Connect with us

Politics

Pete Hegseth to Face Democratic Questioning in Confirmation Hearing

Published

on

Pete Hegseth to Face Democratic Questioning in Confirmation Hearing

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to head the Pentagon, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday to answer questions on a range of issues, including a sexual assault allegation, his lack of management experience and his comments against women serving in combat.

Mr. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has a slew of commentary, opinions and allegations to explain, as Democratic lawmakers get their chance to question him about his qualifications to lead the Defense Department, an $849 billion enterprise with nearly three million employees.

Eyes will also be on Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, who is an Army Reserve and National Guard veteran and a sexual assault survivor. Ms. Ernst received a barrage of criticism from Trump supporters last month after she said that Mr. Hegseth needed to address issues including the role of women in the military and sexual assault prevention. Her support is viewed as critical to Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation chances.

Whether Mr. Hegseth has the votes to be confirmed remains an open question. After the committee hearing, the full Senate must vote on the confirmation. If all Democrats oppose him, he can afford to lose the support of just three Republican senators.

A former Army major who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and a member of the National Guard until 2021, Mr. Hegseth will presumably need a congressional waiver that is required for any Pentagon chief who has been retired from active-duty military service less than seven years.

Advertisement

The waivers became big issues during the confirmation hearings for the current defense secretary, Lloyd J. Austin III, and for Jim Mattis, who served as defense secretary during the first Trump administration.

But it has rarely been mentioned ahead of Mr. Hegseth’s hearing because there have been so many other issues to discuss.

The top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were briefed late Friday on the findings from the F.B.I.’s background check of Mr. Hegseth. Other members of the committee expressed concern that they might not have relevant information for Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing.

“I need to see his F.B.I. background check. We need to see his financial disclosures,” said Senator Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois. “And we need to know about any other potential lawsuits he might be facing, any other allegations he might be facing.”

Democrats and Mr. Hegseth’s backers have both complained that the other side has been unresponsive to attempts to arrange meetings with Mr. Hegseth.

Advertisement

Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the committee, is the one Democrat who as of last week had met with Mr. Hegseth. Mr. Reed said in a statement after the two talked on Wednesday that the meeting “raised more questions than answers.”

In addition to the sexual assault allegation against Mr. Hegseth, accusations have also emerged detailing episodes of public drunkenness, workplace sexual improprieties and mismanagement of the veterans nonprofits he ran. Mr. Hegseth has said the sexual assault allegation arose from a consensual encounter. He also told reporters last month that he was “a different man than I was years ago.”

The allegations against Mr. Hegseth have failed to sway most Republican senators, many of whom have argued that senators should discount such claims unless the accusers are willing to come forward publicly.

Mr. Hegseth, who has been married three times, has also acknowledged having extramarital affairs. The New York Times reported last month that his mother, Penelope Hegseth, wrote him an email in 2018 saying he had routinely mistreated women for years and displayed a lack of character.

Mrs. Hegseth later said that she had written the email “in anger, with emotion,” at a time when he and his wife were going through a difficult divorce, and that she apologized for what she had written.

Advertisement

Extramarital affairs and public intoxication can leave officers and troops in the military subject to disciplinary action. Some senior military leaders have questioned privately whether Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation could send conflicting messages to troops about discipline.

Mr. Hegseth’s commentary and writings on a number of issues are also likely to provide fodder for the hearing. In his book “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” Mr. Hegseth complained about “woke” generals who he said had made the military “effeminate” by pushing diversity policies.

He said that Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a position that usually works closely with the defense secretary, should be fired for being too “woke.” General Brown is African American.

“America’s white sons and daughters are walking away” from the military, he wrote, “and who can blame them.”

Before he was nominated by Mr. Trump to be defense secretary, Mr. Hegseth said that he did not believe that women should be in combat. “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7. Having women in combat, he said, “hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.”

Advertisement

A month later, he offered some clarification. Asked about the issue on the podcast “The Megyn Kelly Show” in early December, Mr. Hegseth said that “if we have the right standard and women meet that standard, roger — let’s go.” But, he added: “If they can’t, and that’s a product of physical differences because the standard is high, then that’s just the reality.”

Politics

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

Published

on

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.

RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY

Advertisement

Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.

HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA

Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”

“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”

Advertisement

And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”

Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

Published

on

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”

Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.

Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.

Advertisement

National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.

Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.

But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.

The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.

The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.

Advertisement

In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”

Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.

The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
  • The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
  • Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
  • The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
  • The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
  • Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]

Different views on the topic

  • Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
  • Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
  • A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
  • Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending