‘A Tremendous Boon’: Trump’s Sec Def Pick Will Give Pentagon Its First Real Wake Up Call In Decades

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to tap Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense has sent corporate media and the wider defense establishment into a tailspin, with critics taking aim at the veteran’s lack of policy-making experience. Yet, national security experts argue that Hegseth could bring much-needed change to a Pentagon that has lost its way.

Trump announced Tuesday evening that Hegseth would be taking over the nation’s top defense role, touting him as “tough, smart and a true believer in America First.” Hegseth will face a series of challenges that started under the Biden-Harris administration’s tenure, including a recruiting and retention crisis, weapons stockpile shortages, hot-button left-wing policies and two global wars that have dragged in the U.S.

“He wasn’t on my bingo card, but I just finished his book and was incredibly impressed by what he had to say,” Morgan Murphy, former Pentagon press secretary and national security adviser to Sen. Tommy Tuberville, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I think it’s a really good pick by the president.”

Hegseth is in lockstep with Trump’s “America First” approach, having vocalized his rejection of neoconservatism while also not appearing to be in favor of isolationism, either. Hegseth also spoke on the Shawn Ryan show in an interview published on Nov. 7 about the need to strip the Pentagon and military of left-wing policies that some argue have hindered the military’s readiness.

Many corporate media outlets reacted with shock at Hegseth being tapped to head the Pentagon. A number of officials and defense insiders who spoke to some outlets expressed outrage at the choice, arguing that Trump should have picked a Washington establishment figure for the role.

“Who the fuck is this guy?” a defense lobbyist, who has hoping for “someone who actually has an extensive background in defense,” told Politico.

“Folks are shocked,” one current DOD official told the outlet. “He’s just a Fox News personality that’s never worked in the government.”

Democratic lawmakers, too, have raced to cast doubt on Hegseth, voicing similar criticism.

“There is reason for concern that this is not a person who is a serious enough policymaker, serious enough policy implementer, to do a successful job,” Democratic Washington Rep. Adam Smith told The Associated Press.

Yet some people well versed in the national security and foreign affairs world feel differently; though Hegseth’s appointment was a surprise, it could be just what the Pentagon needs right now.

“Hegseth understands the needs of our service members and is committed to refocusing on readiness and core defense priorities, which will help address some recent challenges within the Department of Defense,” former senior Pentagon official Simone Ledeen told the DCNF.

A Princeton graduate, Hegseth joined the military in the early 2000s, serving in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, and was an infantry platoon leader. He has also been active in veterans affairs, having worked for Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America in the late 2000s through the mid-2010s.

“He has personally fought in the wars that Washington has signed the nation up for, in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Murphy said. “When I look at his resume, that’s what jumps out at me … when you have been a guest of your government in our foreign interventions, I think it gives a perspective that we have not had from a secretary of defense in a long time.”

The ultimate cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is estimated to be between $4 and $6 trillion, with both conflicts resulting in over 7,000 U.S. servicemember deaths and countless others wounded. Further, 13 U.S. servicemembers died during the botched Biden-Harris Afghanistan withdrawal, which initially left thousands of Americans stranded. Around $7 billion in U.S. military equipment was also left behind, ending up in the hands of the Taliban.

Hegseth joined Fox News in 2014 and has been with the network since. He was interviewed by Trump at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Tuesday and was chosen for the role on the same day, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

Hegseth has publicly voiced his strong belief in conservatism, especially when it comes to national security affairs.

“[Hegseth]” will be an amazing leader,” former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell wrote in a postto X on Tuesday. “He loves America and wants to protect her.”

The incoming defense secretary will inherit a number of challenges plaguing the Biden-Harris administration, including the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Middle East conflicts. He will also deal with the growing threat from China, which has become increasingly hostile to the U.S. and is rapidly expanding its military.

During an interview with Shawn Ryan last week, Hegseth also raised the issue of the ongoing recruiting and retention crisis in the military. Several branches of the military under the Biden administration have missed their recruiting goals in recent years, prompting the Pentagon to lower some standards to boost enlistment.

That’s an area where Hegseth is likely to fare better than Austin, Murphy told the DCNF.

“It’s going to be, I think, a tremendous boon to recruiting to have a secretary who has served,” Murphy said.

This is my next Secretary of Defense and he’s going to start by firing everyone responsible for pushing woke ideology in the military — and I cannot wait.pic.twitter.com/6uXV3kbySv

— Marina Medvin (@MarinaMedvin) November 13, 2024

Hegseth is also likely to address a number of policies that the Biden administration and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have embraced in recent years.

Austin has overseen the implementation of several left-wing initiatives at the Pentagon. For example, the military has established diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) quotas for recruiting and retention. In another example, the DCNF previously learned that the Air Force set a “goal” to reduce the white population in a key recruiting program while setting specific targets for other races.

Austin also established a policy where the Pentagon reimburses servicemembers for travel fees if they have to go to another state to get an abortion.

Trump is already quickly filling spots in his cabinet and administration. The president-elect has selected Tulsi Gabbard to head national intelligence, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, adviser Susie Wiles as White House chief of staff, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz to serve as his national security adviser, Tom Homan as “border czar,” North Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as Department of Homeland Security secretary and John Ratcliffe as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director.

Republican Florida Sen. Marco was also confirmed Wednesday to be Trump’s pick for secretary of state.

Those picks are a major shift from Biden’s current officials. Hegseth will replace Austin; Wiles will take over from Jeff Zients; Waltz is set to take over from Jake Sullivan; Noem will replace Alejandro Mayorkas; Stefanik will take over from Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and Ratcliffe will fill Bill Burns’ role. Rubio is slated to replace Antony Blinken.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #DonaldTrump #JakeSmith PeteHegseth USSecretaryOfDefense

Up Next

Bad ideology makes Canada’s EV investment a bad idea

Don't Miss

Canadians should expect even more spending in federal fall economic statement

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump: “I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!”

Energy / 2 hours ago

The Carney Government is Hijacking the Phase “Energy Superpower” to Advance Their Agenda

Alberta / 2 hours ago

‘Weird and wonderful’ wells are boosting oil production in Alberta and Saskatchewan

Daily Caller

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Anthony Iafrate

Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.

The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”

“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.

“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.

“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.

WATCH:

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.

Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”

“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”

“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.

“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.

Daily Caller

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Alan M. Dershowitz

If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.

A few conclusions are fairly clear:

First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.

Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.

Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”

Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.

The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.

How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?

In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.

So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.

However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.

And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”

Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”

The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.

The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either

The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?

Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.

Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?

These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.

The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.

“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.

Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.