Editor’s Note: This is part one in a two-part series making the comprehensive case that Secretary Pete Hegseth is deficient as a leader, and that his actions undermine the culture and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Part one addresses Hegseth’s personal conduct. Part two focuses on his influence on people and systems in the Department of Defense, and will be published in the coming weeks.
Civilian control of the military is the foundational principle that the Armed Forces of the United States are ultimately directed by elected civilian leaders accountable to the people, not by military commanders operating on their own authority. It is the mechanism by which a democratic republic ensures that military power serves the nation’s political will and strategic goals, rather than the personal ambitions of individual political or military leaders. The civil-military relationship in the United States is characterized by civilian leaders simultaneously maximizing military subordination and fighting power.
Practically, civilian control means civilians decide policy and ends; the military advises and executes the means. The military stays out of politics. Civilians stay out of purely operational decisions. This relationship protects civilian society from both external enemies and the military itself, as contrasted with non-democratic nations, in which the military is closely integrated with and participates in the political and social system.
In recent history, the most effective Secretaries of Defense from Marshall to Mattis have honored this relationship. However, the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has defied and corrupted this normative civil-military relationship due to a deficit of ethical leadership and a prevalence of toxic leadership.
Leadership studies have revealed the essence of leadership as influence without authority, based on credibility and trust. We follow those who demonstrate selfless intent for the good of others, integrity in keeping commitments, clearly visible capabilities, and a history of dependable performance. Leadership does not involve threats, intimidation, manipulation, or coercion. It involves mutual engagement on purpose, means, and ends. Ethical leadership demonstrates conduct that is consistent with accepted norms through personal actions, interpersonal relationships, and influencing the conduct of followers.
In other words, an ethical leader demonstrates first moral character and moral interaction, and second moral influence of others. In contrast, counterproductive, toxic leadership involves personal conduct and influence characterized by self-interest, inconsistency with values and norms, suspicion, exploitation for personal gain, sabotage of individual and team performance. The personal conduct of Hegseth provides several examples of a deficit of leadership. Let’s examine what this looks like up-close:
Selfish intent. He is implementing a vision of the military organized around a specific cultural and religious traditionalism rather than pluralism. His personal agenda involves an anti-woke/anti-DEI campaign and the promotion of a Christian nationalist ideology. The DOD established DEI programs to ensure equality and fairness in promotions, selections, and assignments for all races, ethnicities, and genders. However, acting on the false premise that whites and Christians are disenfranchised and discriminated against, Hegseth is promoting favoritism and power among whites, males, and ultra-conservative Christians.
He has established a monthly Christian nationalist prayer service to promote his personal religious ideology. He has eliminated DEI programs which insured merit-based promotions and selections, canceled academic partnerships with institutions of higher education, and canceled the promotions of minorities and women to senior ranks. These actions do not provide leadership support equally and fairly to all members of the military. Ethical leaders simply do not marginalize a significant number of team members and sacrifice operational readiness in pursuit of self-interest.
Values-inconsistent conduct. Hegseth’s personal conduct is inconsistent with the values of the armed forces. He advocated for pardons for service members convicted of war crimes. When questioned by a senator he responded that he evaluates cases individually and focuses on not letting “restrictive rules of engagement” unfairly prosecute warfighters. Instead of keeping his commitment to the law, the UCMJ, and the rules of engagement that provide accountability and guard rails against illegal actions, he prioritizes loyalty to the accused. He has demonstrated disdain for officers of the military JAG Corps, who are responsible for advising and keeping commanders within the law.
Regarding Signalgate, Hegseth shared operational details of a Yemen strike in two Signal chats that included a journalist, his wife, brother, and personal attorney. A Pentagon inspector general later found he put U.S. personnel at risk and violated policy by using a personal device. The Washington Post reported the messages originated from an email marked classified “SECRET,” contradicting the administration’s earlier denials.
In his testimony and supplemental budget request, he misrepresented the cost of the Iran war as being about $37.5 billion although internal estimates are between $80 billion and $100 billion. He defended strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and a follow-up strike that killed survivors clinging to wreckage of a suspected drug boat. These strikes have been questioned as potentially amounting to war crimes.
Lacking strategic skills and capabilities. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 30, 2026, Sen. Gary Peters asked Hegseth what he understood was the center of gravity of Iran. Hegseth responded, “Well, the center of gravity, as the President has seen it, and as I see it, and he has talked about for 30 years, is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit as an extension of the radical ideology they have professed since the beginning of their revolution. So the prophetic ideology they profess, alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be the center of gravity of the rationality … of this undertaking.”
This is an obvious mistake by someone whose experience is limited to the tactical. According to the great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, the center of gravity (CoG) is the hub of all power and movement, upon which everything depends—the point against which all energy should be directed. It is “the source of moral or physical strength that provides the freedom of action, and the will to act,” per the DOD’s Joint Publication 5.0.
The CoG is not simply a weakness to exploit, but rather the source of strength, which when attacked would produce the most decisive results. Strategic CoG analysis identifies the enemy’s core capabilities, the requirements for executing those capabilities, and key vulnerabilities of those requirements. Hegseth incorrectly identified Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon paired with its “radical ideology” as the CoG of Iran. An undeveloped, potential source of power does not provide legitimacy, strength, and the freedom and will to act. Destroying Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon did not degrade its CoG.
In reality, Iran’s CoG, is its ideology of Velayat-e Faqih, literally, “Guardianship of the Jurist.” This is not merely a political arrangement but a theological claim: that God, not the people, is the ultimate sovereign, and that qualified Islamic jurists are His designated stewards of political authority on earth. It is the source from which all institutional power, foreign policy ideology (the “Axis of Resistance”), and domestic authority flow. While the jurists are the earthly authority and interpreters of God’s design, they are not the enforcers. That role has fallen to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The IRGC is the military force that executes domestic and foreign policy, according to the dictates of the Supreme Leader. It is the core capability that protects and embodies Iran’s CoG. The IRGC should be the target, not Iran’s nuclear program. Hegseth’s mistake has resulted in a strategy that is ambiguous and therefore has not produced the intended results of Iranian capitulation. It is also the reason that Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, which targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, has had little to no effect. Even today, US forces are bombing a variety of targets with seemingly no clear cohesive strategy.
Hegseth has blown through the DOD budget and the stockpile of Interceptor missiles, forcing him to request supplemental funding of $67.1 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. This is in addition to $75 billion the DOD received from the budget reconciliation from last year. It seems he does not have to manage a strategy, logistics, matériel, and a budget, since he can simply ask Congress for more money. In his July 21 testimony, he blamed the Biden administration for failing to fund DOD appropriately. However, every strategist knows that you go to war with what you have, not with what you wish you had. These are not the actions of an experienced, expert, strategic leader.
Passive hostility. Not only does he demonstrate deficiency in ethical leadership abilities, Hegseth also demonstrates counterproductive behaviors. When asked directly by lawmakers why he fired Gen. Randy George, Hegseth declined to give a specific answer, instead offering a vague line about it being “very difficult to change the culture of a department … with the same officers that were there,” simultaneously admitting his culture war intent. Refusing a direct answer while acting against the person is a textbook passive-aggressive pattern. He consistently demonstrates a pattern of noxious counterattacks in his testimony before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.
Shaming, blaming, and excuse making. There is a well-documented, repeated rhetorical pattern across controversies: deny wrongdoing occurred, then attribute the story to malicious insiders or media rather than address the substance. Following the revelation of the second Signal chat, a Washington Examiner article characterized his response as “admit nothing, deny everything, attack the media,” with Hegseth calling reporters “hoaxsters that peddle anonymous sources from leakers with axes to grind.” He said explicitly: “Those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out of the building, are now attempting to leak and sabotage the president’s agenda.”
On Fox & Friends, Hegseth blamed “disgruntled” former staffers for leaks about the Signal chats, rather than addressing what was actually shared. A former Pentagon spokesperson under a different administration put it bluntly: “The problem here is that Pete Hegseth has taken no accountability. He’s bashed the reporter. He’s called it a hoax. He’s done everything but say, ‘Hey, I made a mistake.’” That same source contrasted it with predecessor Lloyd Austin, who “stood at the podium for an hour and took accountability” after a fatal incident. Hegseth seems to be more concerned about attacking leakers than he is about practicing honesty and transparency and facilitating trust.
Corrosive interpersonal style. A CNN report, drawing on multiple sources, describes Hegseth as “distrustful of officials around him—civilian and military alike—and suspicious about their loyalties” since the start of his tenure, contributing to what the piece characterizes as a climate of internal suspicion. Senior officers described his September 2025 address to hundreds of generals and admirals as unprofessional “grandstanding,” calling it “a massive waste of time.” The scale of churn is itself a data point: more than two dozen senior officers fired, a Navy secretary pushed out after clashing with him, and direct intervention in promotions across branches.
It is insufficient and unhelpful simply to say that Pete Hegseth is the most unqualified person ever to hold the office of Secretary of Defense (though he is). It is necessary to analyze his personal conduct and the harm he is causing to operational readiness. His self-interested pursuit of a personal agenda, behavior inconsistent with military values, lack of strategic experience and expertise, passive hostility, blaming and excuse-making, and corrosive interpersonal style are proof that he is not the person that should be leading the most powerful military in the history of the world.
Ken Williams is a veteran with over 30 years of service as a chaplain in the U.S. Army. His assignments include the Pentagon Chaplain and Senior Military Fellow of Ethics and Leadership at the National Defense University. He holds a PhD in Leadership and Organizational Change and has taught graduate level courses in ethical leadership in foreign affairs. He is a member of Veterans for Responsible Leadership.
"We follow those who demonstrate selfless intent for the good of others, integrity in keeping commitments, clearly visible capabilities, and a history of dependable performance. Leadership does not involve threats, intimidation, manipulation, or coercion. It involves mutual engagement on purpose, means, and ends."
If this is true, will someone please explain Donald Trump's rise to me?