There are two versions of Pete Hegseth: the one who appears at press conferences, where brief questions and frequent interruptions allow confidence to be mistaken for competence, and the one who testifies before Congress, where longer questions and quieter pauses eventually demand he try again. The second version is far harder to watch. On Wednesday, before the House, he grew sweaty and angry when lawmakers pressed him on inconvenient issues such as the actual cost of the Iran war, its projected duration, and its effects on national and international economies. At one embarrassing moment, he attempted to shut down a congressman by asking, 'Whose side are you cheering for?!'
Senate Hearing Exposes Lack of Strategy
Today, in the Senate, the tone was different: slower, more probing. Yet Hegseth again came up short. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) opened by stating that President Trump had 'no coherent strategy' when he 'unilaterally' decided to begin a war with Iran. Reed noted that the United States is now 'in a worse strategic position,' with wounded and dead soldiers, significant damage to Middle East bases, expensive losses of bombs and missiles, lowered morale, skyrocketing global gasoline and fertilizer prices, and American families paying for 'a war they have nothing to do with' that does not benefit them. 'I have concerns you have been telling the president what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear,' Reed said, adding that Hegseth had proven himself deeply unserious during the war by 'boasting about no stupid rules of engagement' after accidentally killing dozens of schoolgirls in a missile strike and taking Kid Rock 'for a joyride in an Apache helicopter.'
Hegseth's Bombastic Responses
Hegseth responded with his usual bombast, clutching his emotional support words—'WAR FIGHTERS!' and 'LETHALITY!'—as if they might shield him from logic. He talked about 'great business deals' and repeated his foolish line from the previous day about America's 'biggest adversaries' being unbelieving Democrats and Republicans in Congress, 'defeatists from the cheap seats' who cannot accept that Trump has 'the courage no other president has had.' In other words, he learned nothing from yesterday. He came with his canned lines and was determined to repeat them, regardless of whether they still made sense or had already been publicly proven meaningless.
When asked by Reed why he fired decorated General George, Hegseth talked himself into a hole. He claimed the military is going in a new direction and needs generals 'running in that direction as fast as possible,' but refused to clarify what that direction actually is. Reed suggested it seemed to involve 'an intense interest in Christianity' and 'nationalism.' Hegseth had a Pavlovian response to the mention of Christianity. 'I am not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ, and if you want to shame me for that, go ahead,' he projected loudly, even as Reed calmly assured him he should never be ashamed and that was not the point. 'I've heard the likes of things people like you suggest,' Hegseth continued bafflingly, then refused to answer whether he tolerates other religions. Trying to paint the slow-speaking expert as a crazy zealot did not work. Reed concluded, 'I think that's rhetorical, not factual. Thank you,' a neat summary of Hegseth's subsequent answers.
Budgetary Confusion and Patronizing Exchanges
Pressed by Senator Jeanne Shaheen about why funds earmarked for Ukraine had not actually been used for that purpose, Hegseth talked so ridiculously around the question that Shaheen eventually asked his financial officer to answer. The response: 'We'll get back to you,' which had already been said multiple times during the meeting in response to simple budgetary questions Hegseth and his team should have known.
During an exchange with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Hegseth—who struggles with conversations involving women and seems to have a knee-jerk need to patronize—told her not to read 'whatever you're reading' in the news. When Gillibrand asked, 'Why do you continue to prosecute a war that the American people aren't behind?' Hegseth replied that he did not believe her numbers on US support were real, claiming 'the troops' tell him they are absolutely behind it. When she asked about costs, Hegseth reeled out another canned statement: 'What is the cost of a nuclear armed Iran?!' Gillibrand noted, 'We know this is a rhetorical question you ask everywhere,' adding that 'there is no evidence we are safer because of this war.' Hegseth tried his hype again—'Do you not believe them when they say Death to America?!'—and Gillibrand reminded him of the difference between rhetoric and action. He then pivoted to his 'IT'S ONLY BEEN TWO MONTHS' routine, comparing the war to Iraq and Afghanistan, as if that were reassuring. This is a man who has never heard of protesting too much.
Insider Trading Allegations and Heated Exchanges
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) returned to costs, and Hegseth responded that the real problem is 'the negative nature in which you see' the war. He repeated his absurd allegory about the press being Pharisees and added, 'It's defeatist Democrats like you who cloud the minds of the American people who otherwise would support us!' This seemed to undermine his earlier assertion that the American people do support him.
Most alarmingly, when Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pressed him about possible insider trading around Trump's Iran announcements, Hegseth could only stutter and then announce that he was able to keep Operation Midnight Hammer secret. Warren clearly got under his skin. He sighed, rolled his eyes, and at one point kept shouting, 'Big, fat negative!' in response to her critical questioning. It was a physical manifestation of his apparent belief that he should be above question—especially by women—and that Americans should simply trust his vibes and stop bothering him about every bomb that lands on a girls' school.
A Fundamental Mismatch
Watching Hegseth come under proper scrutiny is like watching Buzz Lightyear realize he is not a real astronaut. At first he comes in fighting, then denial and anger set in. Unfortunately, there is no heartwarming buddy story on the horizon—just more war, more heel-digging, and more insistence that President Trump is the most courageous man on the planet (bone spurs be damned!). Ultimately, this was a case of a fundamental mismatch: senators asked for details and timelines; Hegseth offered only adjectives. The pattern was unmistakable: a question asked, a question avoided, a slogan deployed, a voice raised, and then a quiet yielding of time. Over and over again, until the shape of it became impossible to ignore. The strategy is so perfect that it cannot be elucidated. The president is so beyond reproach that we should not have to explain his decision-making. The war is going so well that nobody should believe what their own eyes and ears are telling them. A lot is riding on the answers that Pete Hegseth cannot give. And behind the exhausting, unrelenting hyperbole, he gave us no cause for confidence today.
