Opinion - Pete Hegseth's confirmation was a massive mistake
Russian Minister of Defense Andrei Belousov, the former minister of Economic Development, has experience aligning his nation's budget with military needs. He launched an unmanned aviation industry that built 18,000 drones. China's minister of National Defense, Admiral Dong Jun, served as commander of the People's Liberation Army Navy and as deputy chief of staff of China's North Sea Fleet. He knows how to interweave various military services to function as a team.
That's called 'jointness,' about which Hegseth knows little. He touted his Army background in the National Guard as a qualification to be secretary of Defense, but just as different cultures, goals and methods divide allies in a coalition, they also divide military branches.
Training and loyalties begin and end with one's unit. Joint military action is critical for today's complex missions, right down to compatible communication software. Hegseth lacks the military experience necessary to prepare joint readiness for 10 years out or for tomorrow.
Readiness requires decisions about force structure and capability — how many divisions, navy vessels, fighter aircraft, bombers and missiles. How many troops, how well trained, how recently, and their familiarity with new equipment. Development and manufacture of new weapons takes five to 10 years and stays in our arsenal up to 40 years.
Former President Jimmy Carter's secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, had a Ph.D. in physics and previously served as U.S. director of Defense Research and Engineering. Brown led development of stealth aircraft, precision-guided bombs and the Polaris missile. He understood why the Soviets wanted to limit the range of those missiles to 600 km past border defenses, because it would the limit would tie America's hands. At the time of SALT II negotiations to limit the range, 53 percent of Americans lived within 600 km (372 miles) of our coastal borders; Moscow lies 700 km from a border.
The range limit of a treaty affects not only strike capability, but also how the U.S. researches, designs and builds weapons. By avoiding Russia's suggested limits, America is able to load multiple missiles on one aircraft with an extended striking range. How can Pete Hegseth, who lacks scientific training, guide future weapon treaties to our advantage?
On the other hand, both Andrei Belousov and Dong Jun, men in their mid-sixties, bring decades of experience developing innovative weapons of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. For the last dozen years, Dong has taught in China's National University of Defense Technology. China's new powerful microwave weapon can impede the electronics in our weapon systems. Like secretaries of Defense before him, Hegseth will need to sit down with China to discuss limiting new weapons' use. He'll need substantial scientific tutorials to ace that task.
The four original Cabinet positions — the secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense and the Attorney General — have always dealt directly with the president. Former Secretary Brown spoke directly to Carter several times a week. What experience will underpin Hegseth's advice to President Trump under threats posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea?
Given Trump's view toward NATO, how will he manage the president's isolationism? NATO has been the bulwark for democratic political systems, an economic resource and the source of significant military contribution. In the western Pacific, Japan and South Korea can help us counter China's vow to thwart Taiwan's independence. Does Hegseth have what it takes to manage conflicting points of view when our national alliances and security are at stake?
Even before he grapples with world problems, Hegseth will face tumult within the Pentagon. Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines compete with one another for money to research and develop new weapons, and for advanced training. Congress directs funds to each of the armed services by name. At the outset, the secretary of Defense must defend his budget choices — including budget cuts — not only to four military commanders but also to individual members of Congress lobbying for funds to benefit their states.
It's a grueling process. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs can be an important budget adviser, mediator and ally in Congress, but Hegseth said he intends to 'fire' the head of the Joint Chiefs, whom he deems too 'woke.' By cutting troops or bases in certain states, Hegseth may find himself besieged by angry Republicans who voted to confirm him. That's before his inbox fills with a tyranny of headlines that usurp his focus from strategic long-range projects.
It's not enough to be smart; it takes wisdom to manage 2.25 million personnel and about the same number of civilian employees — a force far larger than the world's largest private corporation. The secretary worries over short-term needs of troops in battle while formulating long-term programs to ensure American interests in all parts of the world. He must stay informed about any important international or domestic happenings and deal with them best he can.
As a television anchor, Hegseth had only to parrot news stories. A secretary of Defense defuses inaccurate news, advises the president, protects America's ability to sustain its defense, and keeps important long-range projects on track. To this important job, which benefits from multi-faceted management skills and seasoned wisdom, Republicans confirmed a brash, ambitious, historically unwise neophyte.
Joyce Winslow served as a spokesperson for Medicare in the Bush-Cheney administration, and wrote a book with former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, titled 'Star Spangled Security: Applying Lessons Learned Over Six Decades Safeguarding America.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump is wildly unpopular and losing ground fast. Why is anyone afraid of him?
Trump's approval rating in the YouGov polling has tumbled from +3% at the beginning of February to -15% now. He's underwater on every issue Americans care about. While the top issues for most Americans are high prices, inflation and health care, our increasingly unpopular president is laser-focused on things nobody cares about. Like downplaying exhibitions on the history of slavery at the Smithsonian. On the same day a new poll by The Economist/YouGov showed Donald Trump's disapproval rating hitting a new high, the president took time to post this on social media: 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.' How bad slavery was? I'm not quite sure what that implies, but suffice it to say the new poll didn't find 'See less about how slavery was bad' to be a priority for American voters watching the costs of beef and vegetables skyrocket. Americans care about inflation, Trump cares about 'WOKE' museums Trump went on to say he has 'instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums' and start getting rid of 'WOKE,' whatever that means. The Aug. 19 poll and Trump's rambling post about ridding our museums of history create a perfect moment to pose this question: Why is anyone in American politics or in the corporate world afraid of this toxic president? Trump's approval rating in the Economist/YouGov polling has tumbled from +3% at the beginning of February to -15% now. He's underwater on every issue Americans care about, from immigration (53% disapprove) to jobs and the economy (53% disapprove) to inflation (61% disapprove) to foreign trade (56% disapprove). Nearly two-thirds of Americans – two-thirds! – say the country, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, is 'out of control.' Trump is so unpopular that there's no risk in standing up to him So when a public figure who is unpopular comes out and says he wants to scrub all the stuff about 'how bad Slavery was' from America's museums, I think other public figures would be on solid ground if they denounced him. Republicans won't do it, of course. They've spent decades ignoring the needs of their voters, focusing instead on tossing them red meat from the culture wars and assuming that bashing liberals is all that matters. But even in Democratic circles, most continue to go after Trump with kid gloves, with notable exceptions like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. And corporate types are, by and large, either silent or outright supportive of a president liked by fewer and fewer Americans. From a marketing and political strategy standpoint, none of this makes sense. Trump's bullying nature and willingness to use the power of the federal government against his enemies are clearly cowing many, which is pathetic. You don't wait around for an unpopular bully to gather more power. Most Americans don't see US as a dark and dangerous place Think about Trump's anti-immigrant, anti-woke, fearmongering worldview. He has dispatched the National Guard to Washington, DC, to fight a crime wave that doesn't exist. He speaks routinely about big U.S. cities being crime-ridden, trotting out words like 'filth' and 'squalor,' and he demeans Americans who don't stand in lockstep with him. Now consider this question posed in the YouGov poll under 'World View': Which comes closest to your view? The answer 'Our lives are threatened by terrorists, criminals, and illegal immigrants and our priority should be to protect ourselves' was chosen by only 35% of respondents. The answer 'It's a big, beautiful world, mostly full of good people, and we must find a way to embrace each other and not allow ourselves to become isolated' was chosen by 50% of respondents. Corporate leaders only stand to benefit from taking on Trump People aren't buying what Trump is selling. They don't like what he's selling. And they don't like him. There is zero political risk to standing up against this president. There is only upside, and how more haven't realized it yet is beyond me. Powerful people in the business and political worlds, along with everyday Americans, don't have to sit silently and let Trump do what he wants, whether it's militarizing city streets, cruelly rounding up immigrants and forcing them into camps, or purging the evils from America's past to create a fake United States of Righteousness. Opposing him has the benefit of being the moral move and the popular move. The arrow pointing to the right side of history is brighter than the sun. Bending to the will of a wannabe tyrant has never benefited anybody. Standing up and shouting a wannabe tyrant down, on the other hand, is the kind of thing that gets remembered. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at


USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
MSNBC's name change won't help. MS NOW will still peddle the same liberal lies.
MSNBC's new name is the product of a divorce from NBC, but no amount of alimony can save the network from its leftist bias. It might have a new name soon, but it will still be the same nonsense. When I saw that MSNBC is changing its name to MS NOW, which stands for My Source News Opinion World, I had to chuckle. The new acronym is the product of a divorce from NBC, but no amount of alimony can save the news network from its leftist bias. It might have a new name soon, but it will still be the same nonsense. I'm not the only one to see the mainstream media's penchant for obfuscation and gaslighting. "Real Time" host Bill Maher recently made some profound remarks about the media that reinforce what I've seen for years. During his Aug. 15 show on HBO, Maher spoke with a panel of guests about President Donald Trump's meeting earlier that day with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Maher ticked off positive things about Trump, like how effective tariffs have been and how anti-war Trump is. Maher scolds news media about 'zombie lie' Then Maher scolded the media: "But again, let's not have the 'zombie lie' that (Trump) is still backing Putin. Because first of all, he bombed Iran, that was a Putin ally. He didn't get out of NATO. He mended fences with NATO. So, and he put sanctions back on Russia, so, ya know." One of his panelists, County Highway editor-at-large Walter Kirn, remarked, "You're really coming around Bill." "There's no coming around. There's just what's true," Maher said. A zombie lie has been defined as a falsehood that has been repeatedly debunked or proven false, yet continues to be believed and spread, influencing people's thoughts and actions. I can think of several zombie lies that the mainstream media have perpetuated about Trump and conservativism. Take the latest peace talks over Russia's war against Ukraine. Trump didn't persuade Putin on Aug. 15 to agree to a ceasefire, so the meeting was immediately dubbed a failure. Three days later, however, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders to continue discussing how to end a war that has raged for more than three years and that has killed and injured nearly a million for the Russian military and 400,000 for Ukraine. Coverage out of the Aug. 18 meeting was much more positive. So, was Trump's summit with Putin really a failure or was the news media's rush to judgment driven by bias against the president? And has the news media learned nothing from a decade of covering Trump as a political figure? I'd wait before smearing Trump's style of negotiations based on, oh, I don't know, the positive success of the past four months of trade deals and tariffs, but that's me. The 2024 election is another obvious example. In hindsight, we can see that Trump consistently led the presidential race, but thanks to inaccurate polls and partisan news sources who suggested he was behind, the country was flabbergasted when Trump won reelection easily. Trump won all the swing states, the popular vote and the Electoral College, but the tsunami caught the media by surprise because they were so committed to attacking Trump and promoting Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Zombie lies have had serious consequences for the American people and for our nation's image in the world. A Pew Research Center poll released in June found that America's image had declined among dozens of nations amid "low confidence in Trump." Trump's successes have been underreported That poll was published just days before Trump ordered stealth bombers to cripple Iran's nuclear sites, ending the threat of widespread war in the Middle East. Trump also is attempting to broker peace between Israel and Hamas as well as Ukraine and Russia. He forced NATO allies to pay for more of their self-defense. And he's helped negotiate an end to lower profile conflicts involving India and Pakistan and Cambodia and Thailand. On the domestic side, Trump has secured the southern border, the economy is doing better than many expected, stock markets continue to set record highs and in the second quarter, gross domestic product showed healthy growth. Trump has made more progress in seven months than President Joe Biden did in four years. But most news coverage doesn't reflect that reality. And that is why Maher is scolding the media for telling zombie lies. It's also why a name change won't help MSNBC. The network could rebrand 100 times and still not be any more relevant or truthful. Until the zombie lies are finally put to rest, Americans will be fed a skewed perception of what's actually happening. As Maher said, "There's no coming around. There's just what's true." Hear that MS NOW? Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@ and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here.


Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
NATO Scrambles Typhoon Jets Amid Russian Attack on Ukraine
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Two German fighter jets were deployed from Romania overnight amid a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine that struck key Danube River port infrastructure near the NATO frontier. The German Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, stationed at Romania's 57th Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base as part of NATO's Enhanced Air Policing mission, were launched to monitor the aerial situation in the border area with Ukraine, particularly northern Tulcea County, according to Romania's Ministry of National Defense. The jets were airborne during a window in which Ukraine's military reported 93 drones and two ballistic missiles were launched across 20 locations in the country, including the Odesa region. Some drones struck targets in the city of Izmail, adjacent to Romania across the Danube, causing fires and injuring at least one person, Ukrainian authorities said. No Russian aerial vehicles entered Romanian airspace during the mission, and the German jets returned safely to base, landing at 1:10 a.m. local time. FILE - A Eurofighter Typhoon jet performs at Fliegerhorst Wunstorf to take part in an open house day of the Bundeswehr on June 7, 2018 in Wunstorf, Germany. FILE - A Eurofighter Typhoon jet performs at Fliegerhorst Wunstorf to take part in an open house day of the Bundeswehr on June 7, 2018 in Wunstorf, to follow