VFAI Expresses Concern Surrounding Pete Hegseth’s Nomination as Secretary of Defense

1. Support of Torture: Hegseth has publicly supported the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. In a 2007 interview on C-SPAN, Hegseth defended the actions at Abu Ghraib prison, downplaying the significance of the abuses and criticizing the media for extensive coverage of the torture scandal. He has also stated on Fox News that the U.S. “better use enhanced interrogation techniques, to include waterboarding, if we are to have the gut and stomach to see through this fight” against ISIS. This is deeply troubling, as enhanced interrogation techniques have been shown to be both an ineffective tool for obtaining consistent, reliable information or detainee cooperation, and a method of torture in violation of human rights standards.
2. Human Rights: Hegseth’s past statements and actions suggest an active willingness to disregard international human rights laws. His advocacy for aggressive military tactics and his criticism of the Geneva Conventions raise concerns about protecting human rights in conflict zones, as well as endangers the lives and wellbeing of American service members. The ACLU has documented Hegseth’s support for policies that undermine human rights, including his defense of war crimes and torture. Hegseth has also been criticized for his stance on the Geneva Conventions, which he has described as outdated and restrictive. His views on human rights have been a point of contention, with critics arguing that his approach could lead to violations of international law.
3. Women in Combat: Hegseth has expressed opposition and disdain towards women serving in combat roles, including dedicating a chapter his 2022 book titled “The (deadly) obsession with women warriors”. His views clearly may affect policies that support and protect women serving in these roles which they have duly trained and qualified for. In a podcast appearance, Hegseth stated, “I’m straight up just saying we shouldn’t have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective; it hasn’t made us more lethal, it has made fighting more complicated.”  Despite attempts to clarify his remarks by acknowledging the contributions of female service members, his initial comments have drawn widespread criticism and concern.
4. LGBTQIA Military Service: Hegseth’s history of disparaging LGBTQIA service members is alarming. With Hegseth at the helm of the Department of Defense, such attitudes could lead to new or revisited policies that discriminate against LGBTQIA individuals serving in the military, reversing strides made in recent years that have provided opportunities for skilled, talented, patriotic Americans to serve their country as their whole selves. Hegseth has called policies allowing gay and transgender troops to serve in the military part of a Marxist agenda, a commentary often used by the far-right to sow fear regarding diversity and inclusion initiatives. His evolving rhetoric, which came after meetings with more moderate senators, signals an effort to soothe lingering concerns that his leadership might cause upheaval to a diverse, modern military. However, his past statements raise doubts about his commitment to LGBTQIA inclusion in the military, especially considering his mocking commentary of a military ad campaign featuring a soldier with two lesbian mothers.
5. Potential Use of Military in Mass Deportation: The Trump administration has signaled its intention to use the military for mass deportations. Hegseth’s alignment with these hardline immigration policies raises concerns about the potential use of the military in mass deportation efforts. This could lead to the militarization of immigration enforcement, which is contrary to the principles of human rights and due process. In his testimony to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on December 10, 2024, Major General Randy Manner (U.S. Army, Ret.) stated, “Finally, involving the military in a politically charged domestic issue like mass deportations would erode public trust in the military. Americans trust our military because it protects all of us, regardless of our politics, from the possibility of foreign aggression. When the military is tasked with carrying out domestic policies that may be controversial to some, it undermines the foundation of that trust. That, in turn, will increase risks in morale, recruitment, retention, and readiness.”
6. Warrior Review Board and Authoritarianism: We are deeply concerned about President Trump’s expressed interest in establishing a “warrior review board” to vet senior military leaders for leadership and promotions based on abstract opinions rather than merit, and Hegseth has indicated support for such a review process. A Board of this nature would undermine the apolitical nature of the military and lead to authoritarian practices, where military leaders are chosen based on their allegiance to the president rather than their qualifications and commitment to the Constitution. Reports indicate that this board could lead to the removal of top military officers who do not align with Trump’s views or are seen as supportive of DEI initiatives.
7. Use of Military in Border Security: The continued deployment of military personnel to assist with border security at the U.S. southern border raises significant concerns. The use of active-duty troops in roles traditionally handled by civilian agencies leads to  further blurred lines between military and law enforcement functions, potentially leading to the militarization of border enforcement and the erosion of civil liberties. The Trump administration’s previous deployments of active-duty troops to the border have been criticized for their potential to undermine civil liberties and the Posse Comitatus Act. The use of military personnel in border security roles could lead to increased tensions and the potential for human rights violations.
8. Concern for Potential Domestic Deployment of Military against First Amendment Rights: We are deeply concerned over Hegseth’s positions supporting domestic military deployments that may infringe upon First Amendment rights. His support for deploying troops to suppress protests and control civil unrest threatens free speech and intimidates peaceful demonstrators. General James Mattis has said, “Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society, and diminishes the trust and constitutional relationship between the armed services and the civilian population they support”. The use of military forces must remain a last resort, not a first order of business tool for curbing dissent.
9. Addressing Extremism in the Military: Extremism in the military undermines unit cohesion, threatens national security, and contradicts the core values of honor and integrity upheld by the U.S. Armed Forces. Hegseth and others who dismiss this issue as “fake,”  ignore the  lived experiences of service members facing  hate and discrimination, as well as the ongoing threat of extremist groups recruiting from the military.  Addressing extremism is not political – it’s essential to safeguarding democracy and protecting those who serve.  Leadership must prioritize combating active recruitment by radical organizations to ensure a military culture rooted in respect and unwavering commitment to the Constitution.

Live tweeting on X will begin at 9:30am on Tuesday, January 14th, 2025 at @Vets4AmerIdeals.  You can follow the hearing at this link.