Sign up for Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, reviews and advice delivered to your inbox every day.

The Senate Defense Committee put on quite a show Tuesday, taking turns criticizing Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary.

It was the most partisan confirmation hearing I’ve ever seen – all Democrats questioned his qualifications for the job, all Republicans cheered him on. Hegseth himself was also more evasive and open, even snide, combative than any other candidate I have ever seen in a bid for such a high Cabinet post, especially one that was usually fairly apolitical.

A 44 year old former Fox & friends Host Hegseth, who saw combat in Afghanistan as a National Guard major, will almost certainly pass the panel’s vote, probably by the narrowest possible margin; The GOP’s recapture of the Senate in November gave Republicans a 14-13 majority on the committee.

But even his supporters — and as Jane Mayer reports in the New Yorker, Trump has undertaken a massive lobbying effort to ensure that Hegseth, whose rejection seemed likely, had enough supporters — allowed that Hegseth has an untypical resume for the job. In his opening statement, Chairman Roger Wicker, a Republican senator from Mississippi, said: “The nominee is unconventional.” He added: “That makes Mr. Hegseth perhaps an excellent choice, just like” – he was referring to Trump – “this New Yorker Developer going down the escalator.”

Former Senator Norm Coleman noted in introducing the candidate that Hegseth “has wrestled with and overcome significant personal challenges” – a reference to highly publicized sexual harassment charges and a documented drinking problem – but pleaded: “Please don’t give in to that.” “cynical idea that people can’t change.” Coleman also noted that Hegseth is the candidate of “the one president we each have.”

No one openly recalled that Trump himself was at one point ready to dump the nominee after learning that Hegseth’s behavior had once sparked a criminal investigation, a matter resolved through a financial payment and a nondisclosure agreement – incidents that which Hegseth also had not disclosed to Trump or his transition team when interviewed for the job. Trump even floated the name of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a possible replacement, but when that idea failed to find support in his circle, he tightened his grip on Hegseth and turned the fight for his nomination into a demonstration of Trump’s own strength

This demonstration was on display in the committee room, as even Republican Senator Joni Ernst, an Army veteran who had criticized Hegseth for his numerous statements against recruiting women for combat missions, suggested through a clearly rehearsed series of questions (many of them ” As we discussed…” prefixed – that she would vote for Hegseth after all, which would put an end to any uncertainty about his fate, at least at this stage of the process.

Meanwhile, Democrats, led by ranking member and former Chairman Jack Reed of Delaware, pointed out that Hegseth in many ways lacked the “unparalleled experience, wisdom and, above all, character” for the job that involves the 3.4 million men and women to lead the Defense Department and its $850 billion budget.

Reed — who said he voted to confirm all nine previous nominees, Republicans and Democrats, who came before the committee during his tenure — said he would vote “no” this time, telling the nominee: “You’re missing the one.” Character, composure and competence.” for the job.

He and the panel’s other Democrats focused on several issues, primarily:

• Forensic tax returns (which were not provided to the committee or the FBI) ​​show that Hegseth failed to manage the finances of a veterans organization he led that had 100 employees and a $16 million budget

• In his remarks, Hegseth denounced the Geneva Conventions and his active campaign – which Trump influenced in his first term as president – to pardon two soldiers convicted of war crimes

• Several statements in his books and various interviews spoke out against the recruitment of women for combat positions

• Accusations of his personal misconduct, which he claimed he had changed (thanks to his wife and Jesus) without simply discussing it What He had changed his ways and instead dismissed all the allegations as “anonymous slanders.” Democratic Senator Mark Kelly asked: “Have you overcome personal problems or been the victim of slander?” It can’t be both.” He added: “I worry about a defense minister who is not transparent.”

At the start of the hearing, Hegseth said, “I’m sitting before you like an open book,” but responded to the attacks during the interrogation with evasion and open defiance. In response to questions about the passage in a book in which he argued against the laws of armed conflict hindering our ability to win wars, he replied that he was highlighting a difference between large contracts and the way soldiers be ordered at the front to lay them out. I couldn’t say where he would draw the line.

In one of the most shocking exchanges, Hegseth sneered and denigrated JAGs – the teams of military lawyers who interpret military law – as bureaucrats who put their own careers, medals and promotions above the interests of American warfighters. The Secretary of Defense is, of course, in control of the JAGs.

He told the panel’s female senators – including Tammy Duckworth, who lost her legs in combat, and Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA agent who worked alongside troops in Iraq – that his comments against women in combat only targeted the “Standards” he said applied were lowered to meet “gender quotas.” They, along with Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, denied that the military had lowered standards and challenged him to cite even one example. (He didn’t.)

Warren noted that Hegseth said on Ben Shapiro’s podcast last June, “Women shouldn’t be in combat.” at all.” She quoted his 2024 book: The war against the warriorsin which he wrote: “We need mothers, but not in the military, particularly not in combat units.” (Warren’s emphasis.) These weren’t comments about lowered standards, Warren noted – they were about women.

Then, Warren noted, on November 9, just 32 days after his last public comment on the issue, Hegseth declared, “Some of our greatest warriors are women.” What had changed in the meantime? Well, Trump nominated him to run the Pentagon. Who can say, Warren wondered, whether he would change his views again if confirmed?

18 percent of the US military are women. Democrats expressed concern that many women will leave the party — and many more will avoid joining in the first place — if they feel the defense secretary doesn’t want to see them promoted to serious positions.

Republican senators spent most of their questioning agreeing with Hegseth’s criticism of a “woke” mentality and “DEI training” that he said had weakened the military. At one point, Hegseth claimed that military recruitment has increased since Trump’s election because young people see a commander in chief who wouldn’t burden them with “social engineering.” In fact, no recruiting data has been released in the past two months. In any case, although the services are having difficulty convincing young people to get involved and stay, recruitment was not possible until the fall of 2024 high by 10 percent compared to the previous year.

During the four-hour hearing, Democrats submitted letters several times – from retired generals or scientists or others who had worked with Hegseth – urging his rejection. In response, Republicans submitted their own letters from similarly qualified witnesses urging his confirmation.

Hegseth made some good and valid arguments during the hearing. He spoke at length about the Pentagon’s top-heavy bureaucracy, its resistance to innovation and the need for outsiders, particularly from Silicon Valley, to overhaul the stagnant weapons procurement process.

“I know what I don’t know,” he once admitted. “My success as a leader has always been about setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter than me, empowering them to succeed, holding them accountable, and setting clear metrics.”

It was a good answer. Few Cabinet secretaries came to their offices and were able to do everything their jobs required. But Duckworth, in one of the most heated arguments, asked what kind of guidance he would give to these wiser people. He avoided the question. Duckworth pressed, “Why do you refuse to answer? …What are you afraid of? … You’re asking us to appoint you secretary of defense just because you’re friends with the president of the United States.”

None of that mattered. Contrary to precedent, Hegseth had not met with Democratic senators before the hearing, and he appeared unfazed by their frustration with his prevarication. The hearing was actually about one person. Trump had secured the loyalty of Republicans in the run-up to the hearing. And Trump was now the audience of someone to whom Hegseth directed all his words Answer.

Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.