Tangle - Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

Correction.

Yesterday, we wrote that President Dwight Eisenhower incorporated Alaska and Hawaii as U.S. states in 1949. As we all know at Tangle, Eisenhower was president for almost all of the 1950s, and the correct year was 1959. This is our third correction since we returned from break, and our second caused by a simple typo in a date. While this error was small, we know mistakes like this reflect poorly on our editing process; rest assured we are frustrated by the corrections and re-evaluating the way we double-check names, numbers, and dates to ensure these mistakes don't happen in the future.

This is our 126th correction in Tangle's 284-week history and our first correction since January 13. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers.

We’re hiring!

We’re accepting applications for a sales development representative, who will assist with securing advertising partnerships and helping Tangle’s business scale. This is a hybrid/remote role, with preference given to candidates in the Philadelphia area. You can read more about the position and how to apply here.

Quick hits.

1. Israel and Hamas have reportedly agreed in principle to a ceasefire deal in Gaza that is likely to be finalized this week and could go into effect this weekend. (The report)
2. South Korean officials arrested President Yoon Suk Yeol following his refusal to appear for questioning related to his declaration of martial law in December. Investigators are examining whether the declaration amounted to an act of insurrection. (The arrest)
3. The Department of Homeland Security announced a ban on imports from 37 entities in China under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which seeks to sanction businesses involved in human rights abuses in China's Xinjiang Region. (The bans)
4. Special counsel Jack Smith released his final report into his 2020 election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump. Smith said that he believed his office had sufficient evidence to convict Trump had he not won the 2024 presidential election. (The report)
5. The confirmation hearings for six of President-elect Trump’s appointees begin today, including Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi. (The hearings)

Today's topic.

Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing. 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 his qualifications for the position. While these moments produced several tense exchanges, Senate Republicans appeared satisfied with Hegseth’s performance, indicating his nomination is likely to succeed. 

Reminder: Confirmation of presidential appointees requires majority approval in the Senate, with the vice president casting the tie-breaking vote in the event of a 50-50 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 adviser to the president and notably lobbied him to pardon U.S. soldiers accused of war crimes. 

During the hearing, Hegseth said he would “bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense,” working to build “a Pentagon laser focused on warfighting, 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.  

Democratic senators pressed Hegseth on several aspects of his personal life and some controversial comments. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) brought up Hegseth’s past instances of infidelity and a 2017 sexual assault allegation (Hegseth was never charged), while Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) focused on allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. Additionally, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) pressed Hegseth on whether he had ever supervised an audit, suggesting that he lacked the qualifications for defense secretary.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor who initially signaled uncertainty about the nomination, questioned Hegseth about his previous comments that the U.S. 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 she would vote to confirm Hegseth.

Other Republican senators focused on Hegseth’s military service, 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 20. Today, we’ll share perspectives from the right and left on the hearing and Hegseth’s nomination. Then, my take.

What the right is saying.

• The right mostly praises Hegseth’s performance at the hearing while criticizing Democrats’ lines 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, Shawn Fleetwood said Democratic senators’ performances at the hearing “prove they’re unserious about U.S. national security.”

“Throughout the more than four-hour-long proceeding, the committee’s leftist members used every available opportunity to slander Hegseth and make complete fools of themselves,” Fleetwood 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 these GOPers 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 wars many politicians and bureaucrats sitting in air-conditioned offices in D.C. 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 and ‘woke’ officers, ensuring U.S. 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 nondeliberative 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 team a settlement he 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. Markwayne Mullin (R., Okla.) 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 U.S. military forces. Tim Sheehy (R., Mont.), 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 wokespeak, 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 learn to come together as a unit to complete the mission at hand, but the Biden Administration seemed hellbent on creating and fomenting racial division.”

“We urgently need to change 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 veteran organizations to his status as a Bronze Star recipient for his own service to, yes, his years of communications skills perfected by the pressures of doing daily live television, Pete Hegseth is the man for the moment.”

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 wrote. “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 at previous hearings, Chairman Roger Wicker (R-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 — that is, 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 Chait explored Hegseth’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 & 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 within 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 it is asked to support the political interests of the president? Or participate in mass deportations? Or suppress political protests?”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Bluntly, this hearing was a disappointing spectacle.
• Hegseth’s qualifications are severely lacking, Democrats didn’t do enough to prove that, and Republicans seemed uncaring about it.
• Our nation’s security is very strong right now, and Hegseth may indeed be a changed man, but that alone doesn’t justify his nomination.

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 society writ large — should commit 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 to always share my honest opinion, and today is one of those days where I’m going to be 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 fit the recent trend of high-ranking nominees to the position, and he's been tailed by controversy and damning indictments on his character everywhere he’s gone. Yet as we sit here today, Hegseth's confirmation looks all but assured, and I left the confirmation hearing without any sense that Democrats (or "concerned" Republicans) had put any real dent in his odds.

Which is a shame.

Since being nominated, Hegseth has emphasized his military service, saying his combat leadership experience qualifies him for the position. “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, this is a ridiculous and borderline offensive thing to say, given that Hegseth's immediate 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 army in combat. He is a four-star general who also received the Silver Star, the third-highest award one can receive for combat valor. We can criticize Austin for his views, or his stint at the military contractor Raytheon, but I wouldn’t pretend he lacks "some dust on his boots."

Not incidentally, Hegseth 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 uniquely qualifies Hegseth for this role — where he will be leading over three million service members and DoD civilians — 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. 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 of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, was awarded Bronze Stars, and even got a Master 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 me. 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 several Tangle readers reading this newsletter 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 emphasis on merit then 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 Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) 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 (ASEAN), was non-committal on using the U.S. military against U.S. civilians, and seemed to think the military has quotas for demographic groups, which is not a thing (though diversity in the military has been a point of emphasis for the DoD during the Biden administration). Hegseth, funnily enough, has his own demographic quotas: At a time when the military struggles with recruitment, he’s repeatedly said that he does not think women should serve in combat roles, a position he’s backtracked on in an effort to get this job.

Here, I want to pause briefly to shout out Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) (a decorated veteran herself), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) (a former CIA analyst who served in Iraq) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who asked important questions that brought Hegseth’s above responses to light. Also, a special callout to Republican Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS), who was even handed and organized in overseeing the hearing. They were the few bright spots on the day.

Republicans otherwise avoided even feigning any real scrutiny of Hegseth during the hearings, as represented by Sen. Tim Sheehy’s (R-MT) questioning: Sheehy opened by asking Hegseth "how many genders" there are and how many push-ups he can do, then tossed him a bunch of softball questions about ammunition and guns to make the point Hegseth understood the tools of war (though Hegseth seemed to be guessing on the last one about what batteries go in night vision goggles).

Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joni Ernst (R-IA), who expressed “concern” about various 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-9/11 era from foreign threats, and we are totally unaware of how good we have it here in the U.S. Our soldiers are in about as little danger as they've ever been in my lifetime, we’re pulling back from many 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 as 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, has 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.

Take the survey: What do you think of Pete Hegseth’s nomination? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

We're skipping the reader question today to give our main story some extra space. Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

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 (AI). The regulations impose quotes on sales of graphics processing units (GPUs) 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 the policy was designed to help maintain the United States’s position as a leader in AI, but Chinese officials said the rules would “maliciously suppress” China’s technological advancement. The Washington Post has the story.

Numbers.

• $1.99 trillion. The Department of Defense’s (DoD) total budgetary resources for fiscal year 2024. 
• 16.3%. The percentage of the total U.S. federal budget for fiscal year 2024 allocated to the DoD. 
• 3,387,858. The total number of force personnel in the U.S. military in 2023, comprised of 2,509,590 military personnel and 878,268 DoD civilians. 
• 19%. The percentage of U.S. adults who approve of Pete Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, according to a January 2025 AP-NORC poll. 
• 33%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they don’t know enough to have an opinion. 
• 41% and 6%. The percentage of Republicans and Democrats, respectively, who approve of Hegseth’s nomination. 
• 66%. The percentage of U.S. adults who support allowing women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat, according to a 2013 Pew Research survey.
• 94%. The percentage of military veterans who oppose race and sex preferences in military promotions, according to a 2024 YouGov survey. 
• 57%. The percentage of military veterans who say diversity is “not essential” for military success.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published a Friday edition reviewing our 2023 coverage.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was our cover picture of Greenland’s photo credit.
• Nothing to do with politics: A useful tool for those who do a lot of work in public: stoplookingatmyscreen.com. 
• Yesterday’s survey: 2,960 readers responded to our survey asking what the U.S. relationship with Greenland should be with 60% saying an independent country with closer ties. “I think the key here is that their future should be self-determined,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

In the aftermath of the holidays, thousands of live Christmas trees 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 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, they’re using all of their senses to explore.” Good News Network has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 300,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!