Senate Armed Services Committee grills Pete Hegseth on fitness, views and management at confirmation hearing

Chairman Roger Wicker convened the Senate Armed Services Committee to consider the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense, opening the hearing by saying, "If confirmed, mister Pete Hegseth would assume the role in a moment of consequence." The hearing, which included lengthy questioning by members of both parties, centered on Hegseth's leadership record, public statements about diversity and women in combat, his writings on the law of armed conflict, and questions about his management of veterans organizations.

The core political argument at the hearing was immediate and framed by the committee's two senior members. "I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job," Ranking Member Senator Jack Reed told the nominee, citing public reports and writings that Reed said raised concerns about judgment, management and respect for the law of war. Chairman Wicker and Republican supporters, including former Senator Norm Coleman and Rep. Mike Waltz (introducing on behalf of the nominee), emphasized Hegseth's combat service and presented him as a reformer prepared to restore what they described as a "warrior ethos" and fix acquisition and readiness problems.

Hegseth framed his priorities in his opening statement as restoring "the warrior ethos," rebuilding the force and industrial base, and reestablishing deterrence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. He pledged oversight cooperation to the committee and said he would "stand up for the truth and for my reputation" in response to media reports and anonymous accusations about his past.

Why the hearing mattered: Senators probed whether Hegseth's public record and private conduct — including written positions that critics say question the applicability of international law in some battlefield circumstances, and his past management of two veterans' nonprofits — make him suitable to lead a department with roughly 3,000,000 personnel and an annual budget the committee described as "nearly $900,000,000,000." Members from both parties said the secretary of defense must be able to manage large, technical programs (shipbuilding, nuclear modernization) and protect the force's integrity and discipline.

Major lines of questioning and exchanges

- Conduct, investigations and nondisclosure agreements: Senators repeatedly pressed Hegseth about allegations of alcohol misuse and an incident described in 2017 that led to a confidential settlement and nondisclosure claims. Hegseth repeatedly called some reports "false claims" and said he had been investigated and "completely cleared," while senators said records and public reporting raised unresolved questions.

- Management of veterans groups and financial stewardship: Ranking Member Reed and Senator Richard Blumenthal reviewed publicly available tax filings and news reports about Hegseth's leadership of Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, noting multiyear deficits and donor concerns. Hegseth defended the organizations' missions and said donors set tight budgets that constrained operations; supporters submitted letters attesting to his stewardship.

- Views on women in combat and DEI: Senators asked Hegseth to explain repeated statements he has made over more than a decade. The nominee acknowledged earlier comments and told the committee that his concern has been about maintaining high, objective standards for physically demanding ground combat roles rather than excluding women as a category. As Senator Jeanne Shaheen quoted a prior comment, she noted that Hegseth had said on a 2024 podcast, "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles." Hegseth told members he supports service members who meet objective standards and said he would review standards "in a gender neutral way" to ensure readiness and meritocracy.

- Law of armed conflict / interrogation and pardons: Senators cited passages from Hegseth's writings asking whether he would uphold the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law. Reed read from Hegseth's book, quoting, "should we follow the Geneva Convention? ... Aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules?" Hegseth said he would not disavow U.S. obligations under law but argued operationally that overly restrictive rules of engagement hampered war fighters; he said he defaults to the judgment of front-line personnel while acknowledging legal frameworks must be respected.

- Acquisition, innovation and audits: Committee members pressed Hegseth on plans to speed acquisition and revive the defense industrial base. He expressed support for cutting bureaucratic barriers, leveraging commercial technology and using tools such as the Defense Production Act. Several senators pressed for specifics on how he would deliver an audit-ready department; Hegseth said passing an audit would be a top priority and that he would hire capable leaders to implement it.

- Deterrence, China and nuclear modernization: Senators including Cynthia Lummis and Joni Ernst focused on nuclear deterrence and Indo-Pacific priorities. Hegseth said he supports modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, would review the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and would execute programs "according to law" while seeking a direct, capability-based assessment of threats from China and Russia.

Committee process and documents: Several members asked that background materials — including an FBI background investigative report and a forensic audit referenced in public reporting about Hegseth's nonprofit tenure — be made available under committee precedent. Chairman Wicker said he intended to follow prior practice of allowing the chair and ranking member to see sensitive background material, and members placed a number of letters and supporting documents into the hearing record.

What was decided and next steps: The hearing produced no votes. Senators reserved additional questions for the record and asked that the committee hold the record open for further submissions and a possible second round of questioning; Chairman Wicker said the committee would follow the bipartisan staff agreement for recognition and would set a short timeframe for questions for the record.

Context and background

Testimony and statements at the hearing reflected deep partisan division about the type of civilian leadership the Pentagon needs: supporters argue Hegseth would emphasize lethality, streamline acquisition and restore morale; critics argue his writings and past conduct raise doubts about impartial enforcement of law and professional standards and about whether he has the management experience to run a vast department and oversee complex programs.

Ending

The committee adjourned after nearly the full panel questioned the nominee and placed dozens of documents into the record. No formal action was taken at the hearing itself; senators said follow-up questions and documentary requests would determine whether the committee advances the nomination to a committee vote.