Hegseth reposts video on social media featuring pastors saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote
The extraordinary repost on X from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, made Thursday night, illustrates his deep and personal connection to a Christian nationalist pastor with extreme views on the role of religion and women.
In the post, Hegseth commented on an almost seven-minute-long report by CNN examining Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or CREC. The report featured a pastor from Wilson's church advocating the repeal of women's right to vote from the Constitution, and another pastor saying that in his ideal world, people would vote as households. It also featured a female congregant saying that she submits to her husband.
'All of Christ for All of Life,' Hegseth wrote in his post that accompanied the video.
Hegseth's post received more than 12,000 likes and 2,000 shares on X. Some users agreed with the pastors in the video, while others expressed alarm at the defense secretary promoting Christian nationalist ideas.
Doug Pagitt, pastor and executive director of the progressive evangelical organization Vote Common Good, said the ideas in the video are views that 'small fringes of Christians keep' and said it was 'very disturbing' that Hegseth would amplify them.
Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell told The Associated Press on Friday that Hegseth is 'a proud member of a church' that is affiliated with CREC and he 'very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson's writings and teachings.'
In May, Hegseth invited his personal pastor, Brooks Potteiger, to the Pentagon to lead the first of several Christian prayer services that Hegseth has held inside the government building during working hours. Defense Department employees and service members said they received invitations to the event in their government emails.
'I'd like to see the nation be a Christian nation, and I'd like to see the world be a Christian world,' Wilson said in the CNN report.
___
AP journalists Mike Pesoli in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Burchett on Alaska summit: Putin ‘knows he needs to get to the table'
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) weighed in on the upcoming meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Trump, suggesting it shows Putin may be ready to enter peace talks. Burchett, in a Friday evening appearance on NewsNation's 'The Hill,' pointed to a pressing timeline for Moscow to act on ceasefire negotiations to back up his comments. Trump has threatened to increase sanctions on Russia and allies that purchase its energy if a deal is not reached soon — though some have questioned the delay. 'What Trump is doing right now with this energy sector and other areas, it's unleashing America's excellence,' he told guest host Chris Stirewalt. 'And these people know that we can collapse them.' 'When we start exporting energy like we did prior to it, he can control these world markets and he can shut those countries down, Russia included,' the Tennessee Republican added. 'And I think Putin knows that, and he knows he needs to get to the table.' Trump and Putin are slated to meet in Alaska on Aug. 15 to discuss conditions needed to end the more than three-year-long war in Eastern Europe. The president has proposed a territory swap between the warning nations as part of negotiations. 'We're going to get some back, and we're going to get some switched,' Trump told reporters Friday. 'There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky rebuked the idea, arguing that Kyiv should not be excluded from the negotiating table, as his approval would also be needed for any ceasefire deal. 'The Ukrainian people deserve peace… Ukrainians will not give their land to an occupier,' Zelensky said in a Saturday video message posted to Telegram. 'Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace,' he continued. 'They will bring nothing. These are dead decisions; they will never work.' While Burchett and defense hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have supported the president's decision to meet with the Kremlin leader, other experts claim it will give Putin the edge. 'I have a feeling this is sliding very quickly in Russia's direction,' former national security adviser John Bolton said Friday during a CNN appearance on 'The Source.' 'We're not quite back at February the 28th, in the Oval Office, when Trump told [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, 'You don't have any cards.' But what's happening is that Russia and the United States are discussing what terms they're going to present to Zelensky, and it may well be that Zelensky has no choice here,' he told host Kaitlain Collins. Bolton added, 'Surrendering is always one way to get a peace deal.'
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
A Trump-Putin Summit Is Set. Here's What You Need to Know
President Donald Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, marking the first time the leaders of the two countries have held talks since 2021. Trump claimed the conflict 'could be solved very soon' as he announced the summit at the White House on Friday, on the deadline Trump had imposed on Putin to finalize a peace deal or face potential financial penalties. But the prospect of the negotiations succeeding was quickly thrown into doubt after Trump suggested that Ukraine would have to cede territory to Russia as part of any peace deal. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quickly and pointedly rejected any potential deal that would involve handing over Ukrainian territory. 'The answer to Ukraine's territorial question is already in the constitution of Ukraine,' he said in a Saturday video statement on Telegram. 'Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier.' Trump vowed to broker a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine within the first 24 hours of his second presidential term, and has previously expressed disappointment at Russia's lack of movement towards peace as he continuously moves the ceasefire deadline forward. Friday's meeting will be the first time two sitting U.S. and Russian presidents have met since 2021—when then-President Joe Biden met the Russian leader in Geneva—and the first time Putin and Trump have met since 2019. It is also the first time in a decade that Putin has set foot in the U.S. Yury Ushakov, a Kremlin presidential aide, told CNN that Trump has already been invited to a follow-up meeting in Russia. Here's what to know about the upcoming meeting in Alaska. Both Trump and Putin want Ukraine to give up land The success of a ceasefire deal hinges on Trump's ability to convince Ukraine to agree to Putin's list of demands, which involves Kyiv giving up large parts of its territory. 'We're going to get some back, and we're going to get some switched,' the President said Friday at the White House. 'There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.' The Trump Administration has long argued that Ukraine would have to give up land in exchange for peace. Speaking in March this year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it would be 'very difficult for Ukraine in any reasonable time period to sort of force the Russians back all the way to where they were in 2014,' and called for Kyiv to make 'concessions' to achieve peace. Russian officials have reportedly presented U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff with a list of ceasefire demands that include Ukraine giving up the eastern Donbas region, most of which is already occupied by Russia, as well as Crimea, according to CNN. (The latter was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, but was later illegally annexed by Russia in 2014.) Trump has not publicly confirmed the details of the potential deal, but Zelensky has outright rejected the notion that the country would allow Russia to take over any of its territory and spoken out against the idea of facilitating peace talks without the presence of Ukraine. 'Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace. They will bring nothing,' Zelensky said in his video address. Foreign Minister David Lammy and Vice President J.D. Vance are due to meet Ukrainian and European leaders in the U.K. on Saturday to discuss the peace negotiations, a British spokesperson told Reuters. Thus far, Trump has not publicly remarked on Zelensky's stance on the upcoming Alaska meeting. But the President previously criticized Zelensky for being stubborn in his position for a ceasefire deal and claimed he is 'not ready for peace.' Ukraine appears to have the backing of the European Union. French President Emmanuel Macron, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer all spoke with Zelensky on Saturday to share their support for Ukrainian sovereignty and the end of the war. 'The Russians still refuse to stop the killings, still invest in the war, and still push the idea of 'exchanging' Ukrainian territory for Ukrainian territory, with consequences that guarantee nothing except more favorable positions for Russia to resume the war,' Zelensky said on X. 'All our steps must bring us closer to a real end to the war, not its reconfiguration.' But Putin wants more than land The Kremlin's demands extend beyond a desire for land. As part of any agreement, Putin has reportedly called for Ukraine to give up its quest to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a European and North American alliance of which the United States is a founding member. A similar demand was made by Russia in June last year during that round of peace negotiations. NATO has been a strong supporter of Ukraine, supplying the smaller country with billions in military aid, weapons, and ammunition. Ukraine has been approved for NATO membership and is currently a 'partner country.' Other former Soviet republics, including Georgia and Moldova, would also be affected by the peace deal pledge. The Kremlin also asked for the lifting of Western sanctions, protection for Russian speakers in Ukraine, and a resolution to unfreeze the $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets that are currently being held in Europe, Reuters reports. The funds were frozen after the U.S. and other countries banned transactions with Russia's central bank after the country invaded Ukraine in 2022. Alaska is significant The decision to hold a summit in Alaska has been criticized in part by some officials who are wary of welcoming Putin to the U.S. Former Trump national security advisor John Bolton denounced the meeting. 'This is not quite as bad as Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David to talk about the peace negotiations in Afghanistan, but it certainly reminds one of that, Bolton told CNN. 'The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow. So, the initial setup, I think, is a great victory for Putin,' he added. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said that while she saw the summit as a chance to 'forge meaningful agreements.' She was also 'wary of Putin and his regime. 'I hope these discussions lead to genuine progress and help end the war on equitable terms,' she said in a post on X. The 'Last Frontier' state is also of historic significance to Russia, which sold the territory to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million, despite its interest in the region's wealth of natural resources. The deal marked an end to Russian presence in North America. Some Russian nationalists have reportedly called for the return of Alaska to Russia, experts say. 'Trump has chosen to host Putin in a part of the former Russian Empire. Wonder if he knows that Russian nationalists claim that losing Alaska, like Ukraine, was a raw deal for Moscow that needs to be corrected,' wrote Stanford University political science professor Michael McFaul on X. In 2022, a billboard stating 'Alaska is Ours,' was seen in the Russian town of Krasnoyarsk. Local officials then told the press that the billboard was part of a 'private initiative.' Meanwhile, Russia has remained firm in its military campaign against Ukraine despite such international pressure. Over the weekend, Russian drones continued their attacks on Ukraine, launching more than 45 drone strikes across Ukraine. At least two people died and another six were injured after a strike hit a minibus.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
The Dred Scott Dissent Lincoln Loved
A few weeks ago, I wrote a column that included a brief discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 case that both invalidated the Missouri Compromise and closed the door to Black citizenship in the United States — until it was effectively overturned by the outcome of the Civil War and officially overturned by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. To write about Dred Scott meant I had to read — that is, reread — Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion for the court, in which he tried to root his anti-Black constitutional vision in the nation's history. And while I did not write about it in the column, I also read the major dissent in the case, written by Justice Benjamin Curtis. Curtis had a tumultuous time on the court. Nominated by President Millard Fillmore in 1851 to replace Levi Woodbury, the 41-year-old Curtis was the first and only Whig appointee to the court. A Boston-based litigator and one-time state legislator, Curtis came to Washington with a stamp of approval from none other than Daniel Webster. Curtis made an immediate mark on the court with his majority opinion in Cooley v. Board of Wardens, in which he charted a middle course between two opposing views of the Commerce Clause. The case, which concerned a Pennsylvania law that levied a fine on vessels entering the Philadelphia harbor without a local pilot, asked whether the Commerce Clause gave Congress exclusive authority over interstate commerce — precluding any state action whatsoever — or whether states could pass laws affecting interstate commerce as long as they did not conflict with existing federal statutes. Curtis's solution was to split the difference. 'Whatever subjects of this power are in their nature national, or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation, may justly be said to be of such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by Congress,' he wrote. But when the subject is 'local and not national' regulation, it 'should be left to the legislation of the states' until 'Congress should find it necessary to exert its power.' Although, as the legal scholar Alison LaCroix notes in 'The Interbellum Constitution,' it would prove difficult to draw the line between the local and the national on questions of commerce, Curtis's opinion would stand with John Marshall's in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) as one of the defining Commerce Clause decisions of the 19th century. It was with this success to his name that Curtis leaped into the dispute over Dred Scott's status as a free man and citizen. He was one of two justices, along with John McLean of Ohio, who wanted to resolve the case in favor of Scott's claim to citizenship and in support of the idea that Congress had the power to regulate slavery in the territories. The majority of the court joined Taney's opinion rejecting Scott's claim to freedom, writing Black Americans out of the national community and invalidating the Missouri Compromise of 1820 because of its attempt to limit the introduction of slavery to the territories. But Curtis's dissent was not some stray afterthought. Just the opposite: It was a comprehensive attack on Taney's theory of the case, and it moved the public debate in the wake of its publication. Both the Republican Party and the antislavery press seized on Curtis's opinion in its attacks on Taney, and Abraham Lincoln, in a speech that summer in Springfield, Ill., relied on the dissent to rebuff Stephen Douglas's view that the Declaration of Independence 'referred to the white race alone.' Curtis begins by taking aim at Taney's decision to rule on Scott's claim to citizenship and the question of the Missouri Compromise. Neither issue, he argued, was 'legitimately' before the court and neither was 'within the scope of the judicial power of the majority of the court' to decide. In Curtis's view, the sole judgment of the court was that 'the case is to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction' because Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. Everything beyond this was not relevant to the case itself and, in Curtis's view, not binding law. You'll note that other political actors picked up on this move. Lincoln, for instance, insisted that the court had not actually settled the question. 'We think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous,' he said in Springfield. 'We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this.' Having criticized Taney and the majority's decision to decide extraneous questions of constitutional law, Curtis makes the most important argument of his dissent: that Taney is wrong on the facts of citizenship. Asking 'whether any person of African descent, whose ancestors were sold as slaves in the United States, can be a citizen of the United States,' Curtis answered in the affirmative. He pointed out that five states — New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina — recognized free Black Americans as citizens under the Articles of Confederation. He noted that these states also permitted free Blacks to vote, which he viewed as 'decisive evidence of citizenship.' Curtis then asks whether the federal Constitution, which superseded the Articles, deprived either those free Blacks or their descendants of citizenship. He notes that the language, 'a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,' would appear to be inclusive of free Backs. And so, he concludes, I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore [on its own], deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native-born citizens of any State after its adoption, nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States. The idea that the Constitution was somehow made 'exclusively for the white race,' Curtis writes, was 'not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity.' As for Taney's claim that the founders did not mean to include Black Americans in the Declaration of Independence, Curtis thought this was wrong as well. My own opinion is that a calm comparison of these assertions of universal abstract truths, and of their own individual opinions and acts, would not leave these men under any reproach of inconsistency; that the great truths they asserted on that solemn occasion, they were ready and anxious to make effectual, wherever a necessary regard to circumstances, which no statesman can disregard without producing more evil than good, would allow; and that it would not be just to them, nor true in itself, to allege that they intended to say that the Creator of all men had endowed the white race, exclusively, with the great natural rights which the Declaration of Independence asserts. Now, Curtis did not hold the expansive view of American citizenship that Republicans would codify into the Constitution after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment. He did not think that birth automatically made one a citizen of the United States; like many jurists of his generation, he thought that state citizenship governed national citizenship. It was his view that 'it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.' States could deny citizenship to whomever they liked, Curtis argued. States could also determine what rights a person had within their borders. In his view, the only thing the Constitution required, with its 'privileges and immunities' clause, was that states treat the citizens of other states no worse than their own. And yet, even with its highly limited vision of citizenship — one that still allowed for a great deal of exclusion and disenfranchisement — Curtis's dissent still stood out for his strong and explicit repudiation of both racial qualifications for citizenship and racial distinctions in citizenship. 'Color,' he wrote, 'is not a necessary qualification for citizenship under the Constitution of the United States.' I mentioned earlier that Curtis had a tumultuous time on the Supreme Court, and it had everything to do with this dissent. Soon after the court announced its decision according to one source, Curtis sent a copy of his dissent to a Boston newspaper, where it was read and published before the release of the other opinions, including Taney's. The chief justice was infuriated by this and went on to revise his opinion in response to Curtis's dissent. This also began a period of bitter antagonism between the two men, which led to Curtis leaving the court later that year, in September. Benjamin Curtis was neither an abolitionist nor a great egalitarian. He was, in most respects, a man of his time, which makes it all the more striking that he could see a truth that some Americans, in our time, are eager to deny: Our Constitution, and our political community, includes nothing less than the whole people. What I Wrote I haven't sent a newsletter in a few weeks, so here are my two most recent columns. I closed out July with a piece on the antebellum echoes of Vice President JD Vance's vision of American citizenship and American identity: Vance sees the egalitarian ideals of our founding documents but says, as Taney did, that we must look elsewhere for our vision of American citizenship. And that elsewhere is your heritage — your connection to the soil and to the dead. And this week, I wrote about the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, whether or not it survives the machinations of this Supreme Court. If by American democracy we mean a pluralistic, multiracial society of political and social equals, then American democracy as we know it began with the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 60 years ago today. I also joined my colleagues on a few episodes of The Opinions podcast: one with Michelle Cottle and Michelle Goldberg, as well as one with Cottle and Steve Rattner. Now Reading Nicole Hemmer on the heterodox 'free speech' movement as a right-wing political project for Boston Review. Samantha Hancox-Li on hierarchy, conservative ideology and sexual abuse for Liberal Currents. Marisa Kabas on the starvation in Gaza for The Handbasket. M.Z. Adnan on Sakir Khader's photos of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank for The New Yorker. Jackson Lears on the legacy of the war on terror for The London Review of Books. Photos of the Week I have two for you this weekend. First, a photo of a derelict hotel on Afton Mountain outside Waynesboro, Va. And second, a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge that I took during a brief stay in New York. Now Eating: Sweet and Spicy Summer Fruit Salad I have no comment other than that this is delicious. A perfect showcase for summer fruit and produce. The recipe comes from New York Times Cooking. Ingredients 2 tablespoons mild-tasting olive oil 1 ½ tablespoons store-bought or homemade chile crisp 1 tablespoon red wine vinegar 1 tablespoon sugar 1 ½ pounds stone fruit, such as plums, pluots, cherries, nectarines or peaches, or a combination 10 ounces cherry tomatoes Salt ¾ cup basil leaves, lightly packed Directions In a large bowl, whisk together the oil, chile crisp, vinegar and sugar. Pit the stone fruit and cut the larger fruit into ½-inch wedges, then cut each wedge into ½-inch pieces. Halve the cherries, if using. Place the fruit in the vinaigrette bowl. Cut the tomatoes in half, add to the bowl, season with salt and toss very well. Taste and adjust vinaigrette seasonings as desired. (This salad can be made up to a day ahead and stored in an airtight container in the fridge.) When ready to serve, cut or tear the basil into small pieces, add to the bowl and toss everything well to combine.
