“Secretary [of Defense Pete] Hegseth,” said Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Dec. 3, “is the leader of arguably the most complex, consequential organization in the history of mankind. Making a bad mistake could start a war. Making a mistake can get American military personnel killed.” This statement — one of several recently in which Senator Tillis has raised doubts about Hegseth’s leadership — is perplexing since it was Tillis who cast the critical vote to confirm Hegseth as Secretary of Defense in January.
Tillis had opposed Hegseth’s nomination until the night before the final vote.
A nonpartisan evaluation of Hegseth’s lack of professional qualifications for the awe-inspiring influence and power of Secretary of Defense — a role that manages a budget approaching a trillion dollars as well as oversees 1.3 million American service men and women — should have given any responsible lawmaker grave pause.
None of this is to mention that Hegseth faced allegations throughout his confirmation process of sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement at two veterans’ nonprofits.
Tillis, wanting to do his “due diligence” in the months before the vote, had had extensive conversations with Kat Dugan — an Army veteran, former defense contractor and Republican supporter — who had worked at Concerned Veterans for America under Hegseth’s leadership. Dugan, as the Wall Street Journal reported last February, informed Tillis that she had personally seen Hegseth engaged in “excessive drinking and other concerning behavior” before imploring the North Carolina senator to recognize that Hegseth was “unfit and unqualified.”
An intensive effort to assuage Tillis’s concerns in the 24 hours before the final vote — involving direct discussions between the North Carolina senator and the president, vice president, White House chief of staff and the nominee himself — led Tillis to change his mind. Dugan, in the midst of these developments, texted Tillis, writing: “As a veteran, as a defense contractor, as a sexual assault survivor and as your constituent, please sir! Praying you and other R[epublican]s come forward.”
No response.
Putting aside the disturbing allegations made against Hegseth during the nomination process, Tillis — and every member of the U.S. Senate, Republican and Democratic — had ample non-partisan justification to vote no.
This was an individual whose professional qualifications for the role of Secretary of Defense were so extraordinarily lacking that it’s hard to imagine how one could seriously argue that there were not vastly more qualified candidates to run the Pentagon in accordance with the policies of our current president.
None of this need denigrate Hegseth’s record in the U.S. military.
Respect his service as an infantry officer — reaching the rank of major — in the U.S. Army National Guard. Acknowledge his deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantánamo Bay. Recognize his military awards, including two Bronze Star medals, Army Commendation Medals (twice) and the Combat Infantryman’s Badge.
Yet also compare Hegseth’s qualifications with those of two recent predecessors, General Lloyd Austin and General James Mattis. Austin had served as a U.S. Army four-star general with over 40 years of service. He had commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, including as head of U.S. Central Command. Mattis had been a Four-Star General in the U.S. Marine Corps who commanded Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq during major combat operations. He had also served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation, responsible for shaping future alliance strategy.
The notion that Hegseth’s military service qualified him to serve in the same role as these men demands an extraordinary suspension of critical judgment. It reflects a prioritization of ideological power above the disinterested well-being of the Republic.
To question whether Hegseth’s resume prepared him to run the world’s most powerful military is not a slight against his admirable military service, but an affirmation that service deserves leadership worthy of its gravity.
Those tasked with running enormous bureaucracies critical to the well-being of our country — from the Department of Defense to the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security — should be individuals of overwhelming professional merit. A democratically elected president, of course, has the right to choose cabinet secretaries who best represent their political worldview and can effectively implement their policy objectives. Yet those nominees, I repeat, should be individuals of indisputable competence.
Merit must matter.
This conviction — I emphasize in the strongest possible terms — is an inherently non-partisan one. No Republican or Democratic president should select political allies to manage our security solely based on ideological fealty.
All too predictably, the ensuing leadership of Hegseth at the Department of Defense has endangered our national security. Repeated firings and internal dysfunction at the Pentagon, the use of Signal to discuss secret war plans and, just recently, a possible war crime scream weakness — and worse.
This is what happens when partisanship holds sway over the best interests of the United States of America.
It’s unacceptable, Senator Tillis.
Brandon K. Gauthier, Ph.D. is a historian and educator from Concord. He is the author of “Before Evil: Young Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and Kim” and specializes in the history of totalitarian states.