Why Pete Hegseth Is The Right Man To Run The Pentagon

President-Elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense has sparked predictable criticism, largely centered on claims of inexperience and unpreparedness — entirely from the experts who have been wrong about everything in the defense and foreign policy realm for the past 20 years.

Yet a careful review of Hegseth’s background, paired with historical context and the challenges facing the Department of Defense, demonstrates that he is not only qualified but also uniquely positioned to lead in a time when bold, reform-minded leadership is desperately needed.

Hegseth’s Strong Foundations

Hegseth’s critics often argue that he lacks the management credentials traditionally associated with the role of secretary of defense. However, this perspective fails to recognize the multidimensional nature of Hegseth’s career. Over 21 years of service in the Army and Army National Guard, he demonstrated battlefield leadership, earning two Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. His hands-on command experience, involving decisions in life-and-death situations, surpasses the theoretical and left-leaning academic military knowledge that some past secretaries brought to the role.

Additionally, Hegseth’s executive leadership as CEO of Concerned Veterans for America provides a critical counterpoint to claims of inexperience. During his tenure, he managed a $16 million budget and expanded the organization’s influence significantly, showcasing his ability to lead and grow complex institutions. This dual perspective — as a combat leader and as an executive — gives him a depth of understanding that uniquely prepares him for the demands of running the Pentagon.

The Historical Precedent: Comparing to Les Aspin

To truly evaluate Hegseth’s qualifications, consider the case of Les Aspin, President Bill Clinton’s first secretary of defense. Aspin, an Ivy League graduate with a Ph.D. from MIT, was an intellectual and seasoned legislator. Aspin was an Army officer for two years — a captain with a tour in the Pentagon. Yet his leadership experience was minimal, primarily confined to his time as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

The Senate unanimously confirmed Aspin by a voice vote on the Clinton administration’s first full day in office.

Despite his theoretical knowledge, Aspin’s tenure is remembered for the disastrous Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. When military commanders urgently requested tanks and AC-130 gunships to support U.S. forces in Mogadishu, Aspin denied the request. The result was a deadly battle that cost the lives of 18 American soldiers, a failure that ultimately led to his resignation.

Hegseth’s record offers a stark contrast. Unlike Aspin, he has direct combat leadership experience and a demonstrated capacity for organizational management. These qualities not only bolster his ability to make informed decisions but also provide the practical perspective necessary to avoid the kinds of missteps that marred Aspin’s tenure.

Reforming the Pentagon

The Department of Defense faces profound challenges today, from bureaucratic inefficiencies to cultural drift. In this, Hegseth’s vision aligns with President-elect Trump’s: The Pentagon must focus on warfighting. While critics of the nomination often dismiss him as a polarizing figure, his career has consistently demonstrated a commitment to revitalizing America’s armed forces.

Hegseth has been a vocal advocate for addressing the root causes of declining recruitment and morale, such as the over-politicization of military policies. His critique of waste and inefficiency in the Pentagon reflects a perspective that prioritizes accountability and results over maintaining the status quo.

A Reform-Minded Nominee for a Critical Era

Where Hegseth truly distinguishes himself is in his willingness to challenge the received wisdom of the status quo. Leaders who are too embedded in the system, or too comfortable with incrementalism, risk perpetuating inefficiencies that hinder the armed forces’ ability to respond to emerging threats. The People’s Republic of China won’t wait for us to get our act together on a leisurely timeline.

Hegseth’s record indicates that he would be unafraid to push for the reforms necessary to streamline military leadership and improve overall effectiveness. His focus on combat readiness and merit-based leadership is precisely the kind of warrior-thinking approach that the Department of Defense needs to maintain its global preeminence.

Hegseth’s nomination also represents a broader statement by President-elect Trump about his administration’s priorities. In nominating Hegseth, Trump has chosen someone who is unafraid to challenge the military-industrial complex and advocate for fundamental changes. Hegseth has attracted opposition because the opposition is afraid.

Yet this opposition, much of it coming from individuals and institutions that have been consistently wrong about major defense and foreign policy decisions, is hardly disqualifying. If anything, it underscores Hegseth’s necessity.

A Nomination Worth Supporting

Trump’s nomination of Hegseth is about disrupting business-as-usual at the Pentagon. It is about ushering in a new era of accountability, effectiveness, and a single-minded focus on lethality. His combat experience, executive leadership, and commitment to reform make him a compelling choice for secretary of defense.