US Politics Extra: Pete Hegseth Is Hugely Unfit to be SecDef But Will Get the Job
Table of Contents 📖
"How can you as a woman in combat feel good that this person will have your back if you... I mean, he said that he has said very clearly that he doesn't have your back."
Hello Team
🎦 00:00-00:44⏩
Jonathan introduces the topic - Trump's controversial nomination of Pete Hegseth as US Secretary of Defense. Jonathan predicts that despite controversy, Hegseth is likely to be voted in due to the Republican majority in the Senate. Jonathan explains that the Republican whips have been putting pressure on certain senators, including Joni Ernst (a female veteran) to ensure they vote in line with the Trump agenda.
Return to top⤴️
Pete Hegseth - Background, experience and suitability for the role
🎦 00:44-02:20⏩
Jonathan argues that Hegseth is highly controversial due to a number of factors:
- Sexual abuse allegations against him.
- He has been unfaithful in his relationships
- Issues with alcohol
- His lack of relevant experience.
Jonathan expands on his lack of experience, describing Hegseth as a Fox News anchor with limited experience running two small veteran organisations, both of which he ran into deficit. Jonathan concludes that based on this, he is arguably unqualified.
Return to top⤴️
Pete Hegseth - Christian Nationalism and views on Women in Combat
🎦 02:20-03:19⏩
Jonathan voices his concern about Hegseth's views, stating that he appears to be a Christian Nationalist with strong opinions against women serving in combat roles within the armed forces. Jonathan expresses his disappointment that the nomination process seems to revolve around political pressure and party allegiance rather than a genuine assessment of Hegseth's suitability for the role.
Return to top⤴️
Pete Hegseth - Impact of his appointment on US global position and the wars in Ukraine and Taiwan
🎦 03:19-04:16⏩
Jonathan emphasises the significance of the Secretary of Defense role, highlighting its potential impact on the US's global standing. He expresses concern about how Hegseth might handle critical situations like the ongoing war in Ukraine, particularly in terms of providing support to Ukraine, and a looming potential invasion of Taiwan by China. Jonathan believes Hegseth's lack of experience raises serious doubts about his ability to navigate these complex geopolitical challenges.
Return to top⤴️
Pete Hegseth - Opening Statement to the Senate Confirmation hearing
🎦 04:16-05:25⏩
Jonathan analyses Hegseth's opening statement, noting his claim of having a similar background to previous Defence Secretaries, a claim Jonathan refutes, stating that his background is notably different to those who have held the position in the past 30 years. Jonathan criticises Hegseth's assertion that it's "time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm", pointing out that several recent Defence Secretaries, including Lloyd Austin and Chuck Hagel, have significantly more extensive and relevant military experience.
Return to top⤴️
Joni Ernst: Republican Senator's "softball" questioning
🎦 05:25-06:14⏩
Jonathan discusses Joni Ernst, a Republican senator and veteran, who was expected to rigorously question Hegseth. Instead, she seemingly avoids challenging him and even attempts to refute allegations against him, leading to accusations that she bowed to pressure from the Trump administration.
Return to top⤴️
Tammy Duckworth: Hegseth's knowledge of ASEAN
🎦 06:14-07:40⏩
Jonathan highlights Hegseth's lack of knowledge about ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as a concerning example of his inadequate grasp of international affairs. During the hearing, Democratic Senator and veteran, Tammy Duckworth, asks Hegseth basic questions about ASEAN, which he fails to answer correctly, revealing his lack of familiarity with a key geopolitical bloc.
Return to top⤴️
Mazie Hirono: Hegseth's stance on Trump's controversial orders - Shooting protestors and invading Greenland
🎦 07:40-10:17⏩
Jonathan discusses the questioning by Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono, who poses hypothetical scenarios based on past controversial requests from President Trump. Hirono asks Hegseth if he would comply with orders to shoot protestors in Washington D.C. or seize Greenland by force. Hegseth dodges these questions and avoids directly answering. This, Jonathan argues, is a major red flag as it suggests Hegseth may be willing to execute illegal orders.
Return to top⤴️
Mark Kelly: Hegseth's inconsistencies in explaining his past behaviour
🎦 10:17-11:57⏩
Jonathan examines Democratic Senator and veteran, Mark Kelly's line of questioning which exposes inconsistencies in Hegseth's explanations about his past behaviour. Kelly points out that Hegseth blames an "anonymous smear campaign" for allegations against him, while also admitting to personal issues and a need to address his drinking. This double standard, Kelly argues, raises serious doubts about Hegseth's transparency and integrity.
Return to top⤴️
Kirsten Gillibrand: Hegseth's views on women in combat
🎦 11:57-15:18⏩
Jonathan focuses on the exchange between Hegseth and Democratic Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, regarding his stance on women in combat. Jonathan points out that Hegseth has a history of making disparaging remarks about women in the military but during the hearing, he attempts to backtrack by framing his position as a meritocratic evaluation. Gillibrand challenges this, asserting that Hegseth's past statements clearly indicate a deep-seated bias against women in combat roles and that this sudden shift in stance appears disingenuous and likely motivated by the desire to secure the nomination.
Return to top⤴️
Gary Peters: Hegseth's lack of management experience
🎦 15:18-17:14⏩
Jonathan highlights Democratic Senator Gary Peters' concerns about Hegseth's lack of management experience. Peters argues that Hegseth's track record, particularly his failure to successfully manage even small veteran organisations, makes him unsuitable for overseeing a vast and complex institution like the Department of Defense. Jonathan shares Peter's concerns, describing Hegseth's nomination as outrageous and a clear indication that political motivations, rather than qualifications, are driving the selection process.
Return to top⤴️
Republican Senator's "unserious" questioning
🎦 17:14-19:11⏩
Jonathan contrasts the serious and probing questions posed by Democrats with the superficial and almost farcical nature of questions asked by some Republican senators. He cites an example where a Republican senator asks Hegseth about the type of batteries used in night vision goggles, highlighting the stark difference in the level of scrutiny applied by members of the two parties.
Return to top⤴️
Final thoughts on Hegseth's performance
🎦 19:11-20:18⏩
Jonathan continues to express his disbelief at Hegseth's performance during the hearing, particularly his seeming lack of seriousness in approaching such an important role. Jonathan finds it absurd that Hegseth appears to be complaining about having to go through the rigorous process of confirmation for one of the most consequential positions in the world.
Return to top⤴️
Hegseth's history of backing war criminals and his stance on "legality vs. lethality"
🎦 20:18-21:19⏩
Jonathan expresses concern about Hegseth's history of supporting US military personnel accused of war crimes and his stance on "legality vs. lethality". Jonathan highlights that while Hegseth claims to prioritize "warfighters", this stance becomes problematic when considering his support for individuals accused of violating the laws of war.
Return to top⤴️
Elizabeth Warren: Dismantling Hegseth's arguments
🎦 21:19-26:07⏩
Jonathan commends Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren for her skillful dismantling of Hegseth's arguments during the hearing. He describes her line of questioning, particularly her focus on Hegseth's inconsistent stance on women in combat, as "brilliant" and highlights how she exposes his hypocrisy by reading back his own past statements.
Return to top⤴️
Angus King: Hegseth's stance on Ukraine
🎦 26:07-29:14⏩
Jonathan discusses the concerning lack of attention given to Ukraine in Hegseth's opening statement, as pointed out by Independent Senator Angus King, who expresses concern that a potential Hegseth-led Defence Department might deprioritize support for Ukraine. Jonathan is encouraged by Hegseth's acknowledgement that "we know who the good guy is" in the conflict, a subtle but significant departure from Trump's ambiguous stance on Ukraine. He notes, however, that this should be a self-evident truth, not something requiring praise.
Return to top⤴️
Republican's focus on "DEI" and misspelling of "Military"
🎦 29:14-30:07⏩
Jonathan criticizes the Republican Party's focus on "DEI" (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) as a supposed threat to the military, highlighting the irony of them misspelling the word "military" on a presentation board during the hearing. Jonathan mocks this gaffe, suggesting that it undermines their attempts to position themselves as guardians of military standards.
Return to top⤴️
Tim Miller: Summary of the Hearing
🎦 30:07-40:04⏩
Jonathan shares his agreement with Tim Miller from The Bulwark, who describes Hegseth as "manifestly unfit" for the role of Defence Secretary. Miller criticizes Republican senators for failing to adequately scrutinize Hegseth's background and qualifications, instead resorting to "softball" questions and ultimately enabling what he sees as a dangerous and unqualified appointment. Jonathan shares this view and expresses his frustration at what he perceives as a blatant disregard for the importance of the Defence Secretary position. He is particularly critical of Joni Ernst, who, despite having potentially tough conversations with Hegseth in private, ultimately offered public support for him. Jonathan condemns the lack of transparency and accountability in this process. He sees this as part of a broader pattern of Republicans prioritizing partisan loyalty over good governance and the national interest. Jonathan believes that this behaviour is indicative of a worrying trend towards authoritarianism, where dissent is stifled, and loyalty to the leader is paramount.
Return to top⤴️
Jonathan's closing thoughts - comparison with Schedule F and Project 2025
🎦 40:04-42:21⏩
Jonathan concludes by drawing parallels between the Hegseth nomination and broader attempts by the Trump administration to consolidate power and purge dissent. He compares this situation to Schedule F and Project 2025, initiatives aimed at replacing career civil servants with individuals deemed loyal to Trump's agenda. Jonathan expresses concern that this approach undermines democratic norms and principles. He argues that Republican senators, fearful of facing primary challenges or becoming targets of smear campaigns, are likely to fall in line and confirm Hegseth's nomination. This, he believes, is a dangerous precedent that further erodes democratic institutions and norms.
Return to top⤴️
Wrap up
🎦 42:21-42:21⏩
Jonathan ends the video.
Return to top⤴️