Bulwark Takes – “Unearthed Fox Footage Blows Up Hegseth’s Court Martial Claims”

Host: Sam Stein (Managing Editor, The Bulwark)
Guest: Andrew Kaczynski (CNN)
Release Date: December 9, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sam Stein welcomes CNN reporter Andrew Kaczynski to discuss his investigative reporting on Fox News host Pete Hegseth. Recent unearthed video from 2016 reveals Hegseth expressing views about disobeying unlawful military orders—views that sharply contradict his current stance as he demands the court-martial of Senator Mark Kelly for making similar statements. Together, Stein and Kaczynski dig into the details of Hegseth’s hypocrisy, the historical context, the implications for military law, and the ever-shifting landscape of political accountability.

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Hegseth’s Comments Matter (01:52–03:47)

• Backstory: In response to Democratic legislators reminding military members not to follow unlawful orders, Trump responded harshly—alleging sedition, referencing execution, and prompting Hegseth to demand court-martial for Senator Mark Kelly.
• Military Law: Kaczynski outlines that it is simply military law that troops only follow lawful orders:
  “It is military law that you do not have to follow unlawful orders. It's in the Uniform Military Code of Justice.” — Andrew Kaczynski (03:47)
• Hypocrisy Exposed: Kaczynski has surfaced several old Fox News clips where Hegseth, in 2016, himself articulated the very principle he now denounces Democrats for expressing.

2. Unearthing the Clips: Direct Contradiction (03:47–07:21)

• 2016 Fox News Era Context:
  • Hegseth in 2016 was openly critical of Trump’s threats to order illegal military actions, stating repeatedly:
    “You're not just going to follow that order if it's unlawful.” — Pete Hegseth (quoted clip, 04:52)
  • He also called Trump an “armchair tough guy” and defended John McCain’s honor (06:28).
  • On Megyn Kelly's show, Hegseth specifically warned that Trump’s ambiguity could sow uncertainty in the ranks: “When the military says we won’t follow illegal orders... he suddenly realizes, wait, I might actually be commander in chief.” — Pete Hegseth (06:28, quoted)
• Key Quote Summation:
  Kaczynski highlights the irony:
  “The statement that they [Democratic senators] give is that they claim ... ambiguity around should we follow this order? And that's literally almost exactly what Pete Hegseth was saying in these clips.” — Andrew Kaczynski (07:21)

3. 2016 Republican Primary & the Fox News Landscape (08:01–11:14)

• Political Timeline: Discussion of the March 2016 timeline:
  • Trump’s delegate lead, Rubio and Kasich still in the race (08:28)
  • Fox News (with Megyn Kelly at the forefront) airing fierce exchanges between pro- and anti-Trump voices—even Hegseth then considered Trump’s rhetoric excessive (10:08, 11:02).
  • Notable Moment:
    “Even for Pete Hegseth, Trump has gone too far with what he said.” — Andrew Kaczynski (11:10)

4. Inside the Reporting Process (12:10–15:33)

• Origin of the Dig: Kaczynski wasn’t even specifically looking for Hegseth—he was searching more generally for hypocrisy around disobeying unlawful orders.
• Methodology:
  • Deep dives into the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, using targeted keyword searches (13:19)
  • Search techniques: mixing names, phrases like “unlawful orders,” and utilizing Facebook’s date search (15:11)
• Persistence Required:
  “There was no way that Pete Hegseth, Fox News contributor at the time, always talking about military affairs, was ... not comment[ing] on this.” (14:03)
• On the Thrill of the Chase:
  When asked if discoveries still provide a “thrill”:
  “Yeah, I mean, sometimes, like, it's important I still get, you know.” — Andrew Kaczynski (15:39)

5. The Value (or Futility) of Exposing Hypocrisy (15:43–17:04)

• Political Cynicism: Stein raises the question of whether exposing hypocrisy still matters in a political world where consequences are rare.
• Kaczynski’s Take:
  “I still think it's important. ... At least in this particular instance ... Trump, like, suggested these people should be executed. ... It is important at least in this instance ... [because] like, they stated the Uniform Military Code of Justice. And Pete Hegseth, as we've seen now, has done that at least four times.” (16:20)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:52–03:47] — The backstory: Trump’s response to Dems, the court martial controversy, and why military law matters.
• [03:47–07:21] — Breakdown of Hegseth’s old clips and their contradiction to his current position.
• [08:01–11:14] — Contextualizing the 2016 GOP primary, Fox News culture, and Hegseth’s shifting attitudes.
• [12:10–15:33] — Andrew Kaczynski’s research process and techniques for unearthing old footage.
• [15:43–17:04] — The broader implications of hypocrisy in contemporary politics and why it’s still worth exposing.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It is military law that you do not have to follow unlawful orders.” — Andrew Kaczynski (03:47)
• “You're not just going to follow that order if it's unlawful.” — Pete Hegseth (quoted, 04:52)
• “That's literally almost exactly what Pete Hegseth was saying in these clips.” — Andrew Kaczynski (07:21)
• “Even for Pete Hegseth, Trump has gone too far with what he said.” — Andrew Kaczynski (11:10)
• “I want to really target this whole controversy at the debate. There is no way that Pete Hegseth ... was ... not comment[ing] on this.” — Andrew Kaczynski (14:03)
• “I still think it's important ... at least in this instance ... because, like, they stated the Uniform Military Code of Justice. And Pete Hegseth, as we've seen now, is done that at least four times.” — Andrew Kaczynski (16:20)

Tone & Style

• Conversational and analytical: Stein and Kaczynski are candid but focused, with humor and some ribbing over Bulwark’s internal bets about Hegseth’s past.
• Investigative and rigorous: Kaczynski’s passion for archival digging is evident, offering listeners a “behind the curtain” look at modern reporting.

Summary Takeaway

This episode is a masterclass in both political accountability (or lack thereof) and the dogged reporting needed to expose hypocrisy in the media age. Listeners leave with a richer understanding of why the “unlawful orders” debate matters—not just as a legal technicality, but as a lens on principle, power, and public trust. The discussion blends fresh reporting, sharp analysis, and a dash of optimism for the enduring value of holding public figures to account.