In a New York Times op-ed published on Friday, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel expressed serious concerns regarding President-elect Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth for the role of Secretary of Defense.
Hagel emphasized that the foundation of the military is built on political independence and ethical standards. He warned that compromising these principles by politicizing the Department of Defense could irreversibly change the nature of the military, jeopardizing its effectiveness.
He also criticized Trump’s proposal to use “recess appointments,” a process that would allow nominees to bypass the usual public hearings and background checks.
Hagel warns against politicizing the military under Hegseth’s potential leadership
Hagel argued that Hegseth, like all nominees, should undergo a thorough and transparent confirmation process. The selection of Hegseth, who has little military experience but is a well-known Fox News host, has already sparked backlash from lawmakers.
Some have raised concerns that Hegseth might blindly follow Trump’s agenda, including the controversial idea from the campaign trail of using military force against American citizens.
Reports have suggested that Trump might issue an executive order to create a “warrior board,” a group of retired generals and noncommissioned officers with the authority to review and potentially dismiss high-ranking officers who do not meet political standards.
Hagel described this proposal as “dangerous,” warning that it undermines the integrity of one of the world’s most respected and apolitical military institutions. He argued that such a move could discourage potential recruits, especially as the military already faces challenges in recruitment and retention.
In his view, the politicization of military leadership could have far-reaching effects, altering the character and structure of the armed forces in ways that would harm the nation’s military readiness. Hagel also pointed out that the global ramifications of introducing political influence into the U.S. military would be severe, affecting both allies and adversaries.
He warned that any degradation in the military’s quality and effectiveness would be disastrous for American allies who rely on U.S. strength for their security, while offering significant advantages to adversaries.
