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.

News

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

Published

on

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

When Stuart Sepulvida arrives at St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Parish in Tucson, Ariz., for Mass, which he attends most mornings, he passes a display honoring local soldiers and encouraging parishioners to pray for their safety. Hundreds of small cards record their names: Robles, Arenas, Grajeda. A portrait of Pope Leo XIV hangs across the lobby.

Mr. Sepulvida, 81, is a Vietnam veteran whose patriotism and Catholicism are deeply intertwined. He voted for President Trump three times but has never felt more betrayed by an American president than when Mr. Trump denounced Pope Leo as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.”

“It was very disturbing to me to hear both of them clashing like they did,” Mr. Sepulvida said, standing outside the church one morning this week. Now, he is reconsidering whether he will vote Republican this year.

The Republican Party is struggling to hold onto the support from Hispanic voters who helped propel Mr. Trump back into the White House in 2024. Yet as many party leaders have acknowledged the urgent need to stop the backsliding among Latinos, the president has enraged many of even his strongest supporters by clashing with the pope.

On Easter Sunday, Pope Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff, spoke of the need to “abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars.” Within days, Mr. Trump, who has led the United States into a war with Iran, said the pope was “catering to the radical left” and posted an AI-generated image portraying himself as a Jesus figure. Mr. Trump later deleted the image, saying he thought it depicted him as a doctor.

Advertisement

“It just isn’t what a president should do,” Mr. Sepulvida said. “The pope speaks for his people. He is beyond politics.”

Mr. Trump won 55 percent of Catholic voters in the 2024 election, compared to 43 percent who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Pew Research Center. The most sizable gains came from Hispanic Catholics. While Joseph R. Biden Jr. won their votes by a 35-point margin in 2020, the Democratic advantage shrunk to 17 points in 2024. Now, just 18 percent of Hispanic Catholics said they support most or all of President Trump’s agenda, according to a poll from Pew released earlier this year.

If the president’s quarrel with the pope sours more Latinos on the Republican Party, it could affect midterm races across the country, including in South Florida and South Texas, where Republicans have notched important victories in predominantly Hispanic districts in recent years.

In Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from north of Tucson to the Mexican border, voters were still grappling with the fallout this week.

The district is roughly evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and independent voters. Nearly a third of the district is Hispanic, and there is a significant population of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as a large Catholic community with deep history in the region. It also has one of largest numbers of military veterans of all congressional districts in the country.

Advertisement

“The president is looking for a lot of attention from everything,” said Maria Ramos, 60, who regularly attends weekday Mass at St. Francis. A registered independent, she usually votes for Democrats but often declines to cast a ballot if she views a candidate as too liberal. “He believes he can put God in his place. He’s meddling in countries that he’s not in control of — he wants to control the world.”

“It is not just a very serious lack of respect — it is a mortal sin,” she said, shaking her head. One word comes to her mind again and again, she said: disgust.

Like so many others in southern Arizona, Ms. Ramos has several relatives who serve in the military — a path they saw to both serve the country and as an entry into the stable middle class. Many of them, she said, voted for Mr. Trump for president.

The Tucson district is now widely seen as one of the most competitive in the country. Republican Juan Ciscomani narrowly won the district in 2022, in part by emphasizing his biography as a Mexican immigrant and a devoted father of six children. He is also an evangelical Christian, a group that has driven much of the growth among Hispanic Republican voters in recent years.

Mr. Ciscomani declined a request for an interview, but when a local radio host asked Mr. Ciscomani what he thought of Mr. Trump’s comments “as a man of faith,” the congressman declined to criticize the president but said, “You can trust that you won’t see any meme like that coming out of my account.”

Advertisement

JoAnna Mendoza, the Democrat challenging Mr. Ciscomani this fall, has made her 20-year career in the U.S. Navy and Marines a key aspect of her story on the campaign trail. While she rarely speaks about her religious background and no longer considers herself a practicing Catholic, she said she briefly considered becoming a nun as a teenager. She criticized Mr. Ciscomani for not condemning the president’s remarks.

“You can’t make faith a central part of your campaign and then allow this to stand,” she said in an interview.

Across Tucson, Latino Catholics, regardless of their past voting preferences, were similarly quick to condemn the president’s remarks.

When Cecilia Taisipic, 71, heard about it, she said, she winced with shame about her vote for him in 2024.

“I thought he would make the country better, but apparently it’s the opposite,” she said as she left Mass at St. Francis earlier this week. She is so fed up with politics, she said, that she is unlikely to vote at all this year. “When it comes to my faith, I don’t like anybody to challenge it. Now I don’t want to hear anything on the news. I just want to pray.”

Advertisement

Matilde Robinson Bours, 63, teaches a weekly Spanish Bible study class at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, and like nearly all of the women in her class, she immigrated from Mexico decades ago. She has voted for Republicans in nearly every election since she became a citizen. Though she has never liked President Trump, she said, his comments about the pope enraged her more than anything else he has said or done in the past.

“This surpassed everything, every social and political norm — this is personal to all Catholics,” she said. “The arrogance and ego is disgusting. To think that he is God? The pope has every right and responsibility to talk about peace.”

Still, Ms. Robinson Bours said, nothing will stop her from supporting Republicans again this year. She has been delighted that her adult children have stopped supporting Democrats in recent elections.

“Almost everyone I know thinks the way I do,” she said.

Patricia Martinez, 86, who has attended the same Bible study as Ms. Robinson Bours for years, shook her head in disagreement. She said she cannot imagine voting for a Republican who supports Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

“This is different — this shows he is out of his mind,” said Ms. Martinez. “We have to have basic respect and teach that to people in this country.”

Patrick Robles, a 24-year-old native of Tucson, spent years alienated from the Roman Catholic Church, but returned to his faith more recently. “The craziness of the world sort of caused me to seek some sort of answers,” he said. Now, he attends Mass at the St. Augustine Cathedral in downtown Tucson, a few blocks from the office where he works as an aide to Representative Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat.

Mr. Robles said he saw Mr. Trump’s battle with the pope as both a personal affront and a political opportunity.

“The president is basically trying to draw a line between Catholics and what we perceive to be patriotism,” he said. “I believe we can be both.”

Last week, he texted one of his uncles who has supported Mr. Trump in every election asking him what he thought.

Advertisement

“I’m afraid we need divine intervention,” the uncle replied.

Continue Reading

News

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Published

on

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., takes questions at a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Speaker Mike Johnson, R.-La., is forging ahead with his latest proposal to renew a key American spy power. His bill, revealed Thursday, is largely unchanged from a previous plan which failed in a series of overnight votes earlier this month.

The program at center of the debate, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is set to expire on April 30.

FISA 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals located outside of the United States. Some of the nearly 350,000 foreign targets whose communications are collected under the provision are in touch with Americans, whose calls, texts and emails could end up in the trove of information available to the federal government for review.

Advertisement

For almost two decades, privacy-minded lawmakers from both parties have sought to require specific court approval before federal law enforcement can conduct a targeted review of an American’s information gathered through the program. The lack of any such warrant requirement helped sink an effort last week to extend the program for 18 months, as well as a separate vote on a five-year renewal. 

Trump officials, like those in past administrations, have argued that such a warrant requirement would overburden law enforcement and endanger national security. Johnson’s latest proposal would reauthorize the program for three years, but does not include a warrant requirement. Instead, the bill calls for the FBI to submit monthly explanations for reviews of Americans’ information to an oversight official as well as criminal penalties for willful abuse, among other tweaks.

“I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country,” the president wrote on Truth Social last week, advocating for the program to be extended without changes. “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks. It has already prevented MANY such Attacks, and it is very important that it remain in full force and effect.”

Glenn Gerstell, who served as general counsel at the National Security Agency during the Obama and first Trump administration, says Johnson’s reforms look like an attempt to find a middle ground.

“There’s not a lot of really substantive changes to the statute, but some gestures are made to people who are worried about privacy and civil liberties,” Gerstell said. “It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise that is going to be satisfactory to the national security agencies and yet at the same time represents some gesture to the privacy advocates.”

Advertisement

“This is not a reform bill and it’s not a compromise,” Elizabeth Goitein, a privacy advocate and senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, wrote on X. “It’s a straight reauthorization with eight pages of words that serve no serious purpose other than to try to convince members that it’s NOT a straight reauthorization.”

A bipartisan reform deal is still out of reach

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, told NPR on Wednesday, before the release of Johnson’s new proposal, that lawmakers were working on a bipartisan solution. He said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was in touch with Johnson on the issue.

“There’s a lot of work being done here,” Himes said. “We’re sort of working out a process that will be inclusive rather than exclusive.” Himes said he was negotiating with Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional law scholar, on a reform proposal they hoped could preserve and reform the program — reauthorizing it with bipartisan support.

But Johnson’s new bill appears to fall short of the inclusive approach Himes hoped for.

NPR obtained a memo written by Raskin to his colleagues urging them to oppose the bill, which he said “continues the disastrous policy of trusting the FBI to self-police and self-report its abuses of Section 702 and backdoor searches of Americans’ data.”

Advertisement

“FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin wrote.

FBI agents must receive annual training on FISA and are generally barred from searching for information about people in the U.S. if the goal of the search is to investigate general criminal activity, rather than find foreign intelligence information, and those searches need approval from a supervisor or an attorney. 

Republican hardliners — who sunk Johnson’s last reauthorization attempt — also don’t all appear to be on board for Johnson’s latest revision. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a past chair of the Freedom Caucus, said “we’re not there yet” in a video he shared to X on Thursday.

“I didn’t take an oath to defend FISA, I didn’t take an oath to defend the intelligence community,” Perry said. “We can’t have them spying on American citizens and, when they do, there has to be accountability and I haven’t seen any that I’m satisfied with yet.”

The House Rules committee meets Monday morning, the first step toward advancing the renewal bill toward a vote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

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
Advertisement

Trending