“`html 
When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth convened approximately 800 high-ranking military personnel to Quantico, Virginia, this week, there existed considerable conjecture regarding extensive layoffs, novel global-political priorities, even a war declaration.
Those anticipations did not come to fruition. Instead, President Donald Trump appeared to give a lot of his typical brags and complaints to a largely restrained collection of service members. However, Trump then turned to something different for the armed forces: principally asserting that they ought to be sent into US metropolitan areas, including San Francisco and Chicago.
“I mentioned to Pete we should utilize some of these risky cities as instruction zones for our military, National Guard, but military, since we’re heading into Chicago very soon,” Trump stated.
Hegseth continued this with his own lengthy discourse, largely centering on reestablishing the military’s effectiveness and purported warrior mindset.
This peculiar meeting, and Hegseth’s comments, can reveal much about the defense secretary’s leadership approach — and why his selection by Trump to oversee the Pentagon appears as a remarkably significant decision. To delve further, Today, Explained co-anchor Noel King engaged in discussion with Kerry Howley, a reporter at New York magazine who recently penned a piece about Hegseth.
Below is an excerpt of their dialogue, tailored for conciseness and clarity. The comprehensive podcast has substantially more, so give a listen to Today, Explained at any location you obtain podcasts, notably Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
You authored an excellent article regarding Pete Hegseth. What was the heading? It was a splendid heading.
I think it was titled “Playing Secretary.”
“Pete Hegseth is acting as secretary.” That encapsulated it. You dedicate a great deal of time conversing with individuals familiar with the defense secretary and you portrayed a depiction of a person who is disorganized. Is that a reasonable assessment?
I believe that’s a precise description, yes.
Why is an individual who is disorganized in this position to begin with?
I believe Pete Hegseth occupies this post since he appears to Donald Trump like the kind of individual who ought to be in this role. Trump came across Hegseth in his prior occupation as a Fox & Friends Weekend co-anchor, in which Hegseth would on occasion discuss military issues.
And I believe it’s largely accepted that Trump considered that’s the manner in which a defense secretary should seem. I understand it was exceptionally surprising to individuals in Hegseth’s close sphere that he was designated for this function and I can solely suppose it was additionally surprising to Pete Hegseth.
From what you’ve witnessed encompassing him over the previous couple of months, how unconventional is he in respect to his management of the Department of Defense?
I would suggest that he possesses obsessions that are atypical for this office. This is an individual who emerged from television and his preoccupation remains possibly fashioning a visual instant, social media, the manner in which the department is perceived by the broader populace, the sort of branding for the Department of Defense, and he invests a significant amount of time fashioning that image.
He is an individual who maintains an extensive background of difficulties with impulse regulation. There are the thoroughly documented substance misuse concerns. There are sexual assault accusations. There are relationships. There have existed allegations of financial mismanagement at, I surmise, both organizations that he headed previous to his occupation as the defense secretary, where he oversees one of the most intricate, largest human organizations globally.
Related
- The controversies surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, briefly explained
- Trump and Hegseth assemble the military’s leading commanders for a fidelity evaluation
There have been sort of constant personnel concerns, high-visibility resignations, leak probes. This is a remarkably leaky department, and what that communicates to you is that individuals are troubled, but don’t believe that they are able to escalate those concerns up the hierarchy in an official role and so are conversing via the press. There’s of course Signal Gate, and there was a subsequent Signal Gate. Hegseth didn’t do himself any favors by sort of neglecting to acknowledge that anything had transpired incorrectly. And there was this sort of panicked aggression that surfaced in further interviews.
It appeared to represent a problem even with crisis interactions. It wasn’t clear to this department how to tackle the crisis itself. This was a genuine concentration of the administration: “Where are the leaks? We must locate the leakers.” And that generated a situation where diverse political groups who are sort of vying within his office could attempt to depict individuals they didn’t prefer as the leakers. Thus, you had Pete Hegseth publicly indicting two close associates and a third leading aide of leaking, of betraying him.
And then how do matters alter following the repercussion from Signal Gate? What transpires at the Defense Department then?
So what informants communicated to me was that in the initial days of this administration, of this tenure, Hegseth arrived with ambition. He was intrigued, he was fascinated, even though he lacked the profound experience of his forerunners. There was sort of an openness to acquire knowledge. And then subsequent to Signal Gate, the attitude was more one of paranoia, dread.
“Instead of attempting to resolve some of the predicaments that Hegseth cited during his confirmation…the department ceased being inventive, and it commenced being just a mechanism for enacting executive decrees.”
His confided circle became considerably smaller. You perceived, sort of strangely, his wife was routinely in the office issuing directives to the public relations branch of the department. His brother arrived, his personal attorney. And thus, instead of depending on this deep array of individuals who have been there for an extensive duration, he’s encompassing himself with more of his sort of personal retinue.
It appears as though he might be seeking individuals who won’t deceive him.
Yes. And the apprehension genuinely, I would state it influenced the aspirations that everyone maintained for the department. Rather than endeavoring to resolve some of the issues that Hegseth mentioned during his affirmation — elements he might have been keen about reforming earlier, as someone described it to me — the department ceased being inventive, and it commenced being merely a mechanism for enacting executive decrees.
In other words, he was simply sort of awaiting Trump to instruct him regarding what to undertake.
Hegseth isn’t an ideological figure. This is something that informants intimate to him underscored. He previously possessed a more interventionist mentality. He authored multiple books regarding how we ought to have remained in Iraq for a longer period. And as soon as he entered this administration, he commenced echoing some of these more isolationist viewpoints. He’s an individual who’s amenable to shift his ideology contingent on whom he might be addressing, and I believe that’s notably beneficial to someone who might desire Hegseth to adhere to questionable orders.
This isn’t an individual who’s going to possess a red boundary, since he is not someone who harbors robust notions regarding what the military ought to be executing. Therefore, if Hegseth’s robust jaw is ultimately what secured him this function, what’s retaining him in the position is his demonstrated allegiance to the powerful individual at the apex. I consider he is present since Donald Trump trusts that when Donald Trump summons Pete Hegseth to execute something questionable, he is an individual who’s going to obey orders.
“`
Source: vox.com
