Connect with us

News

Analysis: Hegseth is still standing, but hasn’t yet saved his Pentagon bid | CNN Politics

Published

on

Analysis: Hegseth is still standing, but hasn’t yet saved his Pentagon bid | CNN Politics



CNN
 — 

Pete Hegseth’s bid to lead the Pentagon is stuck in limbo, as he fiercely battles allegations of drinking and sexual misconduct and can’t be sure if President-elect Donald Trump really has his back.

A top Trump transition source had described Wednesday as “absolutely critical” for the former Fox News anchor’s confirmation hopes. And Hegseth threw himself into his task, meeting Republican senators, offering to quit alcohol if he’s confirmed, and mounting fiery rearguards on the Megyn Kelly radio show and in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Yet his position seems as tenuous Thursday morning as it was 24 hours earlier.

  • The most important meeting on Hegseth’s schedule was with Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a combat veteran, campaigner against sexual harassment in the military and a possible replacement pick for defense secretary if he falls short. Hegseth failed to emerge from the conversation with a public endorsement from the GOP senator. “I appreciate Pete Hegseth’s service to our country, something we both share,” she said in a post on X that was most notable for what was not said. “Today, as part of the confirmation process, we had a frank and thorough conversation.”
  • Hegseth, who has more Capitol Hill meetings Thursday, is due to meet two other key Republican senators, Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, next week. Murkowski said Wednesday she’d “absolutely” ask him about allegations about his conduct and his opposition to women serving in combat roles in the military.
  • Hegseth told Kelly on Sirius XM that he spoke to Trump Wednesday morning and that the president-elect had told him, “’Hey Pete, I got your back. It’s a fight. They’re coming after you, get after it.’” He added that Trump said, “‘You go meet those senators and I’ve got your back.’” Hegseth concluded: “It means a lot to me. It tells you who that guy is.”
  • Hegseth’s lawyer, Tim Parlatore, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that his client “can’t wait” to undergo an FBI background check, which he said “is going to exonerate him of the vast majority of these claims.”
  • Yet Trump did not make a public, on-the-record endorsement of Hegseth on Wednesday as his team at Mar-a-Lago closely watched the defense pick’s day of meetings with key senators. A source told CNN that the president-elect and Ron DeSantis have discussed the Florida governor taking the role, suggesting that Trump may already have a Plan B in mind.
  • Hegseth’s more aggressive us-versus-them strategy also came into view on Wednesday as he styled himself with the same “warrior” spirit that he once showed on the battlefield. He characterized his troubles as purely the result of a “ridiculous” narrative by “legacy media.” He told Kelly, “It’s our turn, it’s our time, to stand up and tell the truth, and our side.”

But Sen. Josh Hawley summed up the doubts surrounding the Hegseth pick when he said he didn’t know if the selection should be withdrawn. The Missouri Republican said he’d support whomever Trump wanted in his Cabinet but added: “It’s not 100% clear who he wants as secretary of defense right now.”

Hegseth, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, can afford to lose no more than three Republican senators and still be confirmed in the Senate, assuming all Democrats vote against. So, his window was narrow to begin with. And it’s hardly being helped by uncertainty over how much political capital Trump is willing to spend to see him confirmed.

Advertisement

But Sen. Markwayne Mullin said he’d spoken to both Trump and Hegseth and that the president-elect was still committed to his pick.

“They are still both all in the fight,” the Oklahoma Republican told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source.”

“President Trump personally told me he wants to see Pete get confirmed and I think there’s a … path to get there. It may be a little narrow, but I believe we can get him confirmed,” he added.

The reticence of some senators to throw full public support behind Hegseth may be a hint that while they would prefer not to break with the president-elect early, they might also be keen to avoid a hearing that could turn into a public circus around the time of the inauguration.

One of Hegseth’s meetings on Wednesday was with West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who said she’d gotten into his “personal issues” and that their chat went well. But she said she has not yet decided whether she will vote to confirm him.

Advertisement

Growing talk about Ernst and DeSantis as possible replacements may also be bad news for Hegseth, because it’s likely that some senators will view the Iowa senator and Florida governor as potentially superior defense secretaries. A number of Republican senators have told reporters they hold Ernst in high regard. And she and DeSantis would have a far clearer path to confirmation than Hegseth. Still, it’s not clear whether Ernst would fit Trump’s bill for an ultra-loyalist who’d do whatever he wants at the Pentagon or whether the president-elect would be willing to elevate a former primary rival with whom he traded sharp words.

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal might not be a disinterested observer, but he suggested on Wednesday that the Hegseth nomination was already doomed. “I’ve talked to 5 to 10 Republicans who have said to me they’re just waiting for the right moment to say no to Pete Hegseth,” Blumenthal, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, told reporters.

Among the issues clouding Hegseth’s candidacy is a sexual assault allegation from 2017 — which he has denied, claiming the encounter was consensual, and in which no charges were filed.

The question of Hegseth’s alcohol use, which could be a concern given the grave responsibilities of the secretary of defense, was underscored by reporting from The New Yorker over the weekend about his tenure leading veterans’ advocacy groups. Other reports have also emerged about Hegseth’s conduct while employed at Fox News.

On Kelly’s radio show, he addressed reports of excessive drinking, complained that many of the allegations were made anonymously and suggested that some people in the Pentagon didn’t want him to get the job. “I’ve never had a drinking problem. I don’t – no one’s ever approached me and said, ‘Oh, you should really look at getting help,’” Hegseth told Kelly. He said that, like other service personnel who came home from wars, he had had some beers. “You know, how do you deal with the demons you’ve seen on the battlefield? Sometimes it’s with a bottle.” But he said that his wife Jennifer and embracing Christianity had saved his life and that he was now changed. Moreover, Hegseth said that he would treat serving as the secretary of defense like being sent to a war zone where alcohol was not allowed. “This is the biggest deployment of my life, and there won’t be a drop of alcohol on my lips while I’m doing it.”

Advertisement

Hegseth’s vow of temperance was welcomed by North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer, one of several Republican senators who have said that Trump’s pick would have to answer questions about allegations against him. “The drinking thing is a pretty significant issue – whether you have a problem or don’t have a problem, or you think you have a problem, or you think you don’t have a problem,” Cramer said. “And he said, ‘My commitment is to not touch alcohol while I’d have this position.’” Given that undertaking, Cramer said that he would be ready to give him the benefit of the doubt and put Hegseth before the Armed Services Committee and signaled he may be ready to eventually support his confirmation.

Hegseth’s chances hinge on winning over more senators like Cramer, which may require lowering the heat around his candidacy. Any fresh allegations against him might begin to throw his prospects even more into question. And while he says he has Trump’s support now, there’s no guarantee that he can retain it if he becomes even more of a distraction from the president-elect’s efforts to fill out his government.

Ironically, any new revelations about some of Trump’s other provocative choices — like Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the Health and Human Services Department – could help Hegseth return to the shadows and might help his aspirations. Gabbard and Kennedy have so far largely avoided the scrutiny that’s confronted Hegseth and Trump’s short-lived first pick for attorney general, former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.

The president-elect is notoriously prone to change his mind about candidates — one reason why talk of his interest in DeSantis for the defense job should be taken with appropriate caution.

Still, sources told CNN that the Florida governor and former US military lawyer would be interested in the position if asked. On the face of it, DeSantis would be a popular choice among Republicans, and he has the experience of running a massive government in Florida that could help prepare him for the task of leading the Pentagon bureaucracy. DeSantis also has the kind of culture war credentials that Trump wants for the Pentagon; he built his political brand partly on attacking diversity and inclusion programs, for example.

Advertisement

Swapping Florida for the Pentagon in Virginia could make smart political sense for DeSantis, as it would give him vital national security experience that could lift any future presidential campaign. If he were chosen, it would set up a fascinating triumvirate of at least three potential future primary foes — along with Vice President-elect JD Vance and secretary of state pick Marco Rubio — in Trump’s administration.

Still, DeSantis was scathing about Trump during their primary duel and was especially acerbic about the president-elect’s refusal to take part in the Republican debates. He suggested that Trump had “lost the zip” on his “fastball” and said that he’d be a far more effective implementor of MAGA policies. Unlike Rubio, who has had eight years to leaven his campaign trail critiques of Trump with praise, DeSantis’ insults may be far fresher in the president-elect’s mind.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending