Pete Hegseth, former Fox News host and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, has been a vocal critic of the inclusion of openly gay soldiers in the U.S. military. In his book, The War on Warriors, Hegseth argues that the decision to allow gay troops to serve openly is part of a broader “Marxist agenda” undermining combat readiness. This stance has sparked considerable debate, especially when reflecting on the military’s evolving policies regarding LGBTQ+ service members. In this blog, we’ll explore Hegseth’s views, the history of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the broader implications of such policies on military culture.
Pete Hegseth and the ‘Marxist Agenda’ Claim
When Pete Hegseth made his comments about the inclusion of gay people in the military, he framed it as part of a larger ideological battle. Hegseth claimed that policies aimed at inclusion—such as the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—were pushing a social justice agenda over national security. He suggested that these changes, along with the military’s increasing acceptance of transgender troops and the push for women in combat roles, were evidence of a Marxist influence on military policy.
Why Does Hegseth Oppose Openly Gay Troops?
Hegseth believes that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military undermines the focus on combat readiness. He describes it as a shift in priorities where political correctness is placed above the military’s primary goal: ensuring that soldiers are prepared for battle.
-
Social Justice vs. Combat Readiness: Hegseth argues that prioritizing social justice initiatives, like the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals, distracts from military effectiveness. He believes that the introduction of such policies could erode military culture and compromise the ability of troops to perform under pressure.
-
A Breach in the Wire: In his book, Hegseth describes the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as a “breach in the wire” that allowed broader cultural changes to infiltrate the military. This marks the point where he believes the military began prioritising diversity and inclusion over its traditional values of discipline and readiness.
The History of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was introduced in 1993 under President Bill Clinton as a compromise measure. Before its implementation, openly gay people were banned from serving in the military. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy allowed gay service members to serve, as long as they kept their sexual orientation private.
However, the policy became a source of controversy and discrimination. Many service members were dishonourably discharged when their sexual orientation was revealed, leading to public outcry. In 2011, under President Barack Obama, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, allowing gay service members to serve openly.
The Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Its Impact
The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell marked a significant shift in military policy. For many, this was a necessary step toward equal rights, as it ensured that LGBTQ+ service members were no longer forced to hide their identities. For others, like Hegseth, the repeal signified the beginning of cultural changes within the military that they believed weakened its core values.
-
Combat-Readiness Concerns: Hegseth’s primary concern was that the focus on social issues, including LGBTQ+ rights, would dilute the military’s preparedness for combat. This sentiment echoes broader fears within certain military circles that social justice policies could compromise the effectiveness of military training and cohesion.
-
Transgender Military Service: One of the most contentious aspects of this shift was the inclusion of transgender individuals in the armed forces. Hegseth has argued that this policy is another example of how the military’s focus has shifted from combat readiness to social inclusivity.
Women in Combat: A Shift in Military Policy
Another key issue that Hegseth critiques is the inclusion of women in combat roles. In 2013, the U.S. military lifted its ban on women serving in direct combat positions, allowing women to serve as Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and in other elite units.
Hegseth, while claiming to support women in the military in general, argues that placing women in combat units could undermine military standards. He believes that pushing for female warriors—particularly in elite combat units—could lower military standards and serve more as a public relations effort than a practical strategy for enhancing combat effectiveness.
Key Arguments Against Women in Combat
-
Physical Standards: Critics of women in combat often cite the physical demands of combat roles as a reason why women should be excluded. Hegseth has argued that it’s essential to maintain high standards and that integrating women into these roles for political reasons could lower those standards.
-
Cultural Challenges: Hegseth also raises concerns about the impact of gender integration on military culture. He argues that mixing men and women in combat units could create tension and harm the cohesiveness of the unit.
The Broader Debate: Diversity vs. Combat Readiness
Hegseth’s views reflect a broader debate within the military and society about the balance between diversity and combat readiness. While some argue that increasing representation and inclusivity within the military strengthens national unity, others, like Hegseth, believe that these policies are a distraction from the military’s primary purpose.
As the U.S. military continues to evolve, this debate is far from over. Will policies promoting inclusion erode the military’s combat effectiveness? Or can these changes be implemented without sacrificing readiness?
Conclusion: Is Hegseth Right or Wrong?
Pete Hegseth’s views on gay service members, transgender inclusion, and women in combat roles reflect a larger cultural divide in America. His criticisms centre on his belief that social issues are being prioritised over military efficiency. While his opinions have garnered support from some military traditionalists, others view them as outdated and out of touch with the evolving needs of the modern military.
The military is always evolving. As it moves toward greater diversity and inclusion, the question remains: can it maintain its edge in combat, or will these policies weaken the effectiveness of U.S. forces? The answer will likely depend on how the military navigates these cultural changes while maintaining its core mission: defending the country.
Relevant Links for Further Reading
