|
Pete Hegseth, the former Fox news Host, failed Senate candidate, and one-time Koch darling, is Trump's wholly unqualified and dangerous pick to lead the Department of Defense. Throughout his career, Hegseth has pushed dangerous military ideas, insulted veterans and current members of the military, attacked women verbally and, allegedly, physically, Hegseth and the Koch-backed organization he led, Concerned Veterans For America, both advocated for privatizing health care for veterans, a policy that has been widely criticized. Hegseth and CVA’s plans would have impacted over 22 million veterans and stuck those who served our country with out-of-pocket costs previously covered by the VA. Hegseth also wanted to transition military pensions to a “private-sector 401k” style retirement plan. Hegseth was a staunch defender of the United States’ efforts in Iraq. Beginning while he was still in college, Hegseth advocated for the use of American military force in the Middle East to topple Saddam and encourage “republican principles.” Hegseth defended Geroge W. Bush’s Iraqi surge and framed the conflict as a war of principles. His defense continued into 2014, when he slammed those who contextualized the invasion with the newly revealed facts. Hegseth saw the conflict as a decisive victory. After serving a year at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Pete Hegseth defended the base’s treatment of detainees despite an investigation that found prisoners had been mistreated and humiliated during interrogations. Hegseth advocated for waterboarding, downplayed the enhanced interrogation tactics, and insisted that conditions at Guantanamo were humane. Hegseth also pushed for loosening the US's rules of engagement, defended the murder of civilians by contractors, called for a preemptive strike against North Korea, and pushed for the US to withdraw from the UN. Hegseth railed against women in combat roles and the military generally. The range of misogyny used in his years of attacks is impossible to follow but stretches from women’s inability to meet the military’s “standards” to their male counterparts sexualizing them in battle. Hegseth equated women in combat roles to the use of child soldiers, claimed it shifted their societal position outside of the armed forces, and mocked the military’s attempts at inclusion. Hegseth claimed that military training taught women to ignore their instincts and caused them to get more abortions. He also attacked decorated women in the military, claiming their awards were only given because of their sex. Hegseth allegedly drunkenly assaulted a 30-year-old conservative staffer during a 2017 event in California. Hegseth’s attorneys maintain that the encounter was consensual but in 2020, Hegseth paid his victim hush money and forced her into a nondisclosure agreement after she threatened litigation. Hegseth’s drinking was a problem throughout his time as CEO of Concerned Veterans For America. He repeatedly had to be carried to his room in a drunken stupor, embarrassed employees and stakeholders with his public drunkenness, and espoused islamophobic and misogynistic remarks while under the influence. Hegseth was allegedly forced to step down from CVA over his behavior. During his 2012 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat, Pete Hegseth was a staunch defender and supporter of Israel, saying it had a right to illegal settlements and criticized the Obama administration for suggesting the settlements were a hindrance to the peace process. Hegseth also supported Israel’s use of military force, including a naval blockade of Gaza, and supported a proposed attack on Iran. During Hegseth’s time as publisher of The Princeton Tory, the magazine was rife with misogyny, racism, homophobia, and bigotry. Hegseth penned opinions where he mocked diversity and called homosexuality immoral while his editors advocated for the “traditional family unit” and applauded country clubs who refused to admit women. Hegseth also began his journey into Christian nationalism via the Tory and demonized women’s reproductive care. |
¶ Hegseth Served As The CEO Of Concerned Veterans For America
¶ Concerned veterans Of America Was A Koch-Backed Group
Pete Hegseth Was The Chief Executive Officer Of Concerned Veterans For America. According to Pete Hegseth’s LinkedIn, he was CEO of Concerned Veterans For America from 2012 to 2015. [LinkedIn, Pete Hegseth, Accessed 1/6/24]
Pete Hegseth, To Koch Brothers Freedom Partners Summit: “Concerned Veterans For America Is An Organization This Network Literally Created.” According to a speech Pete Hegseth gave at a Koch brothers’ summit, “Concerned Veterans for America is an organization this network literally created.” [Pete Hegseth Speech – Koch Brothers’ Summit via YouTube, 6/16/14]
Hegseth: “I Thank Charles And David” For Making CVA Possible. According to a speech Pete Hegseth gave at a Koch brothers’ summit, “I thank Charles and David […] everyone that puts in the sweat equity that makes this possible.” [Pete Hegseth Speech – Koch Brothers’ Summit via YouTube, 6/16/14]
¶ CVA Supported Privatizing VA Health Care And Veterans’ Pensions
Washington Post: Some See Hegseth “As A Traitor Who Is Seeking To Deprive Active-Duty Personnel And Veterans Of Well-Deserved Pay And Benefits.” According to The Washington Post, “[Pete] Hegseth’s group [CVA] is not offering specific policy prescriptions, but it is supporting cuts of some sort — and that puts it in a unique niche in the battle over military funding. Lawmakers and their aides have been increasingly willing to meet with him in recent months, intrigued to hear his views and to gauge whether he has the members to provide the promised support if they choose to embrace positions that run counter to the large veterans organizations. Although his army still is modest — he has only 25 field organizers nationwide — his message is attracting attention among veterans. Some applaud him for taking on the established veterans lobby, which has become almost sacrosanct in Washington. Others see him as a traitor who is seeking to deprive active-duty personnel and veterans of well-deserved pay and benefits.” [Washington Post, 6/1/13]
¶ VA Privatization
CVA Promoted Privatizing The VA. According to CNN, “Discussing the need for reforms improving access to care at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Sanders said that a group funded by the Koch brothers is promoting the privatization of the agency. An organization called Concerned Veterans for America is sanctioned by the influential conservative siblings, Sanders said. […] Sanders is correct in describing the group’s Koch lineage and its intent. Our verdict is true.” [CNN, 2/5/16]
¶ CVA’s “Proposed Premium Support System” Would Force “Most Veterans To Pay Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Private Health Care”
Concerned Veterans For America Released Its Final VA Report, Recommending Reforms Collectively Titled “The Veterans Independence Act.” According to a press release from Concerned Veterans for America, “Today, Concerned Veterans for America’s (CVA) Fixing Veterans Health Care Taskforce released its final policy report focusing on reforms to the delivery of veterans’ health care. The reforms, which are collectively entitled the Veterans Independence Act, will be unveiled and discussed at CVA’s Fixing Veterans Health Care summit today in Washington, D.C. The full report can be viewed here.” [Concerned Veterans For America Press Release, 2/26/15, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
CVA Recommended Converting The Current “VHA Integrated Health Care System” Into A Government-Chartered Non-Profit Corporation. According to a press release from Concerned Veterans for America, “The Veterans Independence Act would make four key reforms to the delivery of veterans health care: 1. Separate the VHA’s payor and provider functions and convert the current VHA integrated health care system into a government-charted [sic] nonprofit corporation.” [Concerned Veterans For America Press Release, 2/26/15, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
WBNS-10TV Ohio: CVA’s VA Idea Was “Similar To School Vouchers.” According to WBNS-10TV, “The idea is similar to school vouchers. Parents get public money to pay for either public or private school. The idea would be the same for the VA: allowing patients to see either public or private doctors.” [10tv.com, 3/30/15]
CVA’s “Proposed Premium Support System” Forces “Most Veterans To Pay Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Private Health Care.” According to a FAQ on Fixing Veterans Health Care from Concerned Veterans for America, “Q: Why does the proposed premium support system force most veterans to pay out-of-pocket costs for private health care? Didn’t veterans earn free health care through their military service? A: Many veterans are already forced to pay co-pays through the current VA health care system for certain medical services. Cost-sharing is already in effect in the current system. In fact, under the Veteran Independence Act, veterans who use the independent VACO will not have to pay any copays or deductibles.” [FAQ – cv4a.org, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
¶ If CVA’s Act Was Enacted Into Law, It Would Affect “22 Million Veterans Dramatically” And “One-Fifth Of Future Veterans Would Not Be Eligible For VA Care”
USA Today: CVA’s Proposed Reforms, “If Enacted Into Law, Would Affect America’s Roughly 22 Million Veterans Dramatically… Repercussions Would Be Even More Profound For Future Veterans.” According to USA Today, “The reform measures, if enacted into law, would affect America's roughly 22 million veterans dramatically, especially the 8.5 million enrolled for care through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Repercussions would be even more profound for future veterans. Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative non-profit, sponsored the study called ‘Fixing Veterans Health Care’ amid a crisis in VA health-care services.” [USA Today, 2/26/15]
One-Fifth Of Future Veterans Would Not Be Eligible For VA Care Under The CVA Plan. According to USA Today, “Nearly one-fifth of future veterans — those in the lowest VA benefit levels, Priorities 7 and 8 — would not be eligible under the new system.” [USA Today, 2/26/15]
CVA: “All Current Enrollees Will Be Grandfathered Into The New System…However, The Veterans Independence Act Proposes Tightening Eligibility Requirements For New Enrollees” According to a FAQ on Fixing Veterans Health Care from Concerned Veterans for America, “Q: Why is CVA advocating kicking certain veterans out of the VA health care system? A: All current enrollees will be grandfathered into new system with the same level of benefits. No veterans who are currently enrolled in the VA system will kicked out of the system. However, the Veterans Independence Act proposes tightening eligibility requirements for new enrollees at a certain date in order to reorient the VA back towards its mission of providing care for service-connected disabled veterans.” [FAQ – cv4a.org, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
CVA: The Plan Would Save Money “Through The Introduction Of Cost-Sharing And Tightening Enrollment Eligibility Requirements.” According to a FAQ on Fixing Veterans Health Care from Concerned Veterans for America, “Q: Your fiscal modeling says this plan will save money for the VA. How? A: Through the introduction of cost-sharing and tightening enrollment eligibility requirements.” [FAQ – cv4a.org, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
¶ Pension Privatization
2013: Washington Post: Hegseth Said He Was “In Favor Of Transforming The Current Retirement System… With A Program That More Closely Resembles A Private-Sector 401(K) Plan.” According to The Washington Post, “[Pete] Hegseth, a Republican whose résumé includes Princeton and Harvard as well as a stint as a guard at the Guantanamo Bay prison, runs a small and scrappy group called Concerned Veterans for America. […] Although his organization has not come up with a list of proposed cuts, he said he would be in favor of transforming the current retirement system — which provides pensions for those who stay for 20 years or more, and nothing for those who leave earlier — with a program that more closely resembles a private-sector 401(k) plan. ‘We don’t claim to have all of the solutions,’ he said. ‘We want to create the space for smart people to do the right thing.’” [Washington Post, 6/1/13]
- Hegseth Claimed The U.S. Military’s Current Benefit System Was “Unsustainable.” According to an op-ed by Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth for the Wall Street Journal, “The U.S. military's current benefit system is unsustainable. Health care and retirement costs are spiraling upward as a percentage of the Pentagon budget, and the trajectory is already crowding out war-fighting capability. The government spent $143 billion on military health and retirement in fiscal year 2013—significantly more than the $110 billion spent on weapons procurement that year. If this continues, the Defense Department will eventually be a health-care and pension provider that also happens to fight wars.” [Pete Hegseth – Wall Street Journal, 3/23/14]
¶ Hegseth Supported The Iraq War And Continuously Defended It
¶ 2002: Hegseth Supported Invading Iraq While Still In College
Hegseth: “I Believe, If Done Correctly, Eliminating Saddam And Liberating Iraq Could Be The ‘Normandy Invasion’ Or ‘Fall Of The Berlin Wall’ Of Our Generation.” According to an opinion written by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “I believe, if done correctly, eliminating Saddam and liberating Iraq could be the ‘Normandy Invasion’ or ‘fall of the Berlin Wall’ of our generation. Not only will a victory in Iraq rid the world of a brutal dictator, but it will also provide an opportunity for democratic principles to gain favor in surrounding Arab polities.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, September 2002]
Hegseth: “It Is Widely Reported That The Iraqi People Are Eager To Be Rid Of Saddam, And There Is Equally Encouraging Evidence That Republican Principles Could Thrive There.” According to an opinion written by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “It is widely reported that the Iraqi people are eager to be rid of Saddam, and there is equally encouraging evidence that republican principles could thrive there. Iraq and Afghanistan, as examples of functioning liberal
democracies, could begin a tidal wave of democracy in the Arab world, a force that would be conducive to peace, freedom, and basic human rights. Plainly, victory in Iraq is essential for the ultimate victory of ‘freedom over fear.’” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, September 2002]
Princeton Tory Editors: “Can We Please Go To Iraq Already? We’ve Established That Saddam Is Evil And That He Has Biological And Chemical Weapons Of Mass Destruction… What Further Evidence Is Needed?” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “Can we please go to Iraq already? We’ve established that Saddam is evil and that he has biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction at his fingertips. What further evidence is needed? Lets take him out, and his crazy son with him.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, February/March 2002]
¶ 2006-2008: Hegseth Supported George W. Bush’s Surge In Iraq, Continued to Defend Choice to Invade Country
Hegseth Wrote An OpEd In The Wall Street Journal Requesting More Troops In Iraq. [Wall Street Journal, 10/3/06]
Hegseth Was Executive Director Of Vets For Freedom, A National Group That “Supported Former President George W. Bush's Surge In Iraq.” According to the Star Tribune, “[Pete] Hegseth, 31, has not run for public office before. But he is well known in Republican circles as executive director of Vets for Freedom, a now-dormant national group that supported former President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq, where Hegseth also served.” [Star Tribune, 5/2/13; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
2007: Hegseth On Iraq War: “President Lincoln Chose To Fight A Bloody And Unpopular War Because He Believed The Enemy Had To Be Defeated. He Was Right. And To Me, That Sounds More Than A Bit Like The Situation Our Country Faces Today.” According to an op-ed by Pete Hegseth for The Washington Post, “Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, ‘Lincoln's Example for Iraq,’ all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq. […] President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose? [Pete Hegseth – Washington Post, 6/25/07]
¶ In 2007, Hegseth Opposed Legislation That Would Have Given Troops Equal Time At Home And Serving On Tour
Hegseth Was Against The Webb Amendment, Which Would Have Given Troops Equal Time At Home And Serving On Tour. According to a transcript of an interview with Pete Hegseth On MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, “Chris Matthews: Pete, what's wrong with this amendment to give the troops time at home equal to the time they're serving on their tours, so that they go back rested and ready for battle? Pete Hegseth: Well, it, it's just another example of Congress trying to legislate strategy in Iraq. You've got generals, all the way up to Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, General Pace, and others, have all said this would do great damage to the Army and the military's ability to deploy, deploy troops, if necessary, to different areas for emergencies or for just natural troop rotations. When the leadership of your military is saying this is something that will not only hurt our rotations, but put our troops at risk, if you read what Secretary Gates said the other day in a letter, he said, ‘This amendment will put our troops at risk, because it will not give our commanders an opportunity to deploy them in the way we may need to in a dynamic war environment.’” [Pete Hegseth Interview – MSNBC’s Hardball, 9/19/07; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
- Hegseth Admitted Troops Would Like The Amendment And Said That “Everybody Wants To Be Home As Long As They Can.” According to a transcript of an interview with Pete Hegseth On MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, “Chris Matthews: Do you find- do you think, that this were ever passed and signed by the President, this requirement that troops get a full rotation home, a year home, a year on, like police sometimes do, an hour on, an hour off, OK? Pete Hegseth: M hm. Chris Matthews: You think they wouldn't like it? Pete Hegseth: No. It's not about that they wouldn't like it? Chris Matthews: They would- no, wouldn't that- just answer the question. Wouldn't they like to be able to get home for the amount of time they're spending over there? Pete Hegseth: Everybody wants to be home as long as they can. Chris Matthews: Well, then they would like this. Pete Hegseth: Sure.” [Pete Hegseth Interview – MSNBC’s Hardball, 9/19/07; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
- Hegseth On Amendment: “It's About Doing What's Right, Not What You Like.” According to a transcript of an interview with Pete Hegseth On MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, “Chris Matthews: They would- no, wouldn't that- just answer the question. Wouldn't they like to be able to get home for the amount of time they're spending over there? Pete Hegseth: Everybody wants to be home a-as long as they can. Chris Matthews: Well, then they would like this. Pete Hegseth: Sure. Chris Matthews: So, who doesn't like this? Pete Hegseth: But it's- you- It's about doing what's right, not what you like. If this feels good in your heart, but you have got to think about how it works in your head. Chris Matthews: No. I'm asking do, do, do- You're here for- Who are you speaking for, if not the troops? Pete Hegseth: Well, I'm speaking for myself and for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who com- want to complete the mission. And they want policies from their generals and from their leadership that allow them to do so.” [Pete Hegseth Interview – MSNBC’s Hardball, 9/19/07; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
¶ 2014: Hegseth Continued to Defend Iraq War, Said George W. Bush “Won” It “Decisively” With The Iraq Surge
2014: Hegseth Said He “Still Believed” The Merits Of The 2003 Invasion Of Iraq Were “Justified.” According to an opinion by Pete Hegseth for National Review, “Regardless of the merits of the 2003 invasion [of Iraq]— which I still believe to be justified — the surge of U.S. forces in 2007 and 2008 created an environment in which a multi-ethnic, mostly moderate, and quasi-stable U.S. ally could (could!) flourish in the Middle East.” [Pete Hegseth – National Review, 8/16/14]
May 2015: Hegseth: We Should “Not Just Lay Down And Say Oh, Iraq Was Horrible, Sorry, Our Mistake.”
According to an interview CVA President Pete Hegseth gave on Fox News radio, “HEGSETH: And step back and say, wouldn’t it be nice in the Middle East right now, where there’s only dictators or Islamists, to have a friendly country that’s stable and democratic, that recognizes Israel [inaudible] to Iran and would fight Al Qaeda? We could have had that with Iraq. Instead we don’t and that we should lay at the feet of Barack Obama, not just lay down and say oh, Iraq was horrible, sorry, our mistake.” [Fox News Radio, 5/15/15; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
May 2015: Hegseth On Republicans’ Sudden Outbreak Of Anti-Iraq War: “I Think It’s No Good. I Think It’s Bowing To The Left’s Narrative Of Inevitable Failure In Iraq.” According to an interview CVA President Pete Hegseth gave on Fox News radio, “HOST: What do you think about this sudden outbreak of anti-war, anti-Iraq War on the Republican side? HEGSETH: I think it’s no good. I think it’s bowing to the left’s narrative of inevitable failure in Iraq.” [Fox News Radio, 5/15/15; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
May 2015: Hegseth: George W. Bush “Won” The Iraq War “Decisively” With The Iraq Surge. According to an interview CVA President Pete Hegseth gave on Fox News radio, “HEGSETH: Whether you like the start of the [Iraq] war or not, George W. Bush won the war, then he lost it in ‘05, ‘06, and then with the Iraq surge, we won it. And we won it decisively with Al Qaeda being defeated and the central government making progress.” [Fox News Radio, 5/15/15; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Pete Hegseth Took Issue “With Republican Candidates Saying They Would Not Have Invaded Iraq Knowing What We Know Now.” According to an interview with Pete Hegseth on Fox News Radio, “Pete Hegseth, Concerned Veterans For America CEO, takes issue with republican candidates saying they would not have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now, telling Gibson, the candidates are bowing to the left’s talking points that invading Iraq was a preordained disaster.” [Fox News Radio, 5/15/15; Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
¶ Hegseth Defended Torture & Treatment Of Detainees At Guantanamo Bay
¶ 2005: Military Investigation Found That Prisoners At Guantanamo Bay Had Abused Prisoners
A U.S. Military Investigation Concluded That Several Prisoners Were Mistreated Or Humiliated, Perhaps Illegally, During Interrogations At Guantanamo Bay. According to the New York Times, “A high-level military investigation into accusations of detainee abuse at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has concluded that several prisoners were mistreated or humiliated, perhaps illegally, as a result of efforts to devise innovative methods to gain information, senior military and Pentagon officials say. The report on the investigation, which is still a few weeks from being completed and released, will deal with accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who complained after witnessing detainees subjected to several forms of harsh treatment. The F.B.I. agents wrote in memorandums that were never meant to be disclosed publicly that they had seen female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners’ genitals, and that they had witnessed other detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours.” [New York Times, 5/1/05]
¶ Hegseth Advocated For Waterboarding
[VIDEO] Pete Hegseth Claimed ISIS Thinks The U.S. Is Weak For Not Waterboarding. According to Pete Hegseth on Fox News’ The Real Story, “Ben's right, and in the past we've gotten real-time intelligence from waterboarding and important intelligence that led us, frankly, partly to Osama bin Laden. I'm with Ben. I have immense amount of respect for Senator McCain. I can't even imagine what he went through, and I have respect for his position as a result. But in this particular case, I'm with Donald Trump. Our values -- we can maintain our values while still ruthlessly going after ISIS, because they don’t look at us and say, ‘Oh, they’re torturers’ or ‘they’re terrible.’ When ISIS looks at us, they think we're weak. They think we’re unwilling to do what’s necessary. They don't think we have the stomach for the fight. So we will never torture for torture's sake, but we better use enhanced interrogation techniques to include waterboarding if we are to have the gut and the stomach to see through this fight. We're going to need that intelligence, especially in a world where they're hitting us in soft targets across the globe. So he's right.” [Fox News - The Real Story, 6/29/16]
[VIDEO] Pete Hegseth Charged CIA Director Brennan With “Playing His Part In The Political Campaign” When He Ruled Out Waterboarding. According to Pete Hegseth on Fox News' America's Newsroom, “Except we don't know that Barack Obama would actually make that call in that moment. That's part of the problem. Will the real Brennan please stand up? Because this is the guy that previously said these types of techniques helped us find [Osama] bin Laden, helped us find key clues from Al Qaeda. So he's understood in past that this is a tactic that was effective. He's clearly playing his part in the political campaign right now, trying to stab at [Sen. Ted] Cruz and [Donald] Trump, both of which look at the weakness of this administration and they understand the appetite of the American people. They're willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. All it would take is an executive order by the next president to change that law and why do I feel like Brennan probably won't be the CIA director for either of those two?” [Fox News - America's Newsroom, 4/11/16]
Hegseth: “Laying Aside The Debate Over What Is And What Isn’t ‘Torture,’ It’s Hard To Argue With 8+ Years Of Safety Since 9/11. Yet, Somehow, The Interrogations We Used To Get Valuable Intelligence Have ‘Undermined’ Our Safety.” According to an op-ed by Pete Hegseth in National Review Online, “Second, Obama went to great pains to emphasize that Gitmo has created more terrorists than it has detained, has weakened American security, and the interrogation methods use there, and elsewhere, undermined our fight. This entire argument is premised on the belief that indefinite detention for unlawful combatants who ignore the rules of war — and alleged systematic mistreatment of said militants — provides overwhelming propaganda to our enemies and undermines our values (not to mention distressing the latte crowd across the pond). Laying aside the debate over what is and what isn’t ‘torture,’ it’s hard to argue with 8+ years of safety since 9/11. Yet, somehow, the interrogations we used to get valuable intelligence have ‘undermined’ our safety. President Obama should tell that to the special operators I served with overseas — and who are still serving — who killed and captured truckloads of so-called jihadists on the battlefield with the intelligence from American interrogations. Or tell that to the American’s who were saved through intelligence we gathered that prevented attacks on our homeland.” [Pete Hegseth – 3/21/09, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
¶ Hegseth Lashed Out At Criticisms Of Guantanamo, Claiming Conditions Were Completely Comfortable And Humane
After Serving A Year At Guantanamo, Hegseth Said He “Never Saw One Treated With Violence Or Disrespect. Quite The Contrary” In 2005. According to The Star Tribune, “Hegseth is baffled by the portrayal of Guantanamo in much of the media. He can't understand the eager focus on the base when American soldiers and innocent civilians are being blown to bits or beheaded in Iraq. Who are the detainees at Guantanamo? According to Defense Department documents, many are members of Al-Qaida or the Taliban regime who were either planning terrorist attacks at the time of their detention or had already perpetrated them. Some are specialists in ‘improvised explosive devices’ or poisons. Others are terrorist recruiters or experts in funding terrorist activities. The Guantanamo detainees are clearly a dangerous and fanatical bunch. Yet during his year at the base, Hegseth never saw one treated with violence or disrespect. Quite the contrary.” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Hegseth “Saw Detainees On A Daily Basis And Never Witnessed Any Evidence That Interrogations Are Inhumane Or Violent.” According to The Star Tribune, “Guantanamo is an intelligence-gathering facility. Interrogators there seek to preempt future terrorist attacks by determining how groups like Al-Qaida organize, finance their operations and communicate among themselves. Hegseth himself did not participate in interrogations and has no personal knowledge of what the base was like before his arrival. However, during his tenure, he saw detainees on a daily basis and never witnessed any evidence that interrogations are inhumane or violent.” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Hegseth On Soldiers He Knew At Guantanamo: “I Think All Americans Would Be Proud Of These Guys.” According to The Star Tribune, “Hegseth is full of praise for the soldiers he knows at Guantanamo. ‘I think all Americans would be proud of these guys,’ he says.” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Hegseth Noted That “In Certain Respects, Life At Guantanamo Is More Comfortable For Some Detainees Than Life In Their Home Countries.” According to The Star Tribune, “‘Photographers sometimes take pictures that make it look like American soldiers are putting the detainees in dog cages,’ says Hegseth. ‘That's very misleading.’ In fact, he notes, in certain respects, life at Guantanamo is more comfortable for some detainees than life in their home countries.” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Hegseth Claimed One Prisoner Was So “Well-Treated” While At Guantanamo That He “Refused” To Go Home. According to The Star Tribune, “Most Americans would be surprised to learn that some detainees don't want to leave the base. But Hegseth says that this is the case. ‘My men and I once spent nine hours on a runway trying to get a detainee on a plane to take him home. He refused to get out of the van. He was being well-treated, and he knew what torture and maltreatment were like back home.’” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Hegseth On His Experience Serving At Guantanamo: “We Bend Over Backwards To Conform Ourselves To The Detainees' Way Of Life… Especially When It Comes To Religion.” According to The Star Tribune, “Hegseth is baffled by the portrayal of Guantanamo in much of the media. He can't understand the eager focus on the base when American soldiers and innocent civilians are being blown to bits or beheaded in Iraq. Who are the detainees at Guantanamo? According to Defense Department documents, many are members of Al-Qaida or the Taliban regime who were either planning terrorist attacks at the time of their detention or had already perpetrated them. Some are specialists in ‘improvised explosive devices’ or poisons. Others are terrorist recruiters or experts in funding terrorist activities. The Guantanamo detainees are clearly a dangerous and fanatical bunch. Yet during his year at the base, Hegseth never saw one treated with violence or disrespect. Quite the contrary. ‘We bend over backwards to conform ourselves to the detainees' way of life,’ he says, ‘especially when it comes to religion.’” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
Hegseth On Sen. Dick Durbin’s Criticism Of Guantanamo: “Words Like Durbin's Hand Our Enemies A Propaganda Victory.” According to The Star Tribune, “Hegseth is concerned that Guantanamo's most vociferous critics don't see that their words bolster radical Islamists who want to convince the world that America is the Great Satan. ‘Al Jazeera has already broadcast Durbin's statement -- comparing us to Hitler and Pol Pot in the U.S. Senate -- to the Arab world,’ he points out. ‘A short Newsweek story about a Qur'an can lead to the deaths of 15 people. Don't they understand that words like Durbin's hand our enemies a propaganda victory?’” [Star Tribune, 6/27/05, Accessed via Internet Archive 1/6/24]
¶ Hegseth Fought Against Women Serving In Combat And Rescue Operations
¶ Hegseth Strongly Opposed The Pentagon’s Opening Up Combat Roles To Women
Pete Hegseth Came Out Strongly Against The Pentagon’s Plan To Allow Women In Combat Roles. According to the Star Tribune, “Iraq war veteran Pete Hegseth, head of Concerned Veterans for America and a potential challenger to U.S. Sen. Al Franken in 2014, came out strongly Thursday against the Pentagon’s new plan to allow women in combat roles.” [Star Tribune, 1/24/13]
¶ Hegseth Said He Felt Women Were Less Capable Than Men And Was Concerned The Pentagon Lowered “Standards” Or Used “Social Engineering” To Allow Women To Serve
[VIDEO] Hegseth: “If You Got A Wounded Soldier Or Marine On A Battlefield Who Needs To Be Dragged Off, Who Needs To Be Medevac, Who Needs To Be Pulled Can I Count On That Female Soldier To Do The Same Thing?” According to a transcript of an interview of Pete Hegseth by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” “PETE HEGSETH: If you got a wounded soldier or Marine on a battlefield who needs to be dragged off, who needs to be Medevac, who needs to be pulled can I count on that female soldier to do the same thing?” [Fox News – O’Reilly Factor, 1/24/13]
[VIDEO] Hegseth: “If We Were To Look At Women In Combat, We Would Have To Make Sure Standards Are Not Eroded. And I'm Not Certain… That Would Happen.” According to a transcript of an interview of Pete Hegseth by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” “PETE HEGSETH: If you got a wounded soldier or Marine on a battlefield who needs to be dragged off, who needs to be Medevac, who needs to be pulled can I count on that female soldier to do the same thing? If we were to look at women in combat, we would have to make sure standards are not eroded. And I'm not certain -- O’REILLY: Ok. now that's an interesting point— HEGSETH: that would happen.” [Fox News – O’Reilly Factor, 1/24/13]
[VIDEO] Hegseth: “My Fear Is That This Pentagon, That Has Been Known For Social Engineering” Are Going To Lower The Standards To Find Ways To Let People In. According to Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth on “Fox and Friends,” “My fear is, they say they want to keep the same standards and that they are going to. Do you trust that this Pentagon, that has been known for social engineering is really going to maintain those standards as opposed to find ways to let people in that may lower that standard?” [Fox and Friends, 12/4/15]
Hegseth: “Women Are Comparatively Less Effective Than Men In Combat Roles.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “There are examples in history of women in combat roles, but one is hard-pressed to find many, outside of religious or mythological settings, that have anything close to a positive outcome. This is the ‘macro’ reason why Western nations have resisted women in direct combat roles. Not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but they are also more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation in the moral realms of war.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Advocated For All Male Platoons And Claimed Women Added Unknown “Variables”
[VIDEO] Hegseth Said There Were “A Lot Of Ways” Women Can Participate In The Military, “It's Just A Combat Role Of Sustained Offensive Combat Operations Is Something That I Think Males Together In The Dirt Are Collectively Qualified To Do.” According to a transcript of an interview of Pete Hegseth by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” “O'REILLY: -- one of the arguments is that it's not fair to the women in the military, and any branch of service, because they don't get promoted fast enough because they're not in combat situation and they don't get paid as much because you get combat pay. And those seem to be valid points. […] So if you're denying them combat, they're not going to be promoted quick enough and they're not going to make as much money. HEGSETH: Well as -- as the Colonel said -- as the Colonel said counterinsurgency, interacting with the population, a lot of ways that are pretty dynamic that women are doing it's just a combat role of sustained offensive combat operations is something that I think males together in the dirt are collectively qualified to do.” [Fox News – O’Reilly Factor, 1/24/13]
[VIDEO] Hegseth On Women Serving In Combat Creating “Distracting” Romances On The Battlefield: “As A Platoon Leader Or A Squad Leader, You Don’t Want To Have To Deal With ‘Matt’s’ Feelings Toward ‘Mary.’” According to the StarTribune’s Hot Dish Politics blog, “[Pete] Hegseth, a Forest Lake native and Princeton grad who made a name for himself as head of the Iraq War era Vets for Freedom, also raised the issue of distracting battlefield romances. ‘It’s another variable that, as a platoon leader or a squad leader, you don’t want to have to deal with “Matt’s” feelings toward “Mary.”’ [Megyn] Kelly, pointing to the presence of gays in the military, shot back: ‘“Matt” may have been having feelings toward “Mike” for a long time in the foxhole, and the military has been doing okay.’ Replied Hegseth: ‘That may well be the case, but there are a lot more “Matts” that have feelings for “Mary.”’ [Hot Dish Politics via StarTribune.com, 1/24/13]
[VIDEO] Hegseth: “I Was An Infantry Officer On The Ground In Iraq, Having All Men In A Unit Minimizes Some Of The Variables.” According to Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth on “Fox and Friends,” “I was an infantry officer on the ground in Iraq, having all men in a unit minimizes some of the variables.” [Fox and Friends, 12/4/15]
Hegseth Claimed That Women Made The Military “Inefficient.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “The problem is that a more empathetic and effeminate military isn’t a more effective one. It’s a more inefficient one. That puts everyone at risk. Which, again, is a really bad thing in the business of killing. The gender integration of the military is a huge part of our modern confusion about the goals of war.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Compared Allowing Women In Combat To Militaries Using Child Soldiers
Hegseth: “Around The World Women Are Usually Used In Combat Roles By Tyrants And War Lords; The Same War Lords Who Use Child Soldiers.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “In the modern world the nations that utilize women in combat the most are usually totalitarian nations (save for Israel); often children and teenagers are also freely utilized in combat situations. It is hard to congratulate the progressive instinct of the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, the Nazis, the Ugandans, or the Soviets, when these nations were also throwing adolescent boys into combat roles due to a lack of available fighting men. Around the world women are usually used in combat roles by tyrants and war lords; the same war lords who use child soldiers.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth: “In The Modern World The Nations That Utilize Women In Combat The Most Are Usually Totalitarian Nations.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “In the modern world the nations that utilize women in combat the most are usually totalitarian nations (save for Israel); often children and teenagers are also freely utilized in combat situations. It is hard to congratulate the progressive instinct of the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, the Nazis, the Ugandans, or the Soviets, when these nations were also throwing adolescent boys into combat roles due to a lack of available fighting men. Around the world women are usually used in combat roles by tyrants and war lords; the same war lords who use child soldiers.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth Compared The American Military To The Nazis, The Viet Cong, And North Koreans For Using Women In Combat. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “In the modern world the nations that utilize women in combat the most are usually totalitarian nations (save for Israel); often children and teenagers are also freely utilized in combat situations. It is hard to congratulate the progressive instinct of the North Koreans, the Viet Cong, the Nazis, the Ugandans, or the Soviets, when these nations were also throwing adolescent boys into combat roles due to a lack of available fighting men. Around the world women are usually used in combat roles by tyrants and war lords; the same war lords who use child soldiers.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Claimed That Adding Women To Combat Roles Forced Men To View Them Differently In Civilian Life
Hegseth: Women In Combats Situations “Forces” Men To Treat Women Badly In Civilian Society. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “The second core question regarding the impact of women in the infantry and in combat roles is societal. How do you treat women in a combat situation without eroding the basic instinct of civilization and the treatment of women in the society at large? […] Women in combat forces men to ignore those civilized instincts. If you train a group of men to treat women equally on the battlefield then you will be hard-pressed to ask them to treat women differently at home. Which leads to the vexing cliché that has plagued every warrior since Vietnam: Veterans are damaged. Veterans are dangerous. Veterans do not matriculate normally into society after war. What about women in combat? We have no idea.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Claimed The Military Had A “Deadly Obsession” With Women In Its Ranks
Hegseth’s Book Included A Chapter Titled “The (Deadly) Obsession With Women Warriors.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ November 10, 2024: Hegseth Said “We Should Not Have Women In Combat Roles”
Hegseth Argued That Women Should Not Be Allowed To Serve In Combat Roles Days Before His SecDef Nomination. On the November 10, 2024 edition of The Shawn Ryan Show, Hegseth stated, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated. Most of them actually are -- a lot of them are pushed. I shouldn't say most, but many are pushed into a combat track because they're so highly capable.” [The Shawn Ryan Show, 11/13/24, via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Claimed That The Military Was Training Women To Ignore Their Natural Instincts As “Life Givers,” Which Resulted In More Abortions
¶ Hegseth Claimed Women Were Meant To Bring Life Into The World And Nurture, And The Military Forced Them To Change That
Hegseth: “Women Bring Life Into The World. Their Role In War Is To Make It A Less Deathly Experience.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “At first, the United States military leaders decided that the best place for women in the armed forces was in a support role. Women bring life into the world. Their role in war is to make it a less deathly experience. The United States followed the Western Christian tradition that women were best suited to carry the banner of Christian love into the darkest moments of warfare and devastation. For this reason, women became the sainted care givers of the Red Cross, typified by Clara Barton.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth: Traditionally Women “Were Mothers, Sisters, And Angels Of Combat.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “Wherever the United States military fought there were women in combat zones. They carried the banner of safety, peace, and care. They were mothers, sisters, and angels of combat. In the mythologies of the United States military, as well as in their ad campaigns, women represented all that was good and pure in the world. Of course, this was not always factually true, but all mythologies are attempts at creating order out of the chaos of the world.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth: “Women Are Life Givers, Regardless Of What The Abortion Industry Might Want Us To Think.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “The gender integration of these traditionally male spheres, coupled with our loss of a Christian ethos for God’s creation, means we’ve started to think of men and women as essentially the same animal with different levels of body strength. That’s particularly dangerous when it comes to combat because the differences aren’t just physical. The American issue with women in combat was always functionally twofold. First, do we want women to become killers? […] Women are life givers, regardless of what the abortion industry might want us to think. This role was embedded in human beings and was one of the clear reasons why the only, even mythologically articulated, successful women in combat narratives involve separatist societies of nonchildbearing women who live apart from men, To create a society of warrior women you must separate them first from men, and then from the natural purposes of their core instincts.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Claimed That Enlisted Women Getting Abortions Was A Result Of The Military Teaching Them To Be “Life Takers”
Hegseth: “Our Military Now Trains Our Metaphorical Life Givers To Be Combat Life Takers, And Then When They Become Biological Life Givers, Our DOD And VA Help Them Be Baby Life Takers In The Name Of Keeping Them On The Team As Combat Life Takers.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “The Post Millennial, a conservative news site, broke the story in 2023 when it exposed a series of training videos from the US Department of Veterans Affairs that are using mental health as a justification for the VA to pay for abortions of veterans and active-duty females serving in the military. According to the new policy, the real purpose of these abortions is retention, continuing female military careers by helping them end unwanted pregnancies. The military and VA try to say, without making eye contact, that this is all about mental health. Sure. Their lying logic: we must protect the mental health of women in the military. This helps win wars. We are better prepared for Russia and China, and it helps female careerism. Our military now trains our metaphorical life givers to be combat life takers, and then when they become biological life givers, our DoD and VA help them be baby life takers in the name of keeping them on the team as combat life takers. The logic… of evil.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth Dismissed the Idea That Women Could Want An Abortion For Mental Health Reasons. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “The Post Millennial, a conservative news site, broke the story in 2023 when it exposed a series of training videos from the US Department of Veterans Affairs that are using mental health as a justification for the VA to pay for abortions of veterans and active-duty females serving in the military. According to the new policy, the real purpose of these abortions is retention, continuing female military careers by helping them end unwanted pregnancies. The military and VA try to say, without making eye contact, that this is all about mental health. Sure. Their lying logic: we must protect the mental health of women in the military. This helps win wars. We are better prepared for Russia and China, and it helps female careerism. Our military now trains our metaphorical life givers to be combat life takers, and then when they become biological life givers, our DoD and VA help them be baby life takers in the name of keeping them on the team as combat life takers. The logic… of evil.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Claimed Women Were Useful Warriors When They Were Sacrifices, Nurses, Or Using Their Sexuality
Hegseth Claimed That Historically And Mythologically Women Used Their Sexuality As A Weapon, Abandoned By Men And Fighting As A Necessity, Or Sacrificial. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “Consider women in combat and the way it’s completely common in modern stories, whereas it was quite rare in the old ones. The old comic book version of ‘super woman’ at war was a generational distillation of women in combat. Unlike the mythologies of great Amazonian warriors in the Greek mythologies, most of the world’s accounts of women at war were connected to seductive and sexual power. Instead of Wonder Woman, much of Western poetry and stories focuses on four types of warrior women: the seductress, the supplanter (substitute), the sacrifice, and the saint.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth Pointed To Cleopatra, Esther, And Jael As Women Who Fought Using Their Sexuality. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “There was the seductress, typified by Cleopatra, the Macedonian queen of Ptolemaic Egypt who seduced both Julius Caesar and his protégé Mark Antony. Biblical women like Esther, who used beauty and hospitality to charm her husband, the king of Persia, in order to save her Jewish brethren. Jael, in the Bible’s book of Judges, chapter 4, pacifies, tricks, and executes the invading General Sisera, using not sexual power but cunning hospitality.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth Claimed That Women Who Rose To Combat Leadership Roles Historically “Rarely” Won. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “Another historical role for women in combat has echoed through history: that of the abandoned woman, who was left without a protector and who must rise to the occasion. This is the role of the supplanter or substitute, the one who takes the place of someone incapable or unwilling to fight. […] Some, however, especially in the ‘barbarian’ cultures of the Western world and in Viking history, take the reins as leaders in battle, usually due to the dramatic deaths of their fathers or husbands or the need for ‘shield maidens’ – or archers in circumstances in which combat troops are in short supply. Things rarely work out for them. They are most renowned as sacrificial soldiers, leading a pyrrhic charge against odds that provide little hope for true victory.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
- Hegseth Said Donald Trump Was Correct To Call Saint Joan Of Arc “A Loser.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “While Joan of Arc was a French saint due to her tepid history of military success, President Trump would be correct to call her a ‘loser’ for her final three battles that ended disastrously and eventually with her execution.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Attacked Decorated Veterans And Claimed They Got Awards And Attention Solely Because They Were Women
¶ Hegseth Claimed That Women Were Given More Attention And Awards Because Of Their Gender
Hegseth Claimed Two Women Were Given Silver Stars Quickly Because The Military Had “An Agenda.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “Even the award process becomes political, noted SGM Geressy: ‘One female medic in the 82nd Airborne, they gave her a Silver Star in Afghanistan in 2008. Monica Brown. They had her picture posted everywhere, Her picture posted at the military balls, in garrison, in the chow hall. Award given by Vice President Dick Cheney. Why is that? None of my guys had their picture on the wall. And LeeAnn Hester. She got a silver star for actions in Iraq in March of 2005. She got the award in June- it only took three months.’ Nothing happens that fast… unless there is an agenda.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth Claimed A Man He Knew Would Have Been Given More Awards And Attention If He Were “A Transvestite- Or Gay, Or Black, Or A Woman.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “If SGM Geressy was a transvestite- or gay, or black, or a woman- he would have three Distinguished Service Crosses and be on the front of a Wheaties box. Get motivated!” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hegseth Attacked Jessica Lynch
Hegseth Described Jessica Lynch’s Capture As “Custer’s Last Stand If Custer Asked Sitting Bull For Directions At Little Bighorn.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “In the post-9/11 wars, there are three female names that history remembers. First, Jessica Lynch. The specialist who was taken hostage. The victim. Horrible things happened to her, and she was still (contrary to her wishes) turned into a hero by the military PR machine, looking for a ‘first.’ Her unit did not fire a round at the enemy and their convoy got lost and drove into the awaiting enemy. Think Custer’s Last Stand if Custer asked Sitting Bull for directions at Little Bighorn.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
Hegseth Quoted His Former Commanding Officer Saying Jessica Lynch “Was Untrained And Unprepared” Like “Most Female Soldiers.” In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “My old first Sergeant Eric Geressy- one of the toughest warriors I have ever known- was recently a sergeant major at US Southern Command. He has almost thirty years of Army experience and shares a double-barreled take on women in the Army: ‘If you go back to Panama, there was an MP female company commander who got maximum press coverage. This was back in 1989. Wasn’t made into a big deal. Then Jessica Lynch. They turned her into a hero. Even though she says she didn’t do shit. Bronze star medal. Big hero. That was Bush and Rumsfeld. […] What we all knew was that in an asymmetrical war there were no front lines. All soldiers were in combat. In reality, what we learned was simple: Jessica Lynch, like most female soldiers at that time, was untrained and unprepared.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Lynch Was An Injured Prisoner Of War Who Was Beaten By Her Captors
Lynch Was Injured In Iraq, Held Captive, And Beaten Before Being Rescued. According to ABC7, “On March 23, 2003, Lynch was deployed to Kuwait when her company turned into enemy-held territory. Eleven American soldiers were killed, and Lynch, along with five others, was taken prisoner. Lynch's best friend was among those killed. ‘She hit her head on the steering wheel; she was no longer able to control the vehicle. We slammed into the back of an 18-wheeler disabled trailer,’ Lynch said. Lynch was seriously injured, and held captive for nine days. She was further beaten by her captors. ‘My back was broken at the fourth and fifth lumbar, my left femur was broken, my left tibia was smashed by a metal pipe and my right foot was completely crushed,’ Lynch said. Lynch was rescued by Marines and Navy Seals.” [ABC7, 11/11/24]
¶ Hegseth Repeated Attacks Against Monica Brown
Hegseth Quoted His Former Commanding Officer’s Criticism Of Monica Brown’s Silver Star. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “Even the award process becomes political, noted SGM Geressy: ‘One female medic in the 82nd Airborne, they gave her a Silver Star in Afghanistan in 2008. Monica Brown. They had her picture posted everywhere, Her picture posted at the military balls, in garrison, in the chow hall. Award given by Vice President Dick Cheney. Why is that? None of my guys had their picture on the wall. And LeeAnn Hester. She got a silver star for actions in Iraq in March of 2005. She got the award in June- it only took three months.’ Nothing happens that fast… unless there is an agenda.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Brown Received A Silver Star For Saving the Lives Of Two Paratroopers In Afghanistan
CBS News: Brown “Risked Her Own Life To Save Two Critically Wounded Paratroopers.” According to CBS News, “Private Monica Brown is only the second woman to be awarded the Silver Star since World War II. She's an Army medic who risked her own life to save two critically wounded paratroopers with the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan. […] Brown's instincts kicked in with bullets whizzing by and mortars exploding around her. This young woman, who was not even supposed to be in front line combat, threw her body over the wounded paratroopers to protect them. ‘It was an uncontrollable situation,’ she remembers. ‘And I just dove over Spray, 'cause Spray can't defend himself. It's not like he can go anywhere to take cover. So, I dove over him. Make sure he didn't get any shrapnel or anything from it.’ Then, while still under fire, Santos and Brown dragged the injured men into a pick-up truck. Brown once again covered them with her body as Santos drove them to an area where they could be treated.” [CBS News, 11/26/08]
¶ Hegseth Repeated Attacks Against Leigh Ann Hester
*Research note: the Kindle version of Hegseth’s book spells Hester’s name “LeeAnn.” The US Army spells it Leigh Ann.
Hegseth Repeated His Former Supervisor’s Criticism Of Leigh Ann Hester’s Silver Star. In his book The War on Warriors, Pete Hegseth wrote, “Even the award process becomes political, noted SGM Geressy: ‘One female medic in the 82nd Airborne, they gave her a Silver Star in Afghanistan in 2008. Monica Brown. They had her picture posted everywhere, Her picture posted at the military balls, in garrison, in the chow hall. Award given by Vice President Dick Cheney. Why is that? None of my guys had their picture on the wall. And LeeAnn Hester. She got a silver star for actions in Iraq in March of 2005. She got the award in June- it only took three months.’ Nothing happens that fast… unless there is an agenda.” [Pete Hegseth, The War on Warriors, 2024]
¶ Hester Received A Silver Star For Her Actions During An Ambush On Her Convoy
Leigh Ann Hester Received A Silver Star For Her Actions In An Ambush. According to the US Army, “For the first time since World War II, an Army woman was awarded the Silver Star for valor June 16 in Iraq. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, Ky., received the Silver Star, along with two other members of her unit, for their actions during an enemy ambush on their convoy. Hester's squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed the convoy. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Hester led her team through the ‘kill zone’ and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenches, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle. When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured.” [US Army, 10/17/11]
¶ Hegseth Argued For Loosening US Military Rules Of Engagement And Called For “Total War”
May 3, 2016: Hegseth Argued For Loosening Military Rules Of Engagement And Called For “Total War.” On the May 3, 2016 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “Well, we need to stop the slow-drip surge that is really an anti-surge. It's a drip without a real mission, without all the capabilities brought to bear. You need to unleash rules of engagement that allow our war fighters to unleash hell on ISIS, and then you need to destroy their capital. You need to unleash total war. And, this president's not going to do it. You're seeing a litigation of it on the campaign trail, and thankfully so, because we're fighting politically correct wars, and we shouldn't be.” [Fox & Friends, 5/3/16 via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Was Accused Of Sexual Assault
¶ 2017: Hegseth Allegedly Raped A 30-Year-Old Staffer In Monterey, California
Police Decided Not To Press Charges After Investigating The Sexual Assault Allegations Against Hegseth; He Paid His Accuser In 2020, After She Threatened Litigation, And Entered A Nondisclosure Agreement. According to The Washington Post, “The accuser, whose identity has not been made public, filed a complaint with the police alleging she was sexually assaulted days after the Oct. 7, 2017, encounter in Monterey, California, but the local district attorney did not bring charges. Police confirmed that they investigated the incident. After she threatened litigation in 2020, Hegseth made the payment and she signed the nondisclosure agreement, his attorney said.” [Washington Post, 11/16/24]
- Hegseth Allegedly Led His Victim Back To His Hotel Room Before Assaulting Her While Both Were Heavily Intoxicated; The Next Morning, She Had A “Hazy Memory of Being Raped” And Received A Rape-Kit Examination That Tested “Positive For Semen.” According to The Washington Post, “At some point in the evening, the complaint alleged, Jane Doe received a text from two women at the bar who told her that ‘Hegseth was getting pushy about his interest in taking them upstairs to his room.’ Jane Doe, who was nearby, came over and talked to those two women, and after they left, she ‘remembered sensing that Hegseth was irritated,’ the memo said. What happened next is in dispute. According to the memo, Jane Doe ‘didn’t remember anything until she was in Hegseth’s hotel room and then stumbling to find her hotel room.’ The memo said that her memory of six to nine hours ‘was very hazy,’ and that her husband was searching for her and was relieved when she finally showed up. The following day, the woman returned home and ‘had a moment of hazy memory of being raped the night before, and had a panic attack,’ the memo said. The woman then went to the emergency room, where she received a rape-kit examination that ‘was positive for semen,’ the memo said. The woman gave county authorities a statement about what happened, according to the memo sent to the transition team.” [Washington Post, 11/16/24]
Hegseth’s Attorney Claimed The Encounter Was Consensual But Admitted That Hegseth Was “Visibly Intoxicated” At The Time Of The Alleged Assault. According to The Washington Post, “Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, paid a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement, though he maintained that their encounter was consensual, according to a statement from his lawyer Saturday and other documents obtained by The Washington Post. Hegseth’s attorney, Timothy Parlatore, said that Hegseth was “visibly intoxicated” at the time of the incident, and maintained that police who were contacted a few days after the encounter by the woman concluded that “the Complainant had been the aggressor in the encounter.” Police have not confirmed that assertion.” [Washington Post, 11/16/24]
¶ Hegseth Allegedly Had A Problem With Alcohol
¶ Hegseth’s Drinking Problem Impacted His Work At Concerned Veterans For America
From 2013-2015, Hegseth was Extremely Intoxicated At Multiple CVA Events And, In One Instance, Need “To Be Carried To His Room.” According to The New Yorker, “Hegseth, it says, was ‘seen drunk at multiple CVA events’ between 2013 and 2015, a time when the organization was engaged in an ambitious nationwide effort to mobilize veterans to vote for conservative candidates and causes. [...] According to the complaint, at one such C.V.A. event in Virginia Beach, on Memorial Day weekend in 2014, Hegseth was ‘totally sloshed’ and needed to be carried to his room because ‘he was so intoxicated.’ The following month, during an event in Cleveland, Hegseth, who had gone with his team to a bar around the corner from their hotel, was described as ‘completely drunk in a public place.’ According to the report, ‘several high profile people’ who attended the organization’s event ‘were very disappointed to see this kind of public behavior,’ though the report does not identify them.” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
October 2014: Hegseth Discarded A “No Alcohol” Policy Instituted By CVA And Became So Inebriated He Could No Longer Stand; Again, Two Staffers Were Required To Carry Him To His Hotel Room. According to The New Yorker, “In October, 2014, C.V.A. instituted a ‘no alcohol’ policy at its events. But the next month, according to the report, Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy while overseeing a get-out-the-vote field operation to boost Republican candidates in North Carolina. According to the report, on the evening before the election, Hegseth, who had been out with three young female staff members, was so inebriated by 1 a.m. that a staffer who had driven him to his hotel, in a van full of other drunken staffers, asked for assistance to get Hegseth to his room. ‘Pete was completely passed out in the middle seat, slumped over’ a young female staff member, the report says. It took two male staff members to get Hegseth into the hotel; after one young woman vomited in some bushes, another helped him into bed. In the morning, a team member had to wake Hegseth so that he didn’t miss his flight. ‘All of this happened in public.’” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
November 2014: Hegseth Took The CVA Staff To A Louisiana Strip Club, Where He Proceeded To Get “So Drunk He Tried To Get On Stage And Dance With The Strippers.” According to The New Yorker, “In late November, 2014, Hegseth and his team deployed to Louisiana for a U.S. Senate runoff. This is when, according to the whistle-blower complaint, Hegseth took the C.V.A. team to the strip club, where ‘he was so drunk he tried to get on the stage and dance with the strippers.’ A female C.V.A. associate, the report says, ‘had to get him off of the stage,’ adding, ‘She had to intervene with security to prevent him from getting thrown out.’” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
December 2014: Hegseth Was “Noticeably Intoxicated” At The CVA Holiday Party And Again “Had To Be Carried Up To His Room.” According to The New Yorker, “In December, 2014, the group held an office Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in Washington. Once again, according to the report, Hegseth was ‘noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to his room.’ The report stated, ‘His behavior was embarrassing in front of the team, but not surprising; people have simply come to expect Pete to get drunk at social events.’” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
May 2015: Hegseth Closed Down A Hotel Bar, Where He Drunkenly Yelled “Kill All Muslims” Multiple Times, Before He “Passed Out” In The Back Of A Party Bus And “Urinated In Front Of A Hotel.” According to The New Yorker, “On May 29, 2015, the staffer said, Hegseth and someone travelling with the group’s Defend Freedom Tour closed down the bar at the Sheraton Suites Hotel. The duo yelled ‘Kill All Muslims’ multiple times, in what the staffer described as ‘a drunk and a violent manner.’ Hegseth’s ‘despicable behavior,’ he wrote, ‘embarrassed the entire organization.’ He went on, ‘I personally was ashamed and . . . others were as well.’ The staffer’s letter cited a second incident in which, he wrote, Hegseth ‘passed out’ in the back of a party bus, then urinated in front of a hotel where C.V.A.’s team was staying. ‘I tell you this because it’s the truth,’ the letter concluded.” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
Hegseth’s Behavior Prompted Emails Of Concern From CVA Volunteers, Which Were Discarded. According to The New Yorker, “According to the report, a volunteer for the organization during this period was so concerned about the rampant promiscuity and sexism that she sent an e-mail to C.V.A.’s headquarters complaining about a lack of professionalism, an unhealthy workplace, and an atmosphere in which women were unfairly treated. According to the whistle-blower with whom I spoke, the volunteer received no response.” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
¶ Hegseth’s Dismissal From CVA Raised Speculation That It Was Tied To Womanizing And Drinking Problems
Hegseth Was Allegedly “Forced To Step Down” From CVA Over His Alcohol Abuse, Womanizing, And Mismanagement; Whistleblowers Claimed That “Disgust For Pete Was Pretty High” Among CVA Staffers By The Time Of His Resignation. According to The New Yorker, “according to three knowledgeable sources, one of whom contributed to the whistle-blower report, Hegseth was forced to step down from the organization in part because of concerns about his mismanagement and abuse of alcohol on the job. ‘Congratulations on Removing Pete Hegseth’ is the subject line of an e-mail, obtained by The New Yorker, that was sent to Hegseth’s successor as president of the group, Jae Pak, on January 15, 2016. The e-mail, sent under a pseudonym by one of the whistle-blowers, included a copy of the report, and went on to say, ‘Among the staff, the disgust for Pete was pretty high. Most veterans do not think he represents them nor their high standard of excellence.’ The e-mail also stated that Hegseth had ‘a history of alcohol abuse’ and had ‘treated the organization funds like they were a personal expense account—for partying, drinking, and using CVA events as little more than opportunities to ‘hook up’ with women on the road.’” [New Yorker, 12/1/24]
2016: Pete Hegseth Was Allegedly Fired For Public Drunkenness. According to a tweet from TunTavernMarine, “I heard @PeteHegseth was fired from @ConcernedVets something about publicly drunk??” [Twitter, @DaddyJim52, 1/4/16]
2016: Pete Hegseth Was Accused Of Being A Drunk And A Womanizer. According to a tweet from Deplorable Tim, “.@HappeningNow Seriously you are still using public drunk and womanizer Pete Hegesmith as a contributor? Fired from @Concernedvets yesterday.” [Twitter, @timthejarhead, 1/5/16]
¶ Hegseth Flipflopped On Trump
¶ 2015: Hegseth Attacked Trump Before He Became The Party Frontrunner
Hesgeth: Trump “Has No Idea What He Is Talking About With Regards To Reforming And Fixing The VA.” According to a press release from Concerned Veterans for America, “Donald Trump also revealed that he has no idea what he is talking about with regards to reforming and fixing the VA. If he did, he would have known that Senator McCain has been a leader in fighting to give veterans more health care choices and to hold the VA accountable for its failures.” [Concerned Veterans for America Press Release, 7/18/15]
Hegseth: Trump’s Attacks On McCain, “Are The Height Of Arrogance And Reveal That He Has No Understanding Of What Our Vietnam POWs Endured.” According to a press release from Concerned Veterans for America, “Donald Trump’s attacks against Senator McCain today are the height of arrogance and reveal that he has no understanding of what our Vietnam POWs endured and the honor they displayed during their captivity – Senator McCain among them.” [Concerned Veterans for America Press Release, 7/18/15]
Hegseth: This Incident Highlights That Trump Is Not One Of The Presidential Candidates Who Understands The Issues Facing Veterans And The Sacrifices They Have Made. According to a press release from Concerned Veterans for America, “Finally, this incident should clarify for veterans which presidential candidates really understand the issues they face and the sacrifices they made as part of their military service. Donald Trump is clearly not one of them.” [Concerned Veterans for America Press Release, 7/18/15]
¶ 2016: Hegseth Flipflopped And Went All In For Trump
¶ Hegseth Changed His Name On Twitter To “Pete, The Deplorable”
Hegseth Changed His Twitter Name To “Pete, The Deplorable.” According to Pete Hegseth’s twitter, Pete Hegseth changed his twitter name to “Pete, the Deplorable.” [Twitter, @PeteHegseth, accessed 9/27/16]
¶ Hegseth Put Up A Giant Trump Sign In His Lawn
[Twitter, @PeteHegseth, 11/2/16]
¶ Hegseth Raved About Trump’s First Debate Performance
Hegseth: “Donald Trump Passed The ‘Commander-In-Chief Test’ Last Night” After The First 2016 Debate. According to a tweet from Fox and Friends, “.@PeteHegseth: Donald Trump passed the ‘commander-in-chief test’ last night pic.twitter.com/cjfLVTy2Bk.” [Twitter, @foxandfriends, 9/27/16]
¶ Hegseth Supported Israel’s Use Of Military Force And Illegal Israeli Settlements
¶ Hegseth Defended Israeli Settlements
2012: Hegseth Said, The “Obama Administration’s Assertion That Israeli Settlements Are An ‘Impediment’ To The Peace Process Is Misguided” And “Only Encourages And Rewards” Palestine. According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “The Obama Administration’s assertion that Israeli settlements are an ‘impediment’ to the peace process is misguided, historically incorrect, and harmful to the peace process, since it only encourages and rewards the Palestinian Authority for refusing to negotiate in good faith while demanding a halt to all new building as a precondition to any discussions with Israel.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
2012: Hegseth Said, “Israel Clearly Has The Right To Build Apartments In Its Territory, As Well As In Jerusalem, Israel’s Eternal And Undivided Capital.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “As a sovereign state, Israel clearly has the right to build apartments in its territory, as well as in Jerusalem, Israel’s eternal and undivided capital.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
2012: Hegseth Said Israel Had “Striven To Achieve Peaceful Relations With Its Neighbors Despite Constant Threats, Hostility, And Boycotts From Radical Arab Regimes.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “Israel is a democratic nation which shares our values and heritage, and which recognizes and protects the rights of all religious groups. For 64 years, Israel has striven to achieve peaceful relations with its neighbors despite constant threats, hostility, and boycotts from radical Arab regimes, and in the face of terror groups like Hamas, which openly calls for Israel’s destruction and for the ‘extermination’ of Jews.
¶ Hegseth Support Of Israel’s Use Of Military Force
2012: Hegseth Said He Supported Israel’s Naval Blockade Of Gaza And Defending Itself “By Other Diplomatic And Military Measures To Counter The Existential Threat From Iran.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “Accordingly, I support the right of Israel to defend itself by means of its naval blockade of Gaza, and by other diplomatic and military measures to counter the existential threat from Iran.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
2012: Hegseth Said If Sanctions Did Not Deter Iran From Building Nuclear Weapons He Favored “The Use Of Military Force To Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities, And Would Fully Support Any Israeli Military Action.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “Moreover, if sanctions fail to deter the Iranian regime from building nuclear weapons, I would favor the use of military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, and would fully support any Israeli military action.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
¶ Hegseth Opposed Reducing American Aid to Israel
2012: Hegseth Said He “Vigorously Oppose[d] Any “Attempts To Cut Or Reduce Any American Aid To Israel.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “Accordingly, I vigorously oppose any attempts to cut or reduce any American aid to Israel. Moreover, the United States should not pressure Israel to make concessions that would compromise or weaken its national security. Rather, the outstanding issues must be negotiated between the parties themselves.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
¶ Hegseth Called Israel A Top American Ally Against “radical Islam”
2012: Hegseth: “Israel Is America’s Strongest And Most Dependable Ally In The Mideast, And I Strongly Support American Diplomatic, Political, And Military Assistance For Israel.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “Israel is America’s strongest and most dependable ally in the Mideast, and I strongly support American diplomatic, political, and military assistance for Israel. In the fight against international terrorism, and against rogue states that harbor and support terrorists, Israel is an important strategic partner, and we must do everything to strengthen and maintain our unique strategic alliance.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
2012: Hegseth Called Israel “An Indispensable Partner In The War On Radical Islam.” According to Pete Hegseth for Senate’s policy on Israel, “Let there be no doubt that Israel deserves our unyielding support as a bulwark of democracy and as an indispensable partner in the war on radical Islam.” [Pete Hegseth for Senate, archived 5/10/12]
¶ Hegseth Published Homophobic And Misogynistic Content Throughout His Time At The Princeton Tory
¶ Hegseth Called Diversity A “Skin-Deep” “Distraction”
¶ Hegseth’s Mission At The Tory Was “To Defend The Pillars Of Western Civilization Against The Distractions Of Diversity.”
Hegseth: “As The Publisher Of The Tory I Strive To Defend The Pillars Of Western Civilization Against The Distractions Of Diversity.” According to Notes from the Publisher by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “As the publisher of the Tory I strive to defend the pillars of Western civilization against the distractions of diversity.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, April 2002]
Hegseth: “The Classics Of The Western Tradition, As Well As American History, Deserve Priority Over Other Areas Of Study.” According to Notes from the Publisher by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “I support entertaining diverse ideas, but I do not believe diversity is the holy grail of the academic experience. Diversity does have value, but it can be overstretched. While the academic curriculum has steered widely off course, excellence and truth are still sought by students. Thus, conservatives feel that the Western tradition, embodied today by America, deserves the most analysis. The classics of the Western tradition, as well as American history, deserve priority over other areas of study.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, April 2002]
Hegseth: “All This Talk Of ‘Diversity’ Has Diverted Princeton From Its Original Academic Focus: Western Civilization.” According to Notes from the Publisher by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “I’ve come to the earnest conclusion that the most cherished word of the Tilghman administration, and the University in general, is DIVERSITY. Whether we are told to ‘reflect’ on our ethnicity, participate in a task force on ‘cross-cultural encounters,’ or engage in ‘dialogues’ about race, diversity is in perpetual focus. All this talk of ‘diversity’ has diverted Princeton from its original academic focus: Western civilization and the curious combination of Socrates and Christ, strength and humility, democracy and piety, Athens and Jerusalem. Diversity is a note-worthy discussion topic, yet highly overvalued at this University.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, April 2002]
Hegseth: “In Order For An Undergraduate To Encounter The Buzzwords Of Diversity (Skin-Deep), Tolerance (One-Sided), Multiculturalism (Anti-Western), And Sexual/Gender Liberation (Anti-Family) They Must Simply Attend Lecture, Precept, Or University-Sponsored Events.” According to Notes from the Publisher by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “The question I pose to you is: what is the philosophy of our ‘schoolroom?’ What educational principles are guiding our generation? Based on the topics addressed in this month’s Tory, I am not encouraged. The issues of our day, and this campus, center on, among others, encouragement and support for pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion, and a general hostility towards faith and religion. Quite a line-up. In order for an undergraduate to encounter the buzzwords of diversity (skin-deep), tolerance (one-sided), multiculturalism (anti-Western), and sexual/gender liberation (anti-family) they must simply attend lecture, precept, or University-sponsored events.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, October 2002]
¶ Hegseth Opposed LGBTQ Rights & Marriage Equality Because He Believed In Heterosexuality’s Intrinsic Moral Superiority
¶ Hegseth Said He Believed “Homosexuality And Heterosexuality” Were “Not Moral Equivalents”
Pete Hegseth: “Homosexuality And Heterosexuality Are Not Moral Equivalents.” According to a response to a Letter to the Editor in the Princeton Tory by Pete Hegseth, “Overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents. Only at Princeton and other college campuses is this considered a ‘minority’ perspective.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, November/December 2002]
¶ Hegseth’s Editors Declared That “The Homosexual Lifestyle” Was “Abnormal And Immoral” And Must Be Opposed
Princeton Tory Editors: “Hey, Boys Can Wear Bras And Girls Can Wear Ties Until We’re Blue In The Face, But It Won’t Change The Reality That The Homosexual Lifestyle Is Abnormal And Immoral.” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “Anyone else noticed that the LGBT, along with assorted ‘allies,’ seem to be pressing extra hard this year? From ‘the joys and toys of gay sex’ lecture, to aforementioned ‘kiss-ins,’ to Gay Jeans Day, the gay community has truly shown its ‘pride.’ They even sponsored a ‘Gender-Bender Day’ in which Princetonians were encouraged to ‘challenge their gender’ and ‘dress, behave, and talk in a way they don’t usually associate with their own gender identity.’ Hey, boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, October 2002]
Princeton Tory Editors: “The Movement To Legitimize The Homosexual Lifestyle And Homosexual Marriages Is Strong And Must Be Vigorously Opposed.” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “The movement to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriages is strong and must be vigorously opposed.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, April 2002]
¶ Hegseth’s Editors Felt Homosexuals’ “Lifestyle Deserves Absolutely No Special Legal Status.”
Princeton Tory Editors: “Homosexuals Themselves Should Not Be Demonized; However, Their Lifestyle Deserves Absolutely No Special Legal Status.” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “Homosexuals themselves should not be demonized; however, their lifestyle deserves absolutely no special legal status.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, April 2002]
¶ Hegseth’s Editors Compared Homosexuality To Sibling-Sibling Incest And Beastiality
Princeton Tory Editors On The New York Times’s Gay Marriage Announcements: “At What Point Does The Paper Deem A ‘Relationship’ Unfit For Publication? What If We ‘Loved’ Our Sister And Wanted To Marry Her?” Or The Family Dog?” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “The New York Times recently announced that homosexual ‘marriage’ announcements would start appearing in its pages. Other regional papers have also followed suit. The basic logic is that if individuals love each other, and want to get married, then it is sufficiently newsworthy to warrant an announcement in the papers. (Last time we checked, homosexual marriage was illegal, but that’s beside the point.) The explanation sounds nice on the surface, but its logic is dangerous. At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog? Or better yet, the entire staff of the Prog?” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, September 2002]
¶ Hegseth Said Women Should Feel Encouraged To Return To the “Homemaker Vocation” But Stay Out Of Prestigious All-Male Spaces
¶ Hegseth Wanted to Advocate for “Traditional Family Unit,” “A Return Of The Acceptability Of The ‘Homemaker’ Vocation”
Hegseth: “By Advocating Government Support Of The Traditional Family Unit, A Return Of The Acceptability Of The ‘Homemaker’ Vocation… Conservatives Provide A Working Blueprint For A Free And Prosperous Future.” According to Notes from the Publisher by Pete Hegseth in The Princeton Tory, “As far as a philosophy, conservatives are often accused of being narrow-minded and ‘intolerant’ of various groups (i.e. gays, feminists, and atheists). Far from intolerant, conservatives instead support a society in which marriage, family values, and religious faith are encouraged by the public and private sectors. While attempting to discredit the constant stream of liberal ideology spewing from the University administration and staff, the Tory also provides tangible solutions for societal ills. By advocating government support of the traditional family unit, a return of the acceptability of the ‘homemaker’ vocation, freedom from oppressive government oversight, moral responsibility, and the revival of religious faith, conservatives provide a working blueprint for a free and prosperous future.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, November/December 2002]
¶ Princeton Tory Editors “Applaud[ed]” The Chairman Of The Augusta National Golf Club For “His Unwillingness To Admit Women As Members”
Princeton Tory Editors “Applaud[ed]” The Chairman Of The Augusta National Golf Club For “His Unwillingness To Admit Women As Members,” Calling It A “Steadfast Defense Of The Rights Of Private Enterprise.” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “Much has been made about Hootie Johnson, the chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, and his unwillingness to admit women as members to the prestigious Augusta National, home of The Masters. Although we applaud Hootie’s steadfast defense of the rights of private enterprise, we’re curious what the golfers think about it. Well, of the 30 players participating in the Tour Championship one month ago, the first 29 off the course said they would not boycott the upcoming Masters. The last, Vijay Singh, a Fijian of Indian descent who’s had issue with Augusta National in the past, was asked the same question. The feminists eagerly awaited his answer, until with simple elegance he replied ‘Hell no.’ The feminists shuddered. We applaud.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, November/December 2002]
- Princeton Tory Editors “Applaud[ed]” Golf Participants Who Said They Would Not Boycott The Masters Even Though The Golf Club Hosting It Did Not Allow Women As Members. According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “Much has been made about Hootie Johnson, the chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, and his unwillingness to admit women as members to the prestigious Augusta National, home of The Masters. Although we applaud Hootie’s steadfast defense of the rights of private enterprise, we’re curious what the golfers think about it. Well, of the 30 players participating in the Tour Championship one month ago, the first 29 off the course said they would not boycott the upcoming Masters. The last, Vijay Singh, a Fijian of Indian descent who’s had issue with Augusta National in the past, was asked the same question. The feminists eagerly awaited his answer, until with simple elegance he replied ‘Hell no.’ The feminists shuddered. We applaud.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, November/December 2002]
¶ Hegseth’s Tory Said Abortion Rights Were “Evil”
Princeton Tory Editors: “We Don’t ‘Appreciate’ Abortion Providers” And In Fact, If Bush Wins Another Term… The Evil That Is Roe May Soon Be Overturned And Abortion Providers Will Be Either Out Of Work Or In Jail.” According to The Rant in The Princeton Tory, compiled by the Tory Editors in 2002 when Pete Hegseth was publisher, “The ACLU recently declared March 10th ‘National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.’ They were joined by such esteemed (and non-partisan?) organizations as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League and the National Organization for Women. While most abortion advocates, outside of the East Coast bubble, at least acknowledge that abortion is a necessary evil, these groups flaunt the virtues of abortion. It is one thing to argue for the right to abortion; it is another thing to celebrate abortions themselves. For the record, we don’t ‘appreciate’ abortion providers. In fact, if Bush wins another term and wins two battles with Senator Leahy and the Judiciary committee, the evil that is Roe may soon be overturned and abortion providers will be either out of work or in jail.” [Editorial – Princeton Tory, May 2002]
¶ Hegseth Said All Ideas And Philosophies Should Be Grounded In The Christian Faith
¶ Hegseth Railed Against “Atheist Public Schools” And Said That All Philosophies Should Be Grounded In The Christian Faith
Hegseth: “Unfortunately, Atheist Public Schools, Long Stripped Of Any Redemptive Moral Value, Have Outlawed God And Related Discussions Of Moral Absolutes” But Encourage “Every Lifestyle Your Child Embraces…Even Those Of Little Johnny, The Al-Qaeda Sympathizer.” According to an OpEd by Pete Hegseth in the Princeton Tory, “Unfortunately, atheist public schools, long stripped of any redemptive moral value, have outlawed God and related discussions of moral absolutes. Don’t expect your local teacher to train up a moral child, because they are obligated to encourage any and every lifestyle your child embraces…even those of little Johnny, the Al-Qaeda sympathizer.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, February/March 2002]
Hegseth: “All Ideas And Philosophies—Political, Economic, And Social—Should Be Motivated And Grounded In Religious Faith (Christianity) And The Natural Law Tradition.” According to a response to a Letter to the Editor in the Princeton Tory by Pete Hegseth, “Ultimately, all ideas and philosophies—political, economic, and social—should be motivated and grounded in religious faith (Christianity) and the natural law tradition.” [Pete Hegseth – Princeton Tory, January/February 2003]
¶ Hegseth’s Racism And Religious Bigotry
¶ Hegseth Was CONSISTENTLY Islamophobic
¶ Hegseth Hyped Fears About Muslim Communities And Commended Mosque Surveillance
February 3, 2016: Hegseth Expressed Concern That Muslim Americans Are Not Assimilating. On the February 3, 2016 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “Twenty-seven languages in the schools, segmentation in the town. There's a Yemeni portion, there's a Bangladeshi part. There isn't as much assimilation. Folks in the Polish population talked about that, too. So, concerns about integration.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 2/3/16, via Media Matters for America]
February 3, 2016: Hegseth Accused Barack Obama Of Supporting Islamic Extremism. On the February 3, 2016 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “It appears [the White House] chose this mosque on purpose. For one of two reasons -- they have got to know, it has ties to a more extreme form of Islam or at least a more fundamentalist form. But it also could be that they say, we're not going to see those distinctions. This White House is saying, it doesn't matter, a mosque is a mosque, an imam is an imam. If they don't have direct ties to terrorism, then we're a part of showing that we're an inclusive country. Of course we are. I appreciate the president's desire and willingness to show, and Americans are pluralistic. They do embrace people of faith who do so in good faith. But in this particular case there are so many ties to political Islam, to the Muslim Brotherhood, to the desire to expand that funding extremist groups overseas. Imams who went out to other mosques that worked with radicals. It just sends all the wrong signals of the priorities for this White House. [...] He's going to stand there and say, look at all these wonderful patriotic American Muslims who we should be embracing without looking at the political -- again, the political ideology behind so much of that. Which is driven by a supremacist ideology, tied to extremists around the globe, funding it, supporting it, preaching it and harboring some those extremists' ideologies.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 2/3/16, via Media Matters for America]
November 29, 2016: Hegseth Argued For Government Surveillance Of Mosques. On the November 29, 2016 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “An incredible amount of attacks have been thwarted in [New York City] through great intelligence work and aggressive intelligence work. Let's have that battle. I think the American people chose Donald Trump for a reason. They want a law-and-order candidate who understands the nature of this enemy. I think he’s ready to have that very debate. And you can do it without marginalizing the Muslim community.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 11/29/16, via Media Matters for America]
May 30, 2017: Hegseth Argued That Public Schools Were Pushing Islam On Students. On the May 30, 2017 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “The Bible and Christianity was long ago stripped from our public schools -- rightly or wrongly -- but to insert Islam seems like they are gaming the field here.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 5/30/17, via Media Matters for America]
May 13, 2018: Hegseth Blamed A Muslim “Demographic Invasion” Of France For Terror Attacks. On the May 13, 2018 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “I hate to put it this way, but I think it's true. They've got a slow-motion 9/11 happening in their borders in France. You've got January 2015 Charlie Hebdo, remember the newspaper attack, 12 killed. You've got -- remember the movie, that we've all seen, 1517 to Paris, the train attack thwarted in August of 2015, the Bataclan concert hall attack kills 130 in November of 2015, the Nice truck attack, kills 86, wounds 400 in July of 2016, and also in July of 2016, the 85-year-old priest whose throat was slit in front of worshipers. Due to migration, due to demographics, a silent demographic invasion of France. And if they don't get their arms around it -- listen, demography matters. Muslims are having 2.6 kids, whereas French-born folks are having 1.6 kids. It's a demographic equation and it's not to say that every Muslim is a terrorist, no one's saying that. But the reality is, they've got an ISIS radical Islamic problem there that they don't have their arms around and they're not taking it seriously. And I think French citizens wonder whether Emanuel Macron ever will as well.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 5/13/18, via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Called For Immigration Restrictions Targeting Islam
When Discussing Republican Candidates Using San Bernardino As A “Political Tool To Attack Refugees And Spread More Hate And Fear” Pete Hegseth Said, “Shouldn't It Matter Where They're Coming From? Isn't There Basic Litmus Test Here, A Filter We Can Apply Initially In Light Of The Fact That We're At War?” According to a Kelly File transcript, Democratic Strategist Robert Zimmerman said, “My concern likewise here though, is that if when we look at this visa application situation, as frustrating is and the tragedy complication present it is -- should concern all of us to see the republican presidential candidates use this as a political tool to attack refugees and spread more hate and fear. And that's what should concern us enormously, because the refugee children and the refugees coming in from Syria are also the victims of terrorists and the United States should be very focused on.” [Pete Hegseth] “Shouldn't it matter where they're coming from Robert? Shouldn't it matter where they're coming from? Isn't there basic litmus test here, a filter we can apply initially in light of the fact that we're at war?” [Fox News: The Kelly File, 12/23/15]
¶ Hegseth Referred To Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison As “Radical”
Fox’s Pete Hegseth Calls Muslim Congressman And Potential DNC Chair Keith Ellison "Radical." [Fox News via Media Matters, 11/14/16]
¶ Hegseth Defended Cindy Hyde-Smith’s “Public Hanging” Comments
November 27, 2018: Hegseth Defended Cindy Hyde-Smith’s “Public Hanging” Comments. On the November 27, 2018 edition of Outnumbered, Hegseth stated, “Public -- she did not say lynching, she said “public hangings,” which were -- which refer to lawful executions at certain times in the 19th and 20th century. [...] No, really. I'm not saying -- you're playing on the field you want to play in, which is saying, ‘this lady's a racist.’ And what she's saying is, her public career shows that she isn't.” [Pete Hegseth, Outnumbered, 11/27/18, via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Defended “Send Her Back” Chants At Trump Rallies, Suggested He Could Say The Same To Geraldo Rivera
July 19, 2019: Hegseth Defended “Send Her Back” Chants At Trump Rallies And Suggested He Could Say The Same To Geraldo Rivera. On the July 19, 2019 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth argued with Geraldo Rivera, “HEGSETH: Geraldo but you, like many, have accused him of racism. But if you go back and look at that tweet, he's not talking about race, he's talking about whether or not you love this country and appreciate it. And if you don't appreciate it and don't love it, and don't want to work to make it better, then maybe you could consider going somewhere else. There's plenty of countries on Earth. RIVERA: What the hell? Come on, Pete. This is their country. They're citizens of the United States. HEGSETH: He was talking about in general abut the principles of our country. If you don't believe in it– RIVERA: So what if someone said that to you, ‘If you don't like it you can leave.’ [CROSSTALK] HEGSETH: Absolutely. They can say that to me. They can totally say that to me. RIVERA: Intolerable. You cannot say that. HEGSETH: You could totally say it. RIVERA: You can't say it to me. HEGSETH: Well, I could say it to you. RIVERA: I've had 10 street fights based on that, someone saying to me because I'm Puerto Rican, ‘Go back where you came from.’ HEGSETH: Because I'm not looking at you. I'm not looking at the color of your skin. RIVERA: I was born 17th street. This is where I came from. HEGSETH: I'm looking at what you stand for and the principles of our country. White, Black, otherwise -- it's not about race. RIVERA: Once you make nationhood and citizenship like that conditional on your political loyalties, you run a very dangerous path there, major, and you should know that. HEGSETH: Well, there's a lack of gratitude.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 7/19/19, via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Defended Charlottesville Protestors And Suggested White Men Had Become “Second-Class Citizens”
August 13, 2017: Hegseth Defended Charlottesville Protestors And Suggested White Men Had Become “Second-Class Citizens.” On the August 13, 2017 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “You can call that out, and then -- but still also listen, say, on Black Lives Matter, to the grievances of young African-American males in urban cores who feel like they are looked at differently by police. That discussion still should be had. Just like young white men who feel like, ‘Hey, I'm treated differently in this country than I feel like I should have. I've become a second-class citizen. None of it -- they tell me I have white privilege.’ None of that justifies racial preferences or violence at all. But there's always a grievance underneath it that it's worth talking about. And we should never live in such a politically correct culture that we can't at least have a conversation. There's a reason those people were out there. Some of it is outright racism and needs to be condemned. A lot of it, though, is I feel like my country is slipping away and just because I talk about nationalism -- not white nationalism -- doesn't mean I'm talking in code that I'm a racist.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 8/13/17, via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Defended Blackwater Contractors Convicted Of Killing Civilians
[VIDEO] August 11, 2019: Hegseth Defended Blackwater Contractors Convicted Of Killing Civilians. On the August 11, 2019 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “Another day on the job in Iraq. I was in Iraq '05/'06, encountered situations just like this. Split-second decisions, violence happened fast, enemy using nasty tactics. Initially they were exonerated from this, am I correct? [...] So they're making tough calls on the battlefield. Today though, however, three of the four, and soon to be four, are in jail for 30 years, convicted by a civilian court. Part of the reason that happened is Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton stepped in when there was politics being played about Iraq. So it's called Raven 23 but you can call them the 'Biden Four' because of political negotiations [Vice] President Biden and others reopened this case and made these guys vulnerable.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 8/11/19, via Media matters for America]
[VIDEO] November 24, 2019: Hegseth Interviewed Convicted Blackwater Killers And Pled Their Case To Donald Trump. According to Media Matters For America, “U.S. Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer was forced out over the weekend after losing a power struggle with Fox News host Pete Hegseth over the fate of Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who had been accused of war crimes during a 2017 deployment to Iraq. [...] Spencer and the Navy came under fire from Hegseth during five separate segments over the course of Sunday morning’s Fox & Friends broadcast, just hours before his removal. The segments, running at the top of each hour of the program, highlighted reports that Spencer had threatened to resign over Trump’s interference in the case and the ongoing review into whether Gallagher should be removed from the SEALs.” [Media Matters for America, 11/24/19]
¶ Hegseth Repeatedly Argued In Favor Of A Preemptive Strike Against North Korea
[VIDEO] August 11, 2017: Hegseth Argued In Favor Of A Preemptive Strike Against North Korea. On the August 11, 2017 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “There's merit in a preemptive strike. But you got to do it right. You got to -- it's got to be decisive. How comprehensive is that first strike capability? But history shows us that when you let dictators get the worst weapons in the world, they wield a ton of influence. And what about the history -- in North Korea they shown us that they're [never] going to stop. We passed that accord in 1994 and they've only gotten more advanced ever since.” [Fox & Friends, 8/11/17, via Media Matters for America]
[VIDEO] January 11, 2018: Hegseth Argued That The US Should Aggressively Strike North Korea. On the January 11, 2018 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “That's the difficult part of this calculus. North Korea is not a regime that we fundamentally understand as far as how hard they would hit back. But you can't hope that talks alone will work. That's why this is a good thing. I'm glad South Korea is recognizing they have a true ally in President Trump. But it doesn't change the entire dynamic of denuclearizing North Korea. They're still headed like a truck down the freeway toward nuclear weapons, they already have them. Time is on their side. We have to do something aggressive now.” [Pete Hegseth, Fox & Friends, 1/11/18, via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Repeatedly Attacked Women's Reproductive Rights
February 11, 2016: Hegseth Referred To Reproductive Justice As “Absolutely And Utterly Meaningless.” On the February 11, 2016 edition of Outnumbered, Hegseth stated, “I don't know. Words like reproductive justice, we were talking about [...] It’s absolutely and utterly meaningless.” [Outnumbered, 2/11/16, via Media Matters for America]
January 29, 2019: Hegseth Referred New York’s Abortion Law As “Infanticide.” On the January 29, 2019 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “And Cardinal Timothy Dolan rejecting calls to excommunicate New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over the state’s new abortion law -- infanticide law, really.” [Fox & Friends, 1/29/19 via Media Matters for America]
May 6, 2022: Hegseth Claimed That Pro-Choice Supporters Are “Obsessed With Aborting Babies.” On the May 6, 2022 edition of Jesse Watters Primetime, Hegseth stated, “These people aren't actually pro-choice. They're just pro-abortion. They're willing to make up imaginary scenarios just to add some fuel to the fire, like they always do. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Just so they can keep their supporters obsessed with aborting babies and helping to dilute the idea of the nuclear family. They want a world where everyone is brainwashed into believing abortion without limits is a good thing, where you can abort a baby any time, any day.” [Jesse Watters Primetime, 5/6/22 via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Repeatedly Engaged In Climate Denialism
August 13, 2019: Hegseth Argued That Democrats Are Using Climate Change To Take Away Freedoms. On the August 13, 2019 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “The left says it all the time. This is what they believe. It is their religion. They want to fight the weather. The rest of us want to deal with real threats that want to take away our freedoms.” [Fox & Friends, 8/13/19 via Media Matters for America]
January 22, 2021 : Hegseth Argued That Climate Activists Seek To “Fight The Weather.” On the January 22, 2021 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “This unholy alliance is between the unions, which are [the Democrats'] traditional base, and the radical environmentalists who are demanding that we change every aspect of our lives, and undercut our economy so that we can fight the weather. And as a result of that, you lose good-paying union jobs, and that was their base. And where did they go? To Donald Trump and the Republican Party. The question is, can they keep it?” [Fox & Friends, 1/22/21 via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Defended The January 6th Insurrection And Spread 2020 Election Conspiracy
January 7, 2021: Hegseth Engaged In Election Conspiracy And Claimed That January 6th Rioters “Love Our Country.” On the January 7, 2021 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “This is not Donald Trump only. This is what he has exposed. See, these folks on the lawn, and there were more than I'd ever seen. These are not conspiracy theorists motivated just by lies — that's a bunch of nonsense that people want to tell us. These are people that understand first principles, they love freedom and they love free markets. And they see exactly what the anti-American left has done to America — indoctrinating our kids, opening our borders, canceling individuals, totally censoring entire viewpoints, all the double standards that exist in our country right now. And then we're always told — and this is legitimate, this is the way republics are supposed to work — you get them at the ballot box.You come back two years later, and you get them at the ballot box. Well, and then what happens when you don't have that recourse? What happens when they use COVID as a guise to change all the guidelines constitutionally? [...] So you don't have to believe the election was stolen to know that the system has begun to undercut people who love our country. That's what they were there for. And it manifested at the Capitol in a different way. That doesn't mean you need to condemn the entire thing.” [Fox & Friends, 1/7/2021 via Media Matters for America]
July 13, 2021: Hegseth Refused To Acknowledge That Trump Lost The 2020 Election. On the July 13, 2021 edition of Fox News Primetime, Hegseth repeatedly refused to answer whether or not Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. [Fox & Friends, 7/13/21 via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Argued That The US Should Withdraw From The United Nations
December 22, 2017: Hegseth Argued That The US Should Withdraw From The United Nations. On the December 22, 2017 edition of Fox & Friends, Hegseth stated, “Yes. Yes. I think we should pull out of the UN, this is what I would -- we form our own league of democracies of like-minded countries and work together.” [Fox & Friends, 12/22/17 via Media Matters for America]
¶ Hegseth Hit A West Point Drummer With An Ax On Live TV
2015: On A Fox And Friends Segment, Pete Hegseth Threw An Ax, Missed The Target, And Instead Hit A West Point Drummer Standing Behind It. According to the Huffington Post, “A Fox News cohost threw an ax at a target last week, but missed and hit a nearby marching band drummer instead, according to video posted online. The edited clip posted on Facebook shows ‘Fox & Friends’ cohost Pete Hegseth throw an ax at a bullseye on a wooden board during the June 14 broadcast. The ax sails over the target and hits Jeff Prosperie, a drummer in the West Point Hellcats marching band, which was performing during the show.” [Huffington Post, 6/23/15]
- The Drummer Suffered Cuts On His Wrist, But Was Happy The Incident Wasn’t Fatal. According to the Huffington Post, “Although Prosperie said he was not hit by the blade of the ax, he did suffer a couple of cuts on his wrist. ‘It could have been much worse or fatal,’ Prosperie wrote. ‘Focusing on full physical and emotional recovery.’ Prosperie also wrote that the clip was edited to show first what was seen on TV — Hegseth throwing the ax, and wincing when it goes way off-mark — followed by cellphone footage of the ax striking him on the other side of the target.” [Huffington Post, 6/23/15]
- The Drummer Claimed There Wasn’t Supposed To Be Any Ax Throwing On The Particular Segment And He Suspected Hegseth Went Rogue When He Decided To Throw It. According to the Huffington Post, “‘My leadership told me they were told there would be no ax throwing,’ Prosperie wrote on Facebook. ‘I think the anchor person went rogue and decided to throw it. He had only thrown it once before in practice for an upcoming segment and they told him to throw it with more force.’” [Huffington Post, 6/23/15]