During this week’s Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Defense, Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin called out what he called the hypocrisy of his Democrat colleagues.
The Republican senator blasted them for saying Hegseth was unqualified to lead the Pentagon because of his drinking and marital infidelity, when some senators sometimes drink on the job and have cheated on their wives.
It was a shocking claim meant to embarrass Democratic senators who have been critical of Hegseth after reports of his alleged heavy drinking, womanizing, and unprofessional behavior. Hegseth has also been accused of sexual assault, which he denies, along with denying other allegations about his behavior.
If, as Mullin alleges, senators are voting while drunk, that is a serious matter that should be addressed by Senate leadership. If appropriate, offending senators should be punished.
The alleged misbehavior of senators, however, does not excuse Hegseth’s alleged behavior. Nor does it somehow make up for his woefully inadequate qualifications to lead the world’s largest military and its 780,000 civilian employees.
Reports of Hegseth’s excessive drinking have been a focus since Trump in November tapped the former Fox News anchor and former National Guard member to head the Pentagon. At that time, Hegseth reportedly told some senators that he would stop drinking if he is confirmed as secretary of defense.
Hegseth had to step down from leading two nonprofit veterans organizations because of incidents of drunken misbehavior, sexual impropriety and financial mismanagement, the New Yorker reported, citing a whistleblower report and other documents that it obtained. On more than one occasion, Hegseth was so drunk that he had to be carried away, the publication said.
Further, under Hegseth’s leadership, Concerned Veterans for America reportedly became a hostile workplace that ignored serious allegations of impropriety, including allegations of sexual assault.
Mullin berated fellow senators from criticizing Hegseth for showing up to work drunk and for cheating on his wife when Mullin said they have done the same. After criticizing their supposed hypocrisy, Mullin pivoted to the idea of forgiveness.
“We’ve all made mistakes. I’ve made mistakes,” Mullin said.
“But the only reason why I’m here and not in prison is because my wife loved me too. I have changed, but I’m not perfect,” he said.
There is a lot to unpack here and, the comment about staying out of prison is particularly concerning. What did Sen. Mullin do that could have landed him in prison? And why did staying out of prison depend on his wife’s love?
Beyond these serious questions about Mullin’s comments, his accusations of misconduct among senators doesn’t absolve Hegseth of his alleged misconduct, some of which Mullin essentially acknowledged but excused by accusing senators of acting the same way. Nor does it somehow strengthen Hegseth’s weak resume when it comes to managing an organization as complex as the U.S. military.
Mullin’s speech made for good theater, but rather than bolstering the case for Hegseth’s nomination, we believe it weakened it.
It stooped to one of the lowest rationales when someone is accused of misbehavior: They did it too.
Mullin’s performance showcases the low bar that many Trump nominees apparently have to clear to gain Republican support. In Tuesday’s hearing, Republican senators focused heavily on Hegseth’s views about the supposed “woke” agenda of the Pentagon. Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King asked about following the Geneva Convention, military strategy and relations with other countries, questions that Hegseth largely dodged or answered with a word salad of platitudes. The exchanges were heavy on obfuscation and light on details about Hegseth’s views on topics such as China, Ukraine and pressing security issues around the world.
Hegseth’s service in uniform is admirable and appreciated. But that dedicated service in the military does not necessarily mean he is qualified and prepared to be one of the military’s top leaders. Rather, his performance at Tuesday’s hearing failed to answer pressing questions about his judgment, self control, transparency, and most importantly, the management skills needed to run an organization as large and complex as the U.S. military.
He should not be confirmed for this vital role.
