#143 Pete Hegseth - Secretary of Defense Nominee

The VA healthcare system remains tangled in bureaucracy and inefficiency despite legislative attempts at reform, with veterans suffering the consequences.

The VA bureaucracy is resistant to meaningful reform despite legislative attempts

Hegseth describes the VA bureaucracy as a feeding trough with secure jobs that are tough to fire from, suggesting resistance to change that might unsettle the status quo. He cites the veterans industrial complex in Washington D.C., which is mainly interested in advocating for a more significant VA budget, as opposed to truly serving veterans' needs. Despite the 2014 "Fixing Veterans Healthcare Task Force" report's suggestions for reform and legislative efforts like the Mission Act, aimed at offering veterans healthcare choices, the VA has opposed such initiatives, viewing them as threats to its ecosystem. Hegseth castigates veterans' organizations for not actively pushing for substantial VA reforms, emphasizing that these institutions safeguard their stakes over veterans' welfare.

Veterans often avoid seeking care at the VA due to poor service and long wait times

Both Shawn Ryan and Hegseth voluntarily avoid VA services, which points to an underlying issue with veterans' trust in the system. Ryan, after a single appointment, prefers buying his own health insurance. Hegseth admits the quality of VA healthcare can be good but criticizes the grueling process of getting appointments and the lack of stable doctor relationships. Despite the VA's large budget—twice the size of the Marine Corps and the second-largest federal department—Hegseth argues that veterans still struggle to get timely care and are seen as numbers, not individuals needing quality healthcare.

Efforts to increase accountability, such as the Accountability Act and the Choice Act, intended to make firing ineffective employees easier, have been stonewalled. Union opposition and lack of enforcement have hindered meaningful implementation of these acts.

Efforts to increase accountability and allow the firing of poor-performing VA employees have been largely ineffective due to union opposition and lack of political will

Despite these legislative ...

Pete Hegseth and Shawn Ryan discuss the influence of diversity initiatives within the military and share their concerns about the potential impact on the military's core mission and ethos.

Woke ideologies and diversity initiatives are undermining the military's core mission and ethos

Hegseth discusses his own experience being labeled as an extremist, which he sees as a consequence of political correctness, and describes incidents like the George Floyd riots and the January 6th event leading to the implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) initiatives within the military. These incidents, he claims, have shifted the military's focus to addressing extremist ideologies within its ranks.

Furthermore, he shares concerns about unit dynamics changing due to DEI advisors' influence on what can be said within units. He fears this suggests a shift in focus from traditional military objectives to social initiatives.

Hegseth also raises the issue of military leaders who have claimed the institution is systemically racist and that bases named after Confederates need renaming. He expresses skepticism about these leaders' intentions, suggesting they are introducing ideologies they know aren't true.

Rigid adherence to diversity and equity mandates has led to lower standards and a demoralized force

Ryan and Hegseth point out that the pursuit of 'wokeness' and diversity initiatives are not attracting the kinds of individuals who traditionally would be interested in military service, thus alienating the military's core constituency.

Hegseth criticizes phrases like "our diversity is our strength," arguing that unity should be the priority in the military. He also suggests that military leaders involved in DEI should be fired for detracting from warfighting capabilities, and condemns "political generals" for undertaking social justice, gender, or climate initiatives to advance their careers.

Moreover, Hegseth points out a "wholesale takeover" of the Defense Department's culture by both high-ranking officials and junior service members who adhere to ideas of diversity and equity.

He highlights the direct involvement of the chairman of the joint chiefs in pushing for female company commanders as an indicatio ...

Pete Hegseth discusses the prosecution and poor treatment of US veterans, revealing a disturbing pattern of the military and government second-guessing and punishing service members for actions taken during combat.

Veteran service members have faced unwarranted prosecution and legal jeopardy for actions taken in combat

Hegseth was involved behind the scenes with President Trump’s pardons, showing support for warfighters like Eddie Gallagher, who was tried for murdering an ISIS fighter only to find out that purported video evidence against him was nonexistent.

High-profile cases like those of Eddie Gallagher, Clint Lorentz, and the Raven 23 group show a pattern of the military and government turning on its own

The Raven 23 group, which includes Nick Slatten, was another egregious example. Despite drone footage supposedly proving their innocence, they were heavily sentenced, with Slatten facing life in prison. This footage, however, was deleted. Clint Lorentz’s case is referenced alongside Gallagher’s as another instance of unjust prosecution.

Rules of engagement that prioritize political correctness over mission success have left service members vulnerable to legal consequences

Hegseth challenges the practicality of the rules of engagement by recounting a briefing where troops were instructed not to shoot an enemy carrying an RPG unless it was aimed at them. He viewed this as impractical and informed his platoon they had support if they acted in self-defense before being attacked.

The military's treatment of veterans reflects a broader cultural and institutional bias against the warrior ethos

The lack of support from the military for these individuals points to a cultural and institutional bias against what Hegseth describes as the warrior ethos.

Senior military leaders have been complicit in undermining the reputations and legal protections of veteran service members

Hegseth cites the Pentagon's complicity in a culture that prioritizes career advancement and problem covering over the welfare of service members as evidence of this bias.

There is a conc ...

Considering the substantial challenges facing military recruitment and retention, Hegseth and others posit that recent policy changes are negatively impacting both the willingness of Americans to join the armed forces and the morale of those already serving.

Woke policies and diversity initiatives have contributed to a crisis in military recruitment and retention

Hegseth cites a significant shortfall in Army recruiting goals and expresses personal reluctance about recommending military service largely due to recent shifts away from what he sees as the core mission of the military. He conveys that such sentiments are shared by others, who now hesitate or decline to encourage enlistment among their children. Furthermore, he discusses his removal from National Guard duties ostensibly due to his tattoos, underscoring concerns about a focus on image over substance.

Hegseth also speaks out against DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies within the military infrastructure, predicting that an escalation of these policies under the current administration could lead to more retirements. He suggests that lowered standards due to diversity quotas have eroded trust in military leadership and decreased combat capabilities, thus detracting from recruitment and retention efforts. Concerns that the Department of Defense is at a tipping point, and needs to reorient away from such policies to resolve recruitment shortfalls, are echoed throughout the conversation.

Patriotic Americans are increasingly reluctant to join an institution that has strayed from its core purpose

Questions raised about recent military engagements — such as whether they truly defend the country — are thought to deter potential recruits. Hegseth emphasizes that a perpetuation of the recruitment crisis will occur unless there is a return to traditional values that prioritize warfighting and skills over progressive social initiatives. He implies that the adoption of 'woke' policies and the steering away from the main mission have led to the alienation of traditional recruiting grounds and families that have historically supported military service.

Falling standards and decreased combat readiness have further eroded trust in military leadership

Findings from a Marine Corps study reflecting poorer performance of integrated male and female units versus all-male units are cited, yet they were reportedly dismissed. This is seen as an example of how combat effectiveness might be compromised for other priorities. Hegseth mentions how agendas and quotas have relegated standards to a secondary concern, with discussions on the elevation of women in units seen as implicit directives rather than assessments of capability. Even with lower recruiting targets, Hegseth notes conversations with serving personnel about readiness declines, including limited resources and training, which breeds distrust towards the leaders of the military.

The military's cultural and political shift away from traditional values has demoralized the force

Hegseth discusses the fear among service members of committing missteps related to identification, gender, racial, or trans issues, indicating a heightened emphasis on political correctness. This fear is thought to have inverted unit priorities and weakened combat effectiveness, which is the primary role of the military.

Service members feel they must walk on egg ...