness.

Protester 2: [unintelligible 00:14:55]

Brian Lehrer: Again, protesters. Sorry to hear the words, but obviously protesters, and again, being escorted out.

Chairman Roger Wicker: You may continue, sir.

Pete Hegseth: Returning the Pentagon back to war fighting. That's it. That's my job.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Mr. Hegseth, suspend your remarks. Let me just say this. The Capitol Police are going to remove immediately individuals that are disrupting the hearing. I see a pattern attempted to be inflicted on the committee, and we're simply not going to tolerate that. You may proceed.

Pete Hegseth: To bring back war fighting. If confirmed, I'm going to work with President Trump and this committee to, one, restore the warrior ethos to the Pentagon and throughout our fighting force. In doing so, we will re-establish trust in our military, addressing the recruiting crisis, the retention crisis, and readiness crisis in our ranks.

Protester 3: [unintelligible 00:16:16]

Chairman Roger Wicker: Members of the security force will remove members. Mr. Hegseth, you may.

Pete Hegseth: The strength of our military is our unity and our shared purpose, not our differences. Number two, we're going to rebuild our military. Always matching threats to capabilities. This includes reviving our defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, no more valley of death for new defense companies. Modernizing our nuclear triad, ensuring the Pentagon can pass an audit and rapidly fielding emerging technologies. Number three, we're going to re-establish deterrence. First and foremost, we will defend our homeland. Our borders and our skies.

Second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific from the Communist Chinese. Finally, we will responsibly end wars to ensure that we prioritize our resources to reorient to larger threats. We can no longer count on reputational deterrence. We need real deterrence. The Department of Defense, under Donald Trump, will achieve peace through strength. In pursuing these America first national security goals, we'll remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional. Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters.

We are not Republicans, we are not Democrats, we are American warriors. Our standards will be high, and they will be equal, not equitable. That's a very different word. We need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system, every pilot's fully qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general or flag officer is selected for leadership or promotion purely based on performance, readiness, and merit. Leaders at all levels will be held accountable. War fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus.

This has been my focus ever since I first put on the uniform as a young Army ROTC cadet at Princeton University in 2001. I joined the military because I love my country and felt an obligation to defend it. I served with incredible Americans in Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on the streets of Washington D.C. Many of which are with me here today. This includes enlisted soldiers I helped become American citizens, and Muslim allies I helped immigrate from Iraq and Afghanistan, because when I took off the uniform, my mission never stopped.

Now, it is true, and has been acknowledged that I don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years, but as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly the right credentials. Whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives. Where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies, or specific programs, or approved narratives.

My only special interest is the warfighter. Deterring wars, and if called upon, winning wars by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight. We let them win, and we bring them home. Like many of my generation, I've been there. I've led troops in combat, I've been on patrol for days. I've pulled the trigger downrange, heard bullets whiz by, flex cuffed insurgents, called in close air support, led medevacs, dodged IEDs, pulled out dead bodies, and knelt before a battlefield cross. This is not academic for me. This is my life. I led then, and I will lead now.

Ask anyone who's ever worked for me or with me. I know what I don't know. My success as a leader, and I very much look forward to discussing my organization's successes at Vets For Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. I'm incredibly proud of the work that we've done. My success as a leader has always been setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter and more capable than me, empowering them to succeed, holding everyone accountable, and driving toward clear metrics. Build the plan, work the plan, and then work harder than everyone else around you.

I've sworn an oath to the Constitution before, and if confirmed, I will proudly do it again. This time for the most important deployment of my life. I pledge to be a faithful partner to this committee, taking input and respecting oversight. We share the same goals. A ready, lethal military, the health and well-being of our troops, and a strong and secure America. Thank you for the time, and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Thank you very much, Mr. Hegseth. Before we begin with member questions, I would like to remind my colleagues that consistent with the bipartisan staff agreement from December, and in concert with exactly how this committee dealt with the last Secretary of Defense nominee, each member will be recognized for one round of seven minutes to question the nominee. Out of respect for the time of all members of this committee, the time limits will be tightly enforced. We've now been here 45 minutes, and I think we've done very well with the time. At this point, I will begin my questioning of the nominee.

Mr. Hegseth, you and your family have endured criticism of your nomination since it was announced in November. Let's get into this allegation about sexual assault, inappropriate workplace behavior, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement during your time as a nonprofit executive. I should note that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in liberal media publications, but I want to give you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir.

Pete Hegseth: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that opportunity. You are correct. We undertook this responsibility with an obligation to the troops. To do right by them for our warfighters. 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. What we knew is that it wasn't about me. Most of it was about President Donald Trump, who's had to endure the very same thing for much longer amounts of time. He endured it in incredibly strong ways.

We, in some ways, knew it was coming. We didn't understand the depth of the dishonesty that would come with it. From story after story in the media, left-wing media, we saw anonymous source after anonymous source based on second or third-hand accounts. Time and time again, stories would come out and people would reach out to me and say, "I've spoken to this reporter about who you really are, and I was willing to go on the record, but they didn't print my quote.

They didn't print any of my quotes." Or, "I've worked with you for 10 years," or, "I was your accountant," or, "I was your chief operating officer," or, "I was your board member," or, "I was with you on a 100 different tour stops for Concerned Veterans for America. No one called me. No one asked about your conduct, on the record or off the record." Instead, a small handful of anonymous sources were allowed to drive a smear campaign and agenda about me, because our left-wing media in America today sadly doesn't care about the truth. All they were out to do, Mr. Chairman, was to destroy me.

Why do they want to destroy me? Because I'm a change agent and a threat to them, because Donald Trump was willing to choose me, to empower me to bring the Defense Department back to what it really should be, which is war fighting. I am willing to endure these attacks, but what I will do is stand up for the truth and for my reputation. False attacks, anonymous attacks, repeated ad nauseam, printed ad nauseam as facts. We have provided to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I know you're going to share, on the record statement after on the record statement from people who have served with me, worked with me at Fox News, Concerned Vets, Vets For Freedom, you name it.

From the top of the chain to the bottom. Who will say I treat them with respect, with kindness, with dignity. That's men, that's women, that's Black, that's white, that's every background. I have prided myself as a leader of respecting people, being professional. That is the balance of mind. I'm not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged. Saved by the grace of God, by Jesus and Jenny.

[laughter]

Pete Hegseth: I'm not a perfect person, but redemption is real. God forged me in ways that I know I'm prepared for. I'm honored by the people standing and sitting behind me, and look forward to leading this Pentagon on behalf of the warfighters.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Thank you, Mr. Hegseth. Frankly, I'm sure there are millions of Americans watching who would agree that they've experienced that same sort of redemption. I do appreciate that. I realize it involves a little baring of the soul, but thank you for that. Now, let's talk about top line defense spending. I have a plan. I think you've read it. I issued another plan, Freedom's Forge, which you've also had a chance to look at.

You have noted correctly that the current trend line of defense spending falling below 3% of our GDP is a threat to national security. You also said building the strongest and most powerful military in the world must be done responsibly, but it cannot be done on the cheap. You still agree with that, do you not?

Pete Hegseth: Yes, sir, I do.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Tell us what you think particularly about my plan to make the Defense Department less bureaucratic, less top heavy. Cut out some of the bureaucracy in layers, make it more friendly to startups and to new ideas, contained in my 20 or so page white paper defending Freedom's Forged.

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I've had a chance to review the FORGE Act. That paper. Those are precisely the kinds of ideas that need to be pursued. I look forward to working with this committee to ensure we cut the red tape, we incentivize innovation, we rebuild the defense industrial base, cut out the bureaucracy. All the things that are preventing the platforms and the tools from getting rapidly from our great defense companies here that should-- and those that want to compete, into the hands of warfighters. Past this prologue on this, sir, and I would just look at what President Trump did after the drawdowns of lead from behind under President Obama.

President Trump rebuilt our military. He didn't start wars, he ended them. He didn't allow wars to start on his watch. We've had the same kind of defense cuts under the Biden administration. Look, I would present to the committee the reputation of President Donald Trump, and me coming alongside him, to ensure we have peace through strength by rebuilding our military, investing as necessary. Going under 3%, Mr. Chairman, is very dangerous.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Okay, we [crosstalk]-

Brian Lehrer: This is a Special Coverage edition of The Brian Lehrer Show. We're following the confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee for Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth. Our Special Coverage will continue in a minute.

[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with a Special Coverage edition this morning as we follow the confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee for Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth. We heard his opening statement, we heard most of his questioning by the committee's chairman, Republican Senator Jack Wicker of Mississippi. We're going to pick it up, and we're a few minutes behind real time. Just a few minutes behind real time. We'll pick it up now after Senator Wicker has handed it off to the ranking Democrat on the committee. That's Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

Chairman Roger Wicker: You're recognized.

Senator Jack Reed: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questioning, I would like to make three requests. First, many of my members would like a second round. That has been the custom. Senator Hagel was afforded three rounds, Senator Ash Carter, two rounds. That was done by Republican chairman with the consent and the appropriate guidance of Democrats. I must say, too, my recollection is I've never denied anyone the opportunity to ask the second round of questions as I chaired. I will request the second round. My time is running. I think these are [crosstalk].

Chairman Roger Wicker: Oh, yes, you're using your time. No, if the timekeeper will pause the time. I must say I think we're going to have adequate time for questioning. I know Democrat members have coordinated their questions as much as we have. We are following the same exact precedent on all things that we did with Secretary Austin. I respectfully understand what you're saying, but I think we have an agreement, it's been known for quite some time, and I intend to stick with that agreement which we made last December. What is your second request?

Senator Jack Reed: Second, as been publicly reported, you and I have both seen the FBI background investigation of Mr. Hegseth. I want to say for the record, I believe the investigation was insufficient, frankly. There are still FBI obligations to talk to people. They have not had access to the forensic audit, which I referenced to, and the person who had access to was quite critical of Mr. Hegseth. I think people on both sides have suggested that they get the report. I know your colleagues have asked for it.

Senator Thune assured me personally that he thought it was an appropriate idea. So I would ask, and I would say, too, as the President-- one of President Trump's appointees had similar very complicated personal issues. The report was made available to all the members of the committee. We would be following precedent. I ask that that be made possible.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Again, we are-- there's been much discussion about this. What I intend to do is follow the exact precedent that we've had for the last two hearings with regard to Secretaries of Defense. Not only Secretary Austin, but Secretary Mattis, eight years ago. That was for the chair and the ranking member to see the report. So, that is my intention as chair of this committee.

Senator Jack Reed: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have several letters that I would include for the record. One from Count Every Hero, which is an organization of retired four-star generals and former Secretary of Defense that is critical of the proposed purge panels. One from an organization for domestic violence, one for a Council on American Relations, and also, excuse me, and also several letters that raise questions. I would ask they be submitted for the record.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Without objection, they will be submitted. Mr. Reed, your time is now expired. Just kidding.

[laughter]

Chairman Roger Wicker: You're recognized for seven minutes.

Senator Jack Reed: Thank you. You're a very understanding chairman. I like that. I like that. Mr. Hegseth, you've written and it's, "Oh, yes, and fire any general who hasn't carried water for Obama and Biden's extra Constitution, an agenda-driven transformation for our military. Clean house and start over." It's come to my attention that current serving military personnel have received emails threatening them with being fired for supporting the current DOD policies.

One mail that was sent to a military officer with the subject line, Clean House, reminiscent of your specific comment, states, and I quote, "With the incoming administration looking to remove disloyal, corrupt, traitorous, liberal officers such as yourself, we will certainly be putting your name into the list of those personnel to be removed. We know you support the woke DEI policies and will ensure you never again influence anyone in the future. You and, redacted spouse's name, will be lucky if you're able to collect your military requirement."

Now, I want to remind everyone that these policies that are being referred to, date back decades. To the 1940s and '50s, with respect to racial discrimination particularly, and administrations of both parties, including the Trump administration and their first party, caused those policies to be enforced. Mr. Hegseth, are you aware of these emails being sent to officers?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, you mentioned the word accountability, which is something we have not had for the last four years.

Senator Jack Reed: Are you aware of these messages being sent to officers?

Pete Hegseth: Certainly, I'm not aware of that. It's not one of my efforts, but there's been no accountability for the disaster of the withdrawal in Afghanistan. That's precisely why we're here today-

Senator Jack Reed: Excuse me.

Pete Hegseth: -is that leadership-

Senator Jack Reed: No.

Pete Hegseth: -has been unwilling to take accountability. It's the time to restore that to our most senior ranks.

Senator Jack Reed: You have written publicly that DEI policy are a distraction and have military personnel walking on eggshells. Do you believe that emails like that, that are essentially threatening both serving officer and a spouse and claiming that they'll lose their pension will have a distraction and detract from the lethality?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, you mentioned the '40s and '50s, and you're precisely right. The military was a forerunner in courageous racial integration in ways no other institutions were willing to do. I served with men and women of all backgrounds, because of the courage of people that gave [crosstalk]-

Senator Jack Reed: Do you believe-- Mr. Hegseth, please.

Pete Hegseth: -incredibly important. However, the DEI policies of today are not the same as what happened back then. They're dividing troops inside formations, causing commanders to walk on eggshells, not putting meritocracy first. That's the indictment that's made by those serving right now-

Senator Jack Reed: Excuse me.

Pete Hegseth: -and why we're having this conversation.

Senator Jack Reed: Excuse me. All of your public comments don't talk about meritocracy. They talk about liberal Democratic efforts that are destroying the military, that those people are our enemies. That's not meritocracy. That's a political view. Your goal, as I see emerging, is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions, which you've outlined extensively, which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the United States military, and would undercut readiness, undercut retention, because I can see officers receiving these emails beginning to wonder very seriously if they should continue.

Let me change subject for a moment here. You've been instrumental in securing pardons for several convicted war criminals. In at least two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted service members were not supportive of the pardons. They did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes. Your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit law crimes, rather than those who stand up and say, "This is not right." What's the response to your service members who personally witnessed these and took-- courageously reported them to their superiors?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, as someone who's led men in combat directly, and had to make very difficult decisions, I've thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality. Ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. I'm not talking about disavowing the laws of war, or the Geneva Conventions, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sir, I'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand, they've lived with on the battlefield, which has made it more difficult to defeat our enemies.

In many of the cases you're talking about in particular, sir, there was evidence withheld, there was prosecutorial misconduct, and as someone who looks case by case and defaults to the warfighter, to the men and women with dust on their boots, not the second guessers in air conditioned offices in Washington D.C.

Senator Jack Reed: Excuse me.

Pete Hegseth: I look case by case and was proud to work with President Trump to understand those cases, and ensure that our warriors are always looked out for.

Senator Jack Reed: Those cases were adjudicated by who? People in Washington or fellow non-commissioned officers who had also served, sacrificed, and believed in the ethic of the military? Who were the court-martialed-

Pete Hegseth: Senator, in multiple cases they were actually acquitted-

Senator Jack Reed: In some cases, yes, but-

Pete Hegseth: -but charges lingered. Regardless of where those convicting authorities were. Yes, sir.

Senator Jack Reed: Some were, but others were convicted, and you asked for pardon. That's the only reason you asked for pardon, because they were convicted. The other factor too, is you've already disparaged, in writing, the Geneva Convention, the rules of law, all of these things. How will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority? You have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a JAG officer. Oh, by the way, would you explain what a jagoff is?

Pete Hegseth: I don't think I need to, sir.

Senator Jack Reed: Why not?

Pete Hegseth: Because the men and women watching understand.

Senator Jack Reed: Well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand.

Pete Hegseth: It would be a JAG officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters. Their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those that are making the tough calls on the front lines.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Thank you, Senator Reed.

Senator Jack Reed: Interesting.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Thank you, Senator Reed.

Senator Jack Reed: Thank you very much.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Senator Fischer.

Senator Deb Fischer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Hegseth, to you and to your family. Thank you for the meeting that we had. We talked about a number of things. First and foremost was that-

Brian Lehrer: We're going to jump in for some analysis now that we've heard the initial round of questioning from the Republican chairman of the committee, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and the ranking Democrat, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, with the Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth. Susan Glasser, from The New Yorker, is still with us. Susan, I'll note first that something that you brought up in our intro earlier, to keep an eye on, came up there, right at the end of that questioning, from the Democrat, Senator Reed, about Hegseth's record of not respecting the Geneva Conventions.

Yet Hegseth had said in his remark just before Reed followed up, that he would follow the Geneva Conventions and the military code of conduct. We've got a conflict here over what rules he would run wars by, right?

Susan Glasser: Yes, absolutely. Again, it's so rare that you have a nominee for a position like this who has such a voluminous record of commenting publicly, and in the middle of the fray, he portrayed himself as interesting, Brian, as a sort of, well, we're going to have-- he's called it an apolitical Pentagon, and yet he's perhaps the most political partisan nominee for this position in my lifetime, or perhaps ever that I can recall. You mentioned the war crimes issue. This is something you're going to hear again and again from Democrats.

It's very important to how Pete Hegseth is in this seat in the first place, because it was actually using his platform on Fox News to rally against the convictions of some officers in war crimes cases, that brought him to the attention and good notice of Donald Trump in the first Trump administration. I don't think that he would be there today. I know from doing the reporting for our book, The Divider, about Trump's first term in office.

That very, very senior Pentagon officials in Trump's own appointees in the first Trump administration were absolutely beside themselves at the continued public campaign that Pete Hegseth was making to essentially undermine military justice and wage a television campaign to get people off who had been brought on charges, by the way, by their own military colleagues. Not by the woke left-wing media.

Brian Lehrer: I thought Senator Reed made a very good point when Hegseth was trying to spin those convictions as being undertaken by bureaucrats in air conditioned offices in Washington, and Reed shot back with the fact that those officers who were convicted at military tribunals of war crimes were-- had those actions brought to the public's attention by other colleagues in the field, and that the people who sit on those military tribunals are not Washington bureaucrats, but rather other officers. He kind of caught Hegseth doing that kind of political spin, and Hegseth seemed to have no response to that.

Susan Glasser: Yes, I mean, that's a theme that we've already heard so far, we'll hear it throughout the day. It's almost a very cynical inversion of truth that you're hearing across the board here. This should come with a big disclaimer [laughs] saying like, "For the real details behind this, you're going to need to read up." Because, for example, Republicans, the Republican chairman of the committee, praised Hegseth for being a real. He, in his own opening statement, sort of touted himself as a real warfighter with dust on his boots and real experience in combat.

A remarkably offensive statement to the very nonpartisan predecessors appointed by both Democrats and Republicans who served and fought in wars. These are our recent Pentagon secretaries. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam combat veteran, literally has shrapnel in his body from his service there. Obviously, both Lloyd Austin, Jim Mattis, Trump's first appointee, served on the ground in American wars in much more senior positions, by the way, than Pete Hegseth ever obtained. So, it's a kind of a slur on all of his predecessors in the effort to defend a man with a very, very thin and questionable record.

Brian Lehrer: I also want to get your take on the line of questioning that Senator Reed pursued. Referring to emails sent to a serving officer and that officer's spouse, that they were traitorous and might not collect their pensions, I think, because of their political views, but I'm not familiar with those emails. Were you?

Susan Glasser: Yes, no, I think that was some news being broken there by Jack Reed, the Democratic ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee here. He read out loud, he said that this is consistent with the public campaign that Pete Hegseth has promised to "clean house" inside the Pentagon if and when he is confirmed here. This email that he read out loud seems to fall in the category of making even senior members of the military believe that cleaning house is what the Trump administration agenda is. I should point out that this is how campaigns of intimidation and fear work.

It's very consistent that it's not just Pete Hegseth, but it's Donald Trump and those who work with and for him, who have explicitly made what they call the "deep state" the target of this new administration. Their goal might be not just not to fire everyone, but to make them feel that their jobs are in jeopardy, to create a climate of fear and intimidation. This is something I think that you're going to hear a lot from Democrats. In the past, it's the kind of thing that many Republican senators would have been concerned about in and of itself. I suspect that we won't be hearing a lot from them about this.

Brian Lehrer: I was confused about who sent those threatening emails. Was it Hegseth himself, according to Senator Reed?

Susan Glasser: No. Well, actually Hegseth was asked that by Senator Reed. He said, after first kind of dodging the question, he actually said explicitly that he did not. "Certainly, I'm not aware of that," was the direct quote that he gave.

Brian Lehrer: On the accusations of bad behavior of various kinds toward women in the questioning earlier by Senator Wicker, which of course was friendly questioning from the Republican chair, Hegseth characterized them as false and anonymously given to the media, but neither of them mentioned that there was an actual accusation with an actual settlement where he paid a woman cash to be quiet and not sue him regarding what had happened between them.

Susan Glasser: Yes, that's right, Brian. I mean, what I heard in that exchange was what you might call a pretty well worn playbook at this point, of grievance and victimization, not just by the media, but Hegseth and Senator Wicker both emphasized that this was the left-wing partisan media, that it wasn't-- it was essentially a political campaign to go after him. "A well coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us, that was clear from moment one," Hegseth said. He also said, "It wasn't about me, it was about President Donald Trump."

Again, what you hear is, I think, the playbook that worked for Brett Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearings, appealing first of all directly to the audience of one, to Donald Trump himself, but also appealing to the partisan feelings of the Republican senators who ultimately are going to determine whether he gets confirmed or not. I didn't see him address at all the facts of the allegations against him. What he has tried to do is attack the credibility of the allegations without ever repeating what they were. I think that's very interesting because he's had a shifting story.

Remember that initially, when the reports by my colleague, Jane Mayer, in The New Yorker, and other investigative journalists came out, first he denied everything. Now he has changed, and his defenders have changed to say, "Oh, well, I'm not a perfect person, but redemption is real." That's because things like his documented consumption of alcohol at professional functions, and the affairs that led to the end of his first two marriages are in the public record, and obviously are not from the left-wing media smear campaign. They're just facts on the record that were untenable for Hegseth to deny.

Brian Lehrer: We'll take a break and go back to the Pete Hegseth confirmation hearing on WNYC.

[pause 00:51:20]

[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: This is a Special Coverage edition of The Brian Lehrer Show. We're following the confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee for Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth. We're a few minutes behind real time. We're going to pick it up now at the start of the questioning of Mr. Hegseth from Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Shaheen.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Good morning, Mr. Hegseth.

Pete Hegseth: Good morning, Senator.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: I was pleased when I was contacted on your behalf about meeting before this hearing. I've been on this committee since 2011, and during that time I voted to confirm six nominees to be Secretary of Defense, from three administrations. Two Democratic and one Republican. The first Trump administration. Every one of those nominees met with me and my Democratic colleagues on this committee before the hearing.

As you can imagine, I was disappointed when no one ever followed up. When we followed up with your office, you were not able to meet. Do you understand that if you're confirmed to be Secretary of Defense, that you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this committee, not just Republicans?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I very much appreciate and understand the traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee. Their national defense is not partisan. It should not be about Republicans or Democrats.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Thank you.

Pete Hegseth: So I look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on priorities facing this nation. Yes.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: I think we would expect that. One reason that I wanted to meet with you was because I thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military, because you've made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military. As recently as November the 7th, of 2024, on the Shawn Ryan Show, you said, and I quote, "I'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective."

The quote went on a little longer, but that was the gist of it. That was before you were nominated to be Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hegseth, do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women?

Pete Hegseth: I believe it's 18% to 20%, Senator.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: It's almost 18%. In fact, DOD's 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now, and there are fewer separations. So they make up a critical part of our military. Wouldn't you agree?

Pete Hegseth: Yes, ma'am. Women in our military, as I have said publicly, have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Well, you also write in your book, The War on Warriors, with the chapter, The Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors, that, "Not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation in the moral realms of war." Mr. Hegseth, should we take it to believe that you believe that the two women on this committee who have served honorably and with distinction made our military less effective and less capable?

Pete Hegseth: I'm incredibly grateful for the two women who served our military in uniform, and including in the Central Intelligence Agency, contributions on the battlefield. Indispensable contributions. Senator, I would like to clarify. When I'm talking about that issue, it's not about the capabilities of men and women, it's about standards. This committee has talked a lot about standards. Standards that we unfortunately, over time, have seen eroded in certain duty positions, certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, which is what I care about the most. Readiness on the battlefield.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: I appreciate that, but however-

Pete Hegseth: So my comments [crosstalk] time and time again to standards.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: -your statements publicly have not been to that effect. After your nomination, you did state to a group of reporters that you, "Support all women serving in our military today, who do a fantastic job across the globe, including combat." What I'm confused about, Mr. Hegseth, is which is it? Why should women in our military, if you were the Secretary of Defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal opportunity to rise through the ranks?

If on the one hand, you say that women are not competent, they make our military less effective, and on the other hand, you say, "Oh, no, now that I've been nominated to be the Secretary of Defense, I've changed my view on women in the military." What do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving today, about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I would say I would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside you, shoulder to shoulder, men and women, Black, white, all backgrounds, with a shared purpose. Our differences are not what define us. Our unity and our shared purpose is what define us. You will be treated fairly, and with dignity, honor, and respect, just like every man and woman in uniform. Just like the men and women that I've worked with in my veterans organizations, to include when I was a headquarters and headquarters company commander in the Minnesota National Guard, and we had women in our ranks as well.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Well, I appreciate your 11th hour conversion, but Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to submit Chapter 5, The Deadly Obsession with Women Warriors, for the record. Mr. Hegseth-

Chairman Roger Wicker: Without objection, it will be submitted.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: -are you familiar with the Women, Peace, and Security agenda at the Department of Defense?

Pete Hegseth: Yes, ma'am, I am.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: This is a law that was signed during President-elect Trump's first term. It was legislation that I sponsored with Republican Senator Capito of West Virginia. It was co-sponsored by Marco Rubio, the nominee to be the President-elect's Secretary of State. It was led in the House of Representatives by Kristi Noem, the President-elect's nominee to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. It mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security, including conflict resolution and peace negotiations. At the Department of Defense, it has been the law for eight years. Under both the Trump and Biden administrations, the DOD has incorporated women throughout its decision-making. As a result, every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this committee that this law and its implementation at the Department of Defense provides them a strategic advantage operationally. Based on your comments, it appears that the example that you would like to set not only for women in this country but for women across the globe, 50% of the world's population, as the prospective nominee to lead the most combat-credible military in the entire world, is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military. Will you commit to preserving the women peace and security law at DOD and including in your budget the requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs throughout the DOD?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, I will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with America first national security priorities, meritocracy, lethality, and readiness. If it advances American interests, it's something we would advance. If it doesn't, it's something we would look at.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Former President Trump signed the law. I hope that he agrees with you.

Chairman Roger Wicker: Thank you, Senator Shaheen. At this point, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five letters of support from female service members and combat veterans who support Mr. Hegseth's nomination. These women represent diverse viewpoints, from a retired colonel with over 25 years of service to an active duty Navy surface warfare commander to a senior airman. They support Mr. Hegseth and comment on his focus on merit, warfighting readiness, military training status, and loss.

Brian Lehrer: This is special coverage on the Brian Lehrer show of the confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee for defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. We'll get a brief thought on that questioning by Senator Shaheen from Susan Glasser, who writes the weekly column from Washington for The New Yorker and hosts their Political Scene Podcast. Susan, that questioning by Senator Shaheen got to the heart of what's been in the news a lot. Things that Pete Hegseth has said about women in the military, women in combat. She pointed to, yes, people might be confused because you said different things before your nomination than you have in the last few weeks since you were nominated.

Susan Glasser: Yes, that's right. I think this is a reminder that there are so many potential lines of attack from Democrats on this nomination, it's not clear what they're going to focus on. You've heard discussions about the accusations of his personal lack of qualifications for the job. Shaheen here from New Hampshire, one of the most senior women who does national security type focus in her role as a senator, she honed in on this question of previous bipartisan support for women playing active roles across the military, said she was confused and that women would be confused by what message Hegseth is sending.

I think that it's a reminder that they don't really know what, if anything, is going to work to lay a glove on Hegseth. Again, you're really aimed-- This confirmation hearing is aimed at the public, but it's also aimed at can they lay enough of a glove on this nominee, this very controversial nominee, to persuade three Republican senators to go through with their qualms about Hegseth and publicly vote against him? That's the question, I think that's really explicitly and narrowly on the table here. I didn't hear anything from Hegseth that gave me any more insight, by the way, Brian, I don't know if you did, as to what he actually thinks about women in the military.

He spent the last few years railing against the idea of what he calls DEI and mindless focus on diversity. You got to wonder, what does that actually mean? By many counts, he's much less qualified than his possible predecessor, Lloyd Austin, who happens to be an African American Secretary of Defense. Here is this white Fox News host railing against diversity in the ranks. What does that mean? What is he really telling us?

Brian Lehrer: I'll be curious to hear if he can cite any examples of lack of ability to perform the military's function because of any diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. He said earlier in the questioning by Republican Senator Wicker that our standards will be equal, not equitable, and everyone selected for leadership will be based only on performance. The implication there is that what everybody acknowledges as the most lethal fighting force in the world, the US military has not been able to carry out its missions because of equity and inclusion policies. Has anybody to your eye raised any specific examples of that?

Susan Glasser: That would be a great question. You should be one of the senators asking questions today, Brian. It's a great question. Again, it speaks to the overall Trump movement, which is about I feel that this is how it is. Whether it's, I feel like really bad about the economy, even if by a lot of metrics it's doing very well. I feel that I don't like these DEI policies rather than any evidence about how they're affecting things. You got to wonder that there's got to be tens of thousands of military officials, people who are serving their country right now who are offended at the idea that they are not ready right now, that they are not doing their jobs well.

It's a sweeping but very data-free critique that Pete Hegseth and his colleagues on the Trump team are offering of our military, goes hand in hand with the campaign in which Donald Trump just now essentially said, America is a hellscape, things couldn't be worse kind of American carnage on steroids. That's the attack that they're launching on all of those service members right now. It's a really interesting approach to the Pentagon to say everything you do is terrible and I would like to be your leader. Who cares if I'm less qualified than others? Who cares if there are personal questions around my ability to manage or to handle others around me?

Basically, you've tried everything else with more qualified people, so why not go for me?

Brian Lehrer: Susan Glasser from The New Yorker, thank you very much for giving us some time today.

Susan Glasser: Thank you, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.