Pete Hegseth (3:36)

Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump's pick to run the Department of Defense, took a lot of tough questions on Capitol Hill earlier today. Despite that, CNN has learned that President elect Donald Trump's team is in good spot. They see the warm reception that he received from Republican senators as a very good sign.

John Law (3:56)

On Tuesday, Senate confirmation hearings began for President elect Donald Trump's cabinet nominees, starting with Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. The Senate Armed Services Committee questioned Hegseth for over four hours, with Democrats pressing Hegseth on his previous comments about women serving in combat roles, allegations of sexual abuse and infidelity, and and his qualifications for the position. While these moments produced several tense exchanges, Senate Republicans appeared satisfied with Hagsett's performance, indicating his nomination is likely to succeed. Confirmation of presidential appointees requires majority approval in the Senate, with the Vice President casting the tie breaking vote in the event of a 5050 split. Republicans currently have a three seat majority in the chamber. Hegseth is a former Fox News host and Army National Guard officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, earning two Bronze Stars. After his service, he led two nonprofit veterans advocacy groups, Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. Though he had no official role in the first Trump administration, he was viewed as an informal advisor to the president and notably lobbied him to pardon US Soldiers accused of war crimes. During his hearing, Hegseth said he would bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense, working to build a Pentagon laser focused on war fighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards and readiness. He repeatedly emphasized his goal of eliminating politics from military decisions, suggesting that the Biden administration had inappropriately focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the expense of military readiness. Democrats pressed Hegseth on several aspects of his personal life and some controversial comments. Senator Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia, brought up Hegseth's past instances of infidelity, fidelity and a 2017 sexual assault allegation. Hegseth was never charged, while Senator Mark Kelly, the Democrat from Arizona, focused on allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. Additionally, Senator Tammy Duckworth, the Democrat from Illinois, pressed Hegseth on whether he had ever supervised an audit, suggesting that he lacked the qualifications for a defense secretary. Senator Joni Ernst, the Republican from Iowa, a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor who initially signaled uncertainty about the nomination, questioned Hegseth about his previous comments that the US Military should not have women in combat roles. Hegseth answered affirmatively, later adding that he supported having women in these roles provided that they meet the same standards as men. After the hearing, Ernst said that she would vote to confirm Hegseth. Other Republican senators focused on Hegseth's military record, suggesting that while he lacks the command experience of recent defense secretaries, his combat experience and communication skills would make him an effective change agent for a department that has faced scrutiny for operational bloat and mismanagement of conflicts abroad. After the hearing, Republicans widely praised Hegseth's performance. The nomination now moves to a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is expected to occur on January 20th. Today we'll share perspectives from the right and the left on the hearing and Hegseth's nomination and then Isaac's take.

Isaac Saul (7:21)

We'll be right back after this quick break.

John Law (7:29)

All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right mostly praises Hegseth's performance at the hearing while criticizing Democrats line of questioning. Some suggest Hegseth failed to address legitimate questions about his qualifications. Others say Hegseth will put the military back on track after Biden's misguided approach in the Federalist, Sean Fleetwood said Democratic senators performances at the hearing prove they're unserious about US national security. Throughout the more than four hour long proceeding, the committee's leftist members used every opportunity available to slander Hegseth and make complete fools of themselves, leatwood wrote. Contrast this with the behavior of Republican senators who largely asked questions related to issues impacting America's military. Hegseth answered inquiries about topics such as the service's recruiting crisis, military infrastructure problems, the harmful impact of neo Marxist ideologies on military readiness, and more. Unlike their Democrat colleagues, many of the gopiers garnered answers from Hegseth on matters of importance to everyday Americans. Unlike his predecessors, Hegseth is not beholden to the military industrial complex. He's a man from outside the system who has fought in the forever war as many politicians and bureaucrats sitting in air conditioned office and DC don't have the courage to fight and he understands the frustrations of the service members who have been failed by this lack of leadership, fleetwood said. Much to Democrats dismay, Hegseth's nomination promises bold, long overdue reforms. This includes rooting out dei, firing incompetent WOKE officers, ensuring US Tax dollars are put to good use, and reviving a service that prospective recruits will want to join, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote. Pete Hegseth gets a Senate pass Americans didn't learn much about Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, but they did learn more about the world's greatest non deliberative body. Democrats mostly played into Mr. Hegseth's hands with questions he easily parried, while Republicans asked little of substance. The board said the most effective Democratic questioning came from Virginia's Tim Kaine, who wanted to know why Mr. Hegseth didn't disclose to the Trump a settlement had been paid to a woman who accused him of sexual assault. Mr. Hegseth kept saying he was falsely charged but never answered the question. Republicans didn't do much scrutinizing. Mark Wayne Mullen, the Republican from Oklahoma, noted that senators sometimes show up drunk for votes at night and cheat on their wives, but they aren't in the chain of command of US Military forces. Tim Sheehy, the Republican from Montana, after opening his remarks by asking how many genders there are, did ask about Navy shipbuilding, to which Mr. Hegseth basically said donald Trump wants to build ships. No details, the board said. It appears we're on track to have a secretary of defense whose real views are a mystery. Let's hope he rises to the occasion. In Newsweek, Rob Smith argued, DEI is destroying our military. Pete Hegseth can make it great again. The once admirable attempt to make America's military a welcoming place to all transitioned into a Frankenstein's monster of woke speak, declining standards and politicized leadership. Spewing far left propaganda, Smith wrote, one of the great joys of serving in the United States military is that soldiers from many different backgrounds and races learned to come together as a unit to complete the mission at hand. But the Biden administration seemed hell bent on creating and fomenting racial division. We urgently need a change of course, which is where Pete Hegseth comes in. I believe, and I think it's safe to say that Pete does too, that the only identity that truly matters is that of a proud American. When we focus on that, we will find more of them to make our military stronger, smith said. From his service with various veterans organizations to his status as a Bronze Star recipient for his own service, to yes, his years of communication skills perfected by the pressures of doing daily live news television, Pete Hegseth is the man for the moment. All right, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is critical of Republican senators unserious questioning, arguing they failed in their duty to advise and consent. Some say Hegseth's handling of confrontational questions was likely enough to get him confirmed. Others worry that Hegseth will support Trump's worst impulses. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus said at the Hegseth hearing, GOP senators covered themselves in shame. I have witnessed many contentious confirmation hearings over the years and watched as the system has become increasingly partisan and vitriolic. But the Hegseth hearing represents a new low in that diminished process. Marcus writt the seriousness and breadth of the allegations against him, from sexual assault to excessive drinking to sheer lack of experience, demand the most searching and responsible of inquiries. Instead, the Hegseth nomination has largely produced reflexive party line salutes. In contrast to the behavior of previous nominees from both parties. Hegseth refused to meet with Democrats on the committee before the hearing. In contrast to the practice of previous hearings, Chairman Roger Wicker, the Republican from Mississippi, refused Democratic requests to allow senators more than a single seven minute round of questioning. Marcus said most Republican senators are dutifully obedient to Trump and his demands, even if they privately know better. Those who might consider straying, I.e. doing their jobs, are subjected to the threat of unbridled and well financed attacks and the looming threat of a primary challenge. This is not a responsible Senate. It is a partisan and cowering one. In the Atlantic, Jonathan Cheat explored Heckshot's strategy for the hearing. During the proceedings, the Republican majority displayed no willingness to block or even seriously vet a nominee who resides far outside the former boundaries of acceptability for a position of immense power, chait wrote. If you've ever had media training for a television appearance, a common piece of advice is to use the prompt to get to whatever point you wish to make, rather than focus on answering the question. It isn't supposed to work in a Senate hearing, especially one in which lawmakers have serious qualms about the nominee's record or statements. But Hegseth, a slick and successful television talk show host, employed it to great effect. Meanwhile, Democrats on the panel complained that Hegseth had declined every offer to meet with them, solidifying the impression that he conceives of the position for which he has been nominated in purely partisan terms. They likewise complained that the Republican majority rejected their requests for a second round of questioning. Hegseth looked like a man who understood that the fix was in and that all he had to do was run out the clock on the Democrats allotted time while dodging their questions. So far, his calculation appears to have been correct. In the New York Times, Ben Rhodes wrote, Hegseth is dangerous, but not for the reasons you think. To state the obvious, as a former weekend Fox and Friends anchor, Army National Guard officer and leader of two small nonprofits, Pete Hegseth is unqualified to run a nuclear armed organization with a budget approaching a trillion dollars. That's the point. Donald Trump doesn't want someone to effectively manage the Pentagon. He wants to disrupt it, rhodes said. His choice of Mr. Hegseth is born out of right wing grievances that have been building for a long time over the failures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these frustrations are understandable, but the remedies Mr. Trump proposes are dangerous. His disdain for international rules could eviscerate the laws of war that emerged from the devastation of two world wars. His threats of territorial expansion could intensify a period of nationalist aggression. His tirades against enemies of the United States foreshadow MAGA, social engineering and domestic intervention by the Pentagon. In Mr. Hegseth, he has found a loyal vessel for this project, Rhodes wrote. Mr. Trump has complained about a military that bucked his will the first time around. No one expects Mr. Hegseth to do that, nor would the kind of military he has talked about building. What happens if he's asked to support the political interests of the president? Or participate in mass deportations or suppress political protests? All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

Isaac Saul (16:11)

All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. So Pete Hegseth and I share a lot of the same values. A commitment to meritocracy, a love of country, and a belief that our military and honestly American society writ large should commit ourselves to high and difficult standards. Ironically, these shared values are exactly why I think Hegseth should not be Secretary of Defense, and why I have a hard time overstating my disappointment at the entire spectacle of his nomination and yesterday's confirmation hearings. I've promised always to share my honest opinion. So today is one of those days where I may come off unusually fiery. Let's start by going back to about a month ago. Hegseth's nomination looked dead on arrival. I wrote in Tangle that he was going to have an even harder time getting confirmed than Tulsi Gabbard and predicted a bruising confirmation fight at the time, this made sense. Hegseth doesn't match the recent trend of high ranking nominees to the position, and everywhere he's gone he's been tailed by controversy and damning indictments on his character. Yet as we sit here today, Hegsest's confirmation looks all but assured, and I left the confirmation hearing without any sense that Democrats or concerned Republicans had put any real dents in his odds, which is a shame. Throughout the confirmation hearing ended his nomination, Hegseth has emphasized his military experience, justifying his candidacy because of his combat experience. It is time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm a change agent, he said in his opening remarks on Tuesday. It's worth giving this framing a critical eye. To be frank, it's a ridiculous and borderline offensive thing to say, given that most of Hegseth's predecessors served in the military, many of them much longer than he did. Spend some time reviewing the resumes of Christopher Miller, Mark Esper or Jim Mattis, and the absurdity of Hegseth's comments will sink in Presently, our Secretary of Defense is Lloyd Austin, who served 41 years in the army and is well known for being the first African American to command a division, corps and field army in combat. He's a four star general who also received the Silver Star, the third highest award one can receive for valor in combat. We can and should criticize Austin for his views or his stint at the military contractor Raytheon, but I wouldn't pretend he needs some dust on his boots. Not incidentally, Hegseth, by comparison has spent the last 11 years as a Fox News commentator, spent decades fewer in combat than Austin, and is far less decorated. Indeed, in trying to determine what exactly about Hegseth makes him special or uniquely qualified for this role, where he will be leading over 3 million service members, it basically comes down to his experience on television and his ability to communicate Trump's worldview. I'm not saying that to be cruel, I mean this literally. While Hegseth's service was certainly honorable, there is very little about his resume that is exceptional. He rose to the rank of major, served tours and duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, was awarded Bronze Stars, and even got a master's degree of Public Policy from Harvard after his second deployment. I've never served in the military or graduated from Harvard, so he's certainly more qualified than I am. But there are likely thousands of other veterans who have graduate degrees, served multiple tours, were awarded medals, and have risen to the rank of major or higher. I suspect there are even tangled listeners listening to this very podcast who share those qualifications. Hegseth has promoted the idea that DEI initiatives and women in combat are lowering standards in the military. But if we were to take Hegseth's own advice that the armed forces need more meritocracy, not less, the prospect of him becoming Secretary of Defense would seem wholly ridiculous. The only exceptional thing on his resume is that he became a millionaire as a Fox News host after serving in the military, and that the President Elect really likes him on television. For anyone watching closely, the prospect of Hegseth taking this role is already lowering our standards, which again is ironic given it's the critical issue he claims he is uniquely positioned to solve. The scenes in the Senate hearing became so debased that Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, the Republican from Oklahoma, could only muster a defense of Hegseth by sharing that some senators cast their votes while drunk, encouraging later defending his point by clarifying that what he really meant was if senators are capable of doing their jobs while drinking, Pete Hegseth can too. Yay. While most Democrats pitifully spent their time making sure we all knew Hegseth cheated on his former wives, we got very little in the way of illuminating questions about Hegseth's ideas on Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, China, or any of the other major global issues our armed forces will face in the coming years. In the few moments where senators asked smart questions designed to better understand Hegseth's qualifications, we found out he couldn't name any international security agreements he would lead as Defense secretary incorrectly guessed Several members of the association of Southeast Asian nations was non committal on using the United States military against US Civilians and seemed to think the military has gender quotas or quotas for other demographic groups, which is not a thing. Though diversity in the military has become a point of emphasis for the DoD during the Biden administration, Hegseth, funnily enough, has his own gender related standards. At a time when the military struggles with recruitment, he's repeatedly said on the record that he does not think women should be able to serve in combat roles, a position he's backtracked on in an effort to get this job. Here I should pause briefly to shout out Democratic Senators Tammy Duckworth from Illinois, a decorated war veteran herself Senator Alyssa Slotkin from Michigan, a former CIA analyst who served in Iraq and Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat from New York who who at least tried to do their jobs honestly and asked important questions that brought Hegseth's responses above to light. Also, a special call out to Republican Chairman Roger Wicker from Mississippi, who was even handed and organized in overseeing the hearing. They were the few lone bright spots on the day. Republicans otherwise avoided even feigning any real scrutiny of Hegseth. During the hearings, Senator Tim Sheehy, the Republican from Montana, had some questioning that provided a good representation. He opened by asking Hegseth how many genders there are and how many push ups Hegseth can do, then tossed him a bunch of softball questions about ammunition and guns to make the point that Hegseth understood the tools of war. Though Hegseth apparently flunked the last one about what batteries go in night vision goggles. Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, and Joni Erce from Iowa, who expressed concern about various outcomes. Allegations of Hegseth's sexual misconduct reportedly refused to meet with his accuser. Collins denies this and dutifully fell in line without providing any real scrutiny to the nomination. So here we are. Mediocrity everywhere in every direction. And Hegseth cruising through the hearings. As I've said in the past, we as Americans have been remarkably safe in the post 911 era from foreign threats. And we are totally unaware of how good we have it here in the US Our soldiers are in about as little danger as they've ever been in my lifetime. We're pulling back from any major conflicts. And the vast majority of the issues facing our Department of Defense involve wasteful spending, inventory issues, shaky leadership, and the fact we are falling behind on advanced military technology. I don't see any reason to believe Hegseth, who has a leader of several smaller, less complicated organizations, has been followed by allegations of poor leadership, disorganization, sexual misconduct, poor financial management, and drunkenness. Is the right person to solve these issues. It's perfectly okay for Hegseth to tell us he's a changed man, that he's found Christ and has reformed. That may well be the true arc of his character and person. And I hope it is. I love a redemption story as much as anyone. But that doesn't mean we need to accept him as the best of the best, the brightest of the brightest, or the best leader for our entire military. But of course, our country is in a change mood. We want to light the house on fire, kill the rich, and tear it all down. People like Hegseth are happy to oblige. Or happy to pretend they'll oblige for power. So soon enough, it looks like we're going to get what we asked for. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. That is it for my take? I got a little lengthy in my take today, so we're skipping the reader question for space and I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod. I'll see you guys tomorrow. Peace.

John Law (24:56)

Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. In one of its final policy moves, the Biden administration announced new export controls on computer chips and other technology used to develop artificial intelligence. The regulations impose quotas on sales of graphic processing units to most countries and restrict the amount of information American companies can share about advanced AI models, with exceptions for a few close allies. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said that the policy was designed to help maintain the United States position as a leader in AI, but Chinese officials said the rules would maliciously suppress China's technological advancement. The Washington Post has this story and there's a link in today's episode Description all right, next up is our numbers section. The Department of Defense's total budgetary resources for fiscal year 2024 is $1.99 trillion. The percentage of the total U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 allocated to the Dodd is 16.3%. The total number of force personnel in the United States military in 2023 is 3,387,858, comprised of 2,509,590 military personnel and 878,268 DoD civilians. The percentage of U.S. adults who approved of Pete Hegseth's nomination for Secretary of Defense is 19%, according to a January 2025 AP NORC poll. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they don't know enough to have an opinion is 33%. The percentage of Republicans and Democrats, respectively, who approve of Hegseth's nomination is 41% and 6%. The percentage of U.S. adults who support allowing women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat is 66%, according to a 2013 Pew Research survey. The percentage of military veterans who oppose race and sex preferences in military promotions is 94%, according to a 2024 YouGov survey. And the percentage of military veterans who say diversity is not essential for military success is 57%. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. In the aftermath of the holidays, thousands of live Christmas trees will go to waste. One zoo in England wants to change that. For the fifth year in a row, Noah's Ark Zoo Farm is using donated Christmas trees to enrich the lives of the animals. Larry Bush, a wildlife biologist at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm noted that the Christmas trees have benefited the meerkats at the farm. When we create a new stimulation inside their space like these Christmas trees, they're really curious. They're foraging in the trees and they're using all of their senses to explore. Good News Network has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to retangle.com and sign up for a membership. You can also go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up for a premium podcast membership which gets you ad free daily podcasts, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content and so much more. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace.

Isaac Saul (28:24)

Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Duke Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will K Back daily, Saul and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bokova who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast cast was produced by Diet75. And if you are looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website at readtangle. Com. That's readtangle. Com.