The Daily - Drunkenness, Women and Wokeness: A Dramatic Confirmation Hearing for Pete Hegseth

Episode Date: January 15, 2025

On Tuesday, the confirmation process for President-elect Donald J. Trump’s cabinet picks kicked off with Pete Hegseth, for the position of defense secretary.Eric Schmitt, who covers U.S. national security, explains how the four-hour hearing unfolded, and what the odds are that Mr. Hegseth will soon be leading the Pentagon.Guests: Eric Schmitt, a national security correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: Read four takeaways from the hearing.Here’s how Senate confirmation works.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Bobarro. This is The Daily. On Tuesday, the confirmation process for Donald Trump's cabinet began with his most controversial choice, Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. Today, my colleague, National Security Correspondent Eric Schmidt, on the contentious and dramatic hearing and the odds that Hegseth will soon be running the military. It's Wednesday, January 15th. Eric, from the moment that Pete Hegseth was nominated to run the Department of Defense, it, as you well know, created a storm of controversy on both sides of the aisle.

Because of the reports of his personal misconduct, because of his views on issues like whether women should be in the military, and because of his lack of traditional management experience, everything about him represented a major deviation from the norm of who the Secretary of Defense is, so much so that it looked like Donald Trump might dump him as his choice, but that hasn't happened. So heading into this confirmation hearing, what for you were the big questions about how this very highly anticipated day would unfold? Well, I think you said it's just amazing how unconventional Pete Hexsett's nomination

is. I mean, when his nomination was announced, we all kind of scratched our heads and went, you mean the Fox News anchor, that guy? Right. And, you know, as it turned out, you know, he did have a record. He had run a couple of veterans groups. And then some of the allegations started seeping out about his misconduct. The Times unearthed a letter from his mother in 2018 saying he treats women terribly.

His mom later said that she wrote that letter in anger, but still. Then we learned about an alleged sexual assault in 2017. So these things are starting to pile up. And then we talked to former colleagues of his who talk about allegations of public drunkenness. I mean, any one of these things would have know, would have been enough to sink a nominee in another time, but not Pete Hegseth. Right. So going into the hearing, I think there were really three major questions about how it

would unfold. The first would be, what do the Democrats do? Do they recognize this is a foregone conclusion and basically meet Pete Heegseth on his own terms, or do they go to war with him? The second, for Republicans, do they acknowledge any misgivings at all about Pete Hegseth's conduct, his fitness for the job, his experience, anything at all that would appear to give a crack in their support for him or do they just fall in line?

And then the third question is, how would Pete Hegseth carry himself? Right. Again, remember this is the firebrand Fox News commentator. He's used to being on television and really being hard edged in the MAGA world. Or do we see a different version of him where he's kind of buttoned up the Princeton grad and ready to play nice with Democrats and maybe soften some of their opposition?

You know, which Pete Hegseth shows up in what form and how does he present himself in this hearing? Right, the firebrand or the charmer? Right, or some combination. So given those three big questions going into this hearing, take us into the actual confirmation hearing itself as you tried to figure out which way it was going to go for each of those three constituencies, Republicans, Democrats, and Hextheth himself. So the hearing starts at 9.30 on Tuesday morning.

And this is the Senate Armed Services Committee. And their job is basically to recommend or not for all their Senate colleagues, you know, how should they vote on this guy? Again, remember, Republicans are in control as of the last election. But there's a very narrow margin and it's still a question of whether the Republicans will hold together. So Hexeth takes his seat in front of the dais and he looks like kind of like you would see him on television.

He's sporting a navy blue suit with a red tie, an American flag pocket square, and his wife and several other women, including Megyn Kelly, are sitting right behind him in support. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. Roger Wicker of Mississippi is the chairman who starts with an opening statement. Admittedly, this nomination is unconventional. The nominee is unconventional. The nominee is unconventional.

Just like that New York developer who rode down the escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy for president. That may be what makes Mr. Hegseth an excellent choice. Wicker signals pretty much from his opening statement, the Republicans are going to be a heat shield for Pete Hexeth in these hearings. He is a decorated post-9-11 combat veteran. He will inject a new warrior ethos into the Pentagon, a spirit that can cascade from the top down.

Mr. Hexeth will bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the bureaucracy. You know, the Biden administration has weakened the American military, the American service members are worn out, recruiting is in the tank. It's just, you know, we need a jolt here. In short, I'm confident that Mr. Hexeth, supported by a team of experienced top officials, will get the job done. And so this very quickly from the chairman of the committee makes it sound, you know, there's not going to be any doubts raised from his side of the aisle here at least.

Right. And given that original question you posed, it now seems that Republicans will not be acknowledging any misgivings about Pete Hexeth that they had early on. That's right. I mean, there are no reservations at all. It's full speed ahead. Mr. Hexeth, I welcome you and your family to today's hearing. And then we get our first statement from the senior Democrat on the committee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who's been on the committee for years, is a West Point graduate army veteran himself.

And he actually starts out with some niceties. Mr. Hexett, I want to begin by saying that I respect and appreciate your military service in the Army National Guard. I know from experience that there is no greater privilege than to lead American soldiers and I thank you for answering the call. But then Reed, who's a relatively soft-spoken guy, not you know not bombastic at all, the secretary is expected to be a fair, nonpartisan and responsible leader as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women that he leads.

Mr. Hexett, I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job. We must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. He just launches into this extraordinarily harsh assessment of Pete Hexett's qualifications. A variety of sources, including your own writings, implicate you with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues. It's as thorough a public disqualification, a kind of dismissal as I think I've ever seen in the 10 or 15 years I've ever watched a congressional hearing. It's a senior member of one of these committees basically saying, I don't even know why you

are in front of me. It's a total take down. Mr. Hegsted, you are the ninth nominee for secretary of defense that I've had the honor to consider as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have voted in favor of all your predecessors, including those in the first Trump administration. Unfortunately, you lack the character and composure and competence to hold the position of secretary of defense. Thank you. And of course, Haystaff is sitting across from Senator Reed.

At this point, his jaw looks really tense. And then suddenly, and I was watching this alongside of you, it's his turn to finally speak. What is he saying? Well, thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and all the members of this committee for this opportunity today. Again, remember, this guy is a television personality, so he's on now. The light is on for him to speak.

And he starts off quite deliberately trying to disarm the senators. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee, senators from both parties, to secure our nation. Thank you to my incredible wife, Jennifer, who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. He turns and he thanks his wife for her support. Including our seven wonderful kids, Gunnar, Jackson. He tries to name his seven kids. Luke, Rex, sorry, it's a lot of them.

And Gwendolyn. Forgets one of the names which draws kind of a laugh. Right, I mean, who among us? Seven kids. Yeah, who among us? Seven kids. Yeah, who among us? And then something dramatic happens inside the hearing room. You are a misogynist. Not only that, you are a...

Hecklers start screaming in protest of Hegseth's nomination. And the Capitol Police rush over and basically hustle this guy out. I want to thank the authorities for their swift reaction to that outburst. And Hexeth tries to get going again. He tries to kind of regain his momentum with this. ...meritocracy, war fighting, accountability, and readiness. And then another packler jumps up and starts screaming at something else. You may continue, sir.

So it's very disruptive initially. The Department of Defense under Donald Trump will achieve peace through strength. This is all at a time when, you know, Pete Heksef is trying to talk about how he's going to transform the woke military that has sunk to new lows into this, you know, new department of warriors. 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. And so how do you get that powerful military? You do that by focusing on the mission of the military, the building up of military might and not being distracted by what Republicans say Democrats have spent too much time on, of DEI policies and progressive politics and getting away from basic tenets of military effectiveness.

What if anything does Hegseth say in this opening statement about the questions that have come up around his resume? Well, interestingly enough. Now it is true and has been acknowledged that I don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years. You know, he openly acknowledges he's not your usual defense secretary.

But as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon You know, he openly acknowledges he's not your usual defense secretary. 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. And 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 and that what he says is, you know, I'm bringing a new fresh approach to this America

Thank you for the time and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. Mr So by this point the table has been set and we have the Republican chairman basically saying we're going to offer our complete undiluted, unapologetic support for Hegseth as defense secretary. The ranking Democrat is determined to try to disqualify him in the eyes of the public. And Hengsteth is proudly and pretty diplomatically and cleverly embracing the role of the change agent. That's right. And remember, this isn't just the introduction to this hearing.

Right. And the real fireworks are yet to come because the question and answer is that's going to go on for hours with Democrats and Republicans lining up. The partisan lines have been thrown down on both sides. And that's where the drama is really gonna unfold in this hearing. We'll be right back.

We'll be right back. So Eric, talk about the fireworks portion of this hearing, the questioning of Hexeth from senators of both parties. So one of the big topics that came up, particularly from Democrats, who launched into Hexeth's comments and what he's written about women in the military. And in the weeks leading up to this hearing, he's tried to walk some of those comments back. The Democrats haven't had a chance to really talk this thing through. And this is their first time to really confront him with what he's actually said and written

on this. Good morning, Mr. Hexess. Good morning, Mr. Hexeth. Good morning, Senator. Jean Shaheen, for instance, the Democratic Senator from New Hampshire was one of several female Democrat senators who took Hexeth on. As recently as November the 7th of 2024

on the Sean 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 and Shaheen among others really launches in some really tough questioning Mr. Hegs f 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 This was something that other democratic senators, including Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, also picked on. We have hundreds, hundreds of women

who are currently in the infantry, lethal members of our military serving in the infantry. And basically saying, wait a minute here, we already have women who are serving in military and serving in some of these combat positions in the infantry and ground combat roles. So 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. You will have to change how you see women to do this job well.

And I don't know if you are capable of that. So I want to... And then you've got other senators. Senator Elizabeth Warren says, well, wait a minute. You've had these kind of vague pronouncements of how women are so great in the military. After your last public comment saying that women absolutely should not be in combat, you declared that quote, some of our greatest warriors are women. It seems like you've had this conversion and you're trying to sand the hard edges off your myriad public comments about this.

What extraordinary event happened in that 32 day period that made you change the core values you had expressed for the preceding 12 years. In response to all this, Hegseth basically says, 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. Women obviously play a very important role in military, but he doesn't really address some of the most extreme things that he's written and said in the past, but just saying

When I'm talking about that issue, it's not about the capabilities of men and women, it's about standards. We have to have a standards-based military. Again, going back to his theme about focusing on the warrior ethos and not some of the DEI characteristics of the current administration. 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. And what exactly does he mean when he's using that word standards? It sounds like he is suggesting that during a democratic administration of Joe Biden, that those standards got lowered,

but he doesn't quite come out and say it, but is that what he's implying? That's what he's implying. He's basically saying that in order to accommodate, whether it's gender politics or other politics within the military, you've lowered the standards, the effectiveness standards of your basic soldiers here. And that's just not the case. The most elite units have got a specific test that both men and women who serve in those units have to pass.

It's not like there's a test for women and a test for men in these elite units. And to say that the standards have been warped under the current administration to serve their progressive politics, that's not right. And this is what some of these Democratic senators are saying, saying, wait a minute now, you know, they're calling him on it. These are the requirements today for people serving in the industry, men and women, they

are gender neutral, and they are very difficult to meet. They have not been reduced. So that was the Democrats. But what was perhaps the most interesting and one of the most awaited parts of this hearing was the support that Hexseth seemed to get from Republican Senator Joni Ernst. Good morning, Mr. Hexseth, and thank you very much. I appreciate your service to our nation.

He is a combat veteran and also a sexual assault survivor, somebody who is seen as a pivotal figure in these hearings. You and I have had many productive conversations. And just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations. Is that correct, Mr. Hegsup? Senator, that is a correct characterization. You know that I don't... Right. And she had seemed to be against his nomination in the beginning and then slowly

began to express support for him after several meetings. And so where we meet her on Tuesday is that she seems to be in his camp. That's right. I do believe in high standards. Where they do seem to kind of come together now is this question of standards. For the young women that are out there now and can meet those standards, they must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission. Men and women must meet the same high standards.

They must be physically able to achieve those standards in order to serve in these units. That of course is one of the main things that he's trying to get across. And now she seems to be saying the same thing. Right. And that matters because she seems to be basically pushing back against these Democratic women senators and the case they're making. That's right. Other Republicans on the committee want to zero in on the whole question of standards and how the military should be based on merit and skill rather than DEI qualities.

For those watching at home, DEI is not about giving everybody opportunity. It is rooted in cultural Marxism. And not the wokeness that they claim is making America weak and making America's military weak. Our current Secretary of the Air Force thought we had too many white officers, advocated for quotas. And if you crunch the numbers, that meant that 5,800 white officers who've worked really hard should be fired.

Senators such as Senator Tuberville of Alabama talking about how the military is way too focused on identity issues. I met with a general, a couple of generals this summer. Coach, we're spending more money on transgender restrooms than we are coverings for $100 million airplanes. That's not acceptable. We can't do that. This is why Pete Hegseth has to be installed right away

so that he can get to the job of focusing the nation's military on war fighting. That's really what's important here. I very much appreciate your focus on lethality in war fighting. We desperately need it. That is the focus that they have and which goes on for several senators. Beyond these questions around gender and DEI, where else does this questioning go? So another main area of questioning for the Democrats is just Mr. Hegseth's qualifications for the job. And this is where Democrats really leaned in as if they were treating Hegseth

to a job interview. Thank you, Mr. Hexseth. I'm looking forward to this opportunity to talk. I want to return to the interest. Senators like Tim Kaine and Mark Kelly zero in on Hexseth's conduct. They asked him about extramarital affairs that he has acknowledged he's had. At that time, you were still married to your second wife, correct?

I believe so. And you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife, correct? They asked him about allegations of sexual assault. Now, if it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, wouldn't it? It was a false claim then and a false claim now.

If it had been a sexual assault, that would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, wouldn't it? That was a false claim. He's talking about a hypothetical. So you can't tell me whether... We asked him about reports of his excessive drinking. At the Grand Hyatt at Washington, DC, you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room.

Is that true or false? Anonymous smears. While in Louisiana, on official business for CVA, did you take your staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club? Absolutely not. Anonymous smears. So, all of which is to say, you know, with this kind of background, how in the world can we endorse you as the head of the Defense Department?

We're hiring you to be the CEO of one of the most complex, largest organizations in the world. And in fact, Gary Peters, one of the senators from Michigan, basically equated the Senate, at least the committee here, as a board of directors. And they're kind of grilling Hexeth on his limited job experiences. What's the largest number of people you've ever supervised or had in an organization in your career? Not three million.

No, I don't expect that. No one, very few people have ever had that experience. But how many? It's a straight up question. I think we had over 100 full time staff at Concern Vets for America, roughly, with thousands of volunteers. So 100 people.

And Peters, in particular, says, you got to be kidding me. I don't know of any corporate board of directors that would hire a CEO for a major company if they came and said, you know, I supervised 100 people before. You wouldn't be hired as a CEO of one of the biggest companies in the country. That's basically what the Pentagon, you're basically being hired as the CEO of the Defense Department. Do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to

lower the standards for the Secretary of Defense? That we have someone who has never managed an organization more than a hundred people is going to come in and manage this? In response to all this, the Republicans kind of turn the idea of job qualifications inside out. Um, Mr. Hegg said that it, uh, it seems to me that you've supervised far more people than the average United States senator supervises typically. You had Senator Wicker, the chairman, basically making a joke out of it saying, you know, how many

people do we supervise? How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Then you have Senator Mullen of Oklahoma who's basically saying, wait a minute, you know, who among us hasn't had a drink too many at work or had an affair? You guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy because the man's made a mistake. And you want to sit there and say that he's not qualified? Give me a joke. Another Republican senator, a new senator, Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL, also weighed in on this. How many rounds of 5.56 can you fit into the magazine of an M4 rifle? Depends on the magazine but standard issues 30. And what size round is the M9 Beretta standard issue sidearm

for the military fire? A 9 millimeter. Basically making the case that Hexeth has the experience that matters most and he goes on to grill him about you know what kind of ammunition goes in certain kind of rifles and what tactics would you use in certain situations. And Hexeth answers them all like kind of rifles and what tactics would you use in certain situations? Right. And Hexeth answers them all like kind of rapid fire and he seems to get the answers right. Yeah. He talks about, you know, what kind of batteries and night vision goggles. And it's just, it's kind of like, this is what real warriors care about, you know, not

this other stuff. Let's get on with what's really important here. The Republicans seem to be saying. Right. And by the end, it's very interesting. Democrats have basically been saying, you're not technically qualified to run the Department of Defense in the way that we think about previous Secretaries of Defense, and therefore the DOD under you will be a mess.

And Republicans are saying, no, actually, because he has the right kind of experience and because he's going to root out what they would describe as kind of woke DEI culture in the military, he's actually going to save the Department of Defense from the current mess, as they see it. They're both kind of talking right past each other, the Democrats and Republicans. Exactly, and along the way, you know, Democrats just seem completely unconvinced by any of this approach. Democrats are underlined,

this guy is just a yes man for the president. He will do anything. He is so loyal to the president, he could even violate human rights or other laws or other norms and conventions to satisfy him. Mr. Hessek, welcome to the committee. Thank you, Senator. You've made several references.

Right, and there's this interesting exchange that Hexeth has with Senator Angus King of Maine. You wrote in your book just last year, if we're going to send our boys to fight, and it should be boys, we need to unleash them to win. Later on, our boys should fight by the rules of war. Where he talks about the rules of war and the law of armed conflict and what U.S. soldiers shouldn't be having to do.

We fight enemies also, Senator, as our generation understands, that play by no rules. They use civilians as human shields. So are you saying that the Geneva Convention should not be observed? We follow rules, but we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars. It gets to Hexsets as a guy who used to be on the ground in these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the suspicion of higher officials, including perhaps some lawyers who put restrictions on the soldiers who are going after bad guys in hextech's view.

Right. We are a country that fights by the rule of law, and our men and women always do. And yet we have too many people here in air-conditioned offices that like to point fingers at the guys in dark and dangerous places, the gals in helicopters in enemy territory, who are doing things that people in Washington, D.C. would never dare to do.

Or send in many cases. Eric, what was so surprising about that is that here you have a nominee to run the military saying that in his mind, there are moments where soldiers perhaps don't need to follow the chain of command, which is a weird message to send when you want to be the head of the military. If not, it may not mean to follow, not follow, but at least to challenge, to challenge the higher authority. And again, that puts Hexeth back in where he's been and where he's most comfortable. He's the grunt.

He's, you know, he's an officer, uh, who is on the ground in the fight. He's certainly indicating challenging a chain of command or higher authorities that don't have these priorities in mind that he does. This is just another moment where Hegseth is kind of showing he's going to be a very unconventional defense secretary going back. He's going to be a disruptor, just like his boss. This concludes today's hearing.

I want to thank the witnesses and their families, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Eric, by the end of the hearing, it very much felt like every Democrat in that room was signaling that they will be opposing Hegseth. And my sense is that all the Republicans on that committee are going to be voting for Hegseth.

And so he will be recommended by this committee. And if we assume that the same scenario plays out in the full Senate, then Hegseth most likely becomes the next Secretary of Defense. And it would seem like there's some risk here, especially for the Democrats in the Senate, that whether they mean to or not, in their opposition to Hegseth, they're kind of reinforcing the message of the election itself, which is that Trump is the candidate of government disruption and Democrats are the party that guards the status quo. What do you make of that? I think you're right, Michael, that this election was about change and was about disruption.

I think the Democrats have had to pick and choose which of these key cabinet offices they're going to challenge. On some, such as at Secretary of State, they're going to go along with this most likely. But they've drawn the line at the Pentagon, at least for now. But they just think he is the wrong guy at the wrong time at this place. In this case, they seem fine with the risk that they're going against the trend of disruption. The Pentagon is too important, too important an institution to put in the hands of such an inexperienced and unfit candidate in their view.

Boy, Eric, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. On Tuesday night, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, whose vote is considered decisive for Hegseth's confirmation, said that she would support his nomination, all but assuring that he will become the next Secretary of Defense. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Officials in California now say it may take weeks or longer to fully extinguish the largest of the wildfires that

have ravaged greater Los Angeles. On Tuesday, heavy winds ignited several new fires, but many of them were quickly brought under control. And, U.S. securities regulators have sued Elon Musk in federal court over his conduct in purchasing Twitter. According to regulators, Musk violated securities laws in 2022 by amassing a large stake in the social media company without filing the required notification. But because of Musk's close relationship with President-elect Trump, it's likely that

the incoming administration may seek to drop the lawsuit. Today's episode was produced by Rob Zipko, Rochelle Bonja, and Carlos Prieto. It was edited by M.J. Davis Lynn and Maria Byrne, contains original music by Dan Powell, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsferk of Wonderly. That's it for the Daily. I'm Michael Bobarro. See you tomorrow.