Pete Hegseth, President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, exposed a critical vulnerability to blackmail in a single, damning statement. When asked by Megyn Kelly why he paid a woman accusing him of sexual assault, Hegseth responded, "I paid her because I had to—or at least I thought I did at the time. I had a great job at Fox and a wonderful marriage... It is not what I should have done, but I did it to protect that. I did it to protect my wife, I did it to protect my family, and I did it to protect my job. It was a negotiation purely to try to prevent that."
This admission exemplifies blackmail—coercion through exploitation. It is a serious concern that unequivocally disqualifies Hegseth from leading the Pentagon or holding any national security role under long-established federal policy.
National security regulations have, for decades, been explicit: Individuals susceptible to coercion cannot occupy sensitive positions. Executive Order 10450, signed in 1953 and still in effect, bars individuals with vulnerabilities like blackmail from national security roles. This principle is reinforced by Standard Form 86, a mandatory questionnaire for such positions, which specifically screens for “vulnerability to exploitation and coercion."
Hegseth’s admission aligns directly with these disqualifications. By his own account, he paid off his accuser to protect his personal and professional life. As Secretary of Defense, his responsibilities would be exponentially greater, and his adversaries far more formidable. If he capitulated to blackmail once, what assurance exists that he would not do so again, with potentially grave consequences for national security?
Even if the sexual assault allegations are set aside, Hegseth’s judgment, integrity, and maturity remain in question. He admitted to paying the settlement to shield himself from public scrutiny but failed to disclose this vulnerability to President Trump or his transition team. While a seven-year-old allegation, vehemently denied, may not automatically disqualify a nominee, Hegseth’s concealment of the settlement—prioritizing self-preservation over honesty—is disqualifying.
Further complicating matters are Hegseth’s inconsistent statements about his drinking habits. Last month on The Megyn Kelly Show, he denied ever having a drinking problem, claiming, "No one's ever approached me and said, 'Oh, you should really look at getting help for drinking.'" Yet, in an August 2021 appearance on The Will Cain Show, he admitted to heavy drinking, stating, "I'd look around at 10 o'clock and be like, 'What am I going to do today? How about I drink some beers? How about I go have some lunch and have some beers? How about I meet my one or two buddies and have some beers?'" He continued, "And one beer leads to many, leads to self-medication, leads to 'I've earned this.' Like, 'don't tell me I can't.'" The contradictions suggest either a lack of self-awareness or outright dishonesty.
Hegseth’s defenders argue that his payments to his accuser are no different from President Trump’s nondisclosure agreements. This is a false equivalency. Trump’s agreements did not involve allegations of rape or sexual assault. Hegseth’s settlement stemmed directly from such an accusation, elevating the stakes and rendering the comparison untenable.
Even if all allegations against Hegseth were unfounded, his own mother’s words cast doubt on his character. In a leaked email, she described him as “an abuser of women” and accused him of “belittling, lying, cheating, [and] using women for his own power and ego.” Although she has since disavowed the email, the vivid detail in her accusations cannot be ignored.
Perhaps Hegseth has changed. Maybe his claims of spiritual redemption are genuine. However, personal salvation is distinct from national security. As Secretary of Defense, his susceptibility to blackmail, inconsistent accounts, and questionable judgment present unacceptable risks.
The stakes are too high. The Senate must reject his nomination.
Comments
Post a Comment