Politics
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
Opinion: Someday, most likely, the buck will stop with Trump

Since taking office last month, Donald Trump has governed like a man with a sledgehammer and a checklist. He’s moving at a breakneck pace — executive orders flying, agencies gutted, norms obliterated. USAID workers? Put on ice. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Unprotected. Low-flow toilets? Flushed. The Gulf of Mexico? No longer found on Google Maps. And that’s just a brief sampling.
Sure, the courts will put the brakes on some of it, but this is political whack-a-mole at its finest. That’s the genius of it: While first responders are scrambling to stamp out dozens of small fires, who will realize the whole city has burned down around them?
This is a stark contrast to the messier way things started the last time Trump won election. In 2016, he stumbled into the White House like a guy who had somehow wandered into the cockpit of a 747, started pushing buttons, and figured the autopilot would handle the rest. This time, he’s got a plan and a highly motivated flight crew — co-pilot Elon Musk, advisor Stephen Miller, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought — and they are shutting down the “deep state” faster than a Georgetown cocktail party when the open bar closes.
Trump and Co. are using two time-tested strategies to pull it off: “flooding the zone” and “expanding the Overton window.” The first overwhelms the opposition with an avalanche of activity, so no single scandal sticks. The second is an old-school haggling trick: Start with something extreme, and when you scale it back just a notch, your new position — although still extreme by the standards of a few moments before — suddenly seems conceivable.
Take Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The courts will probably bounce it faster than a bad check. But by the time that happens, we’ll all be debating the mechanics of mass deportation as though that were just another line item in the budget. “Should we fix potholes or round up a few million migrants?” That’s how this game works.
But here’s the thing: Throwing a million strings of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks is exhausting. Not only for stunned onlookers, but also for the guys doing the throwing.
Think of it like a football team that sprints through their first 15 scripted plays, running a hurry-up offense with precision. Then reality sets in. The defense adjusts. The playbook runs dry. Suddenly, your players are gasping for air, getting sacked at every turn, and hastily throwing interceptions.
Which brings us to Musk’s plan to inject Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” ethos into government.
The problem? When you break things in government, lots of people get hurt — people who did not choose to speculate in tech investments or work at a startup. You can’t just gut the Federal Emergency Management Agency and then reboot it right before hurricane season and expect the federal disaster response to function. You can’t lay off half the FBI and then roll out a “patch” to protect national security as well as those experienced professionals did. And if you’ve decimated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there’s no “undo” button available when the next pandemic hits.
Now, I’m all for cutting waste, streamlining bureaucracy and making the system work better. But any self-respecting conservative (as in “to conserve”) should understand that there’s a difference between fixing a leaky pipe and blowing up the water main.
The problem with the “government should run like a business” mantra is that, in business, when things go south, you can declare bankruptcy, pivot to selling NFTs or just ghost your investors. Last I checked, the United States of America doesn’t have a “going out of business” option built into its framework.
And here’s the real kicker: When you take a sledgehammer (instead of a scalpel) to the government, guess who gets crushed under the debris? Well, everyone. But among the folks down there in the rubble you’ll find the very people who orchestrated the destruction.
The folks who slashed FEMA? They’ll be the ones on TV explaining to incredulous Trump voters why no one showed up to offer relief after the next Category 5 hurricane. The guys who gutted the FBI will be shocked — shocked! — when a major terrorist attack “somehow” slipped through the cracks. And the ones who slashed National Institutes of Health funding will fumble their way through a public apology when the next mystery virus starts making the rounds.
I know what you’re thinking: Trump has a remarkable talent for dodging responsibility, always finding someone else to blame. Whether it’s Musk or a Biden administration DEI hire — just as he did after the recent midair collision near Washington, D.C. — he’ll find a scapegoat. But at some point, the “You break it, you buy it” rule kicks in, and the buck stops with the president. Trump’s failure to respond adequately to COVID-19 likely cost him the 2020 election. In that moment, at least, he was held accountable. It could happen again.
Then again, it’s possible the next four years will pass without some major test or system failure that would spark a backlash. Maybe the rules don’t apply to Trump and everything will work out fine. Maybe he’s magic, in which case he is about to redefine everything we think we know about American politics. Again.
Regardless of how this all shakes out, one thing’s for sure: Trump’s back. And this time, he’s not just pushing random buttons — he’s got a plan. Or at least a crumpled cocktail napkin with a zillion half-baked ideas scribbled on it.
And at the top, in all caps? “SHOCK AND AWE.”
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
Politics
Trump Agriculture pick confirmed as president racks up Cabinet wins

President Donald Trump secured two more Cabinet confirmations on Thursday, including his pick to lead the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Brooke Rollins.
Rollins was easily confirmed by the Senate shortly after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Trump’s Health secretary.
Most recently, Rollins has served as president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) think tank, which she co-founded after Trump’s first term.
In Trump’s first administration, she was his director of the Office of American Innovation and acting director of the Domestic Policy Council.
TULSI GABBARD SWORN IN AT WHITE HOUSE HOURS AFTER SENATE CONFIRMATION
Brooke Rollins, U.S. President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of agriculture, testifies before a Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2025. (Kaylee Greenlee Beal/Reuters)
The newly elected president announced his selection of Rollins for USDA chief in November, recalling she did “an incredible job” during his first term.
“Brooke’s commitment to support the American Farmer, defense of American Food Self-Sufficiency, and the restoration of Agriculture-dependent American Small Towns is second to none,” he said.
DOGE ‘PLAYBOOK’ UNVEILED BY GOP SENATOR AS MUSK-LED AGENCY SHAKES UP FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

A side-by-side image of President Trump and the United States Department of Agriculture (Getty Images)
“As our next Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke will spearhead the effort to protect American Farmers, who are truly the backbone of our Country. Congratulations Brooke!”
The USDA nominee had a hearing before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee last month, before advancing past the key hurdle.
DEM LOOKS TO CODIFY NEW AG BONDI’S DESIRED CRACKDOWN ON ‘ZOMBIE DRUG’ XYLAZINE

Brooke Rollins is sworn-in for a Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee hearing on her nomination for Secretary of Agriculture, Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington. (Getty Images | iStock)
The committee decision to move her nomination forward was unanimous, giving her bipartisan backing going into her confirmation vote.
Rollins is now the 16th Cabinet official confirmed to serve in Trump’s new administration. With the help of the Republican-led Senate, Trump has managed to confirm his picks at a pace far ahead of either his first administration or former President Joe Biden’s.
TRUMP LANDS KEY TULSI GABBARD CONFIRMATION FOLLOWING UPHILL SENATE BATTLE

Biden and Trump during his first term lagged behind with confirmations. (Left: Pete Marovich/Getty Images; Right: Oleg Nikishin/Getty Images)
At the same point in his first term, Trump only had 11 confirmations and Biden had seven. Neither had 16 confirmed until March during their respective administrations.
Politics
Solutions: Here's how the Trump administration can curb housing costs
One reason American voters handed the country’s reins back to President Trump was the extreme inflation in housing prices that took place under his predecessor. The federal government has less influence over this issue than, say, California mayors and legislators — but whoever is in the White House can take certain steps to push prices down. The federal government can lower construction material costs, release more land for homebuilding and ensure that federal grants are used efficiently.
Unlike American manufacturing, residential construction has missed out on productivity improvements for decades. One reason is that building code updates, which are written by an industry group, increase costs more often than they decrease them. As a result, cost-conscious states usually stick with older, cheaper building codes. But that means they miss out on productive innovations. The Trump administration could start by creating a building code innovation module, consisting only of cost-decreasing updates, which states and cities could then adopt.
U.S. building codes have fallen behind peer countries in construction techniques for mid-rise buildings, which provide important, dense housing supply using little land. The administration could help California, Tennessee and several other states already in the process of identifying safety standards for the construction of four- to six-story buildings with a single staircase. A related innovation would adopt lower-cost elevator standards for small buildings, which would enable cost-effective accessibility in more new construction.
As the new administration sets tariff rates, it should balance construction costs among its priorities. The Biden administration doubled Trump’s original tariff on Canadian lumber, adding thousands to the cost of each new house. Cutting that tariff to its 2020 rate — or better yet, eliminating it and aiming tariffs at strategic opponents instead of America’s strongest ally — would bring immediate relief to builders and buyers. Instead, in his first few weeks back in office, Trump has scheduled higher tariffs on Canadian goods, including lumber, and added a 25% global steel tariff, which will make it much more expensive to build the next Trump Tower.
In addition to material costs, another factor that has driven up home prices and limited inventory is a chronic scarcity of construction workers, and the federal government has more control over this labor supply than states and cities do. Through immigration policy, the Trump administration could either aggravate the shortage or ease it, which would either raise or lower housing costs.
In land use, as in construction productivity, the federal government plays a quietly influential role. Trump has proposed building new “freedom cities” on federally owned land across the country. That’s one of several ways that huge federal landholdings could be opened for housing and jobs relatively free of local politics and NIMBYism.
Another idea is to expand nationwide the successful Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which allows the sale of federal land to support suburban growth. So far it has been limited to the Las Vegas area, where it has been successful and has generated funding to conserve and improve other valuable public land.
Other regulations and agencies influence the use of privately owned land. For instance, federal rules on storm water drainage are not only strict, but also complex and scattered. A first step would be to unify those rules in a single place. Once unified, they can be analyzed and streamlined as appropriate.
Some agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense, quietly influence local land use. An administration-wide directive could nudge them to affirm more homebuilding where appropriate rather than reflexively blocking it.
Yet the federal government’s most immediate connection to cities is through grant-making for a range of purposes. Many federal regulations require grantees to undergo expensive planning exercises to qualify for funding. Experience shows that the plans usually have no influence on subsequent actions. The new administration must ensure that money is used well by emphasizing outcome-based reporting for federal grantees instead.
Some grants are openly ill-spent. Several states waste federal funding for removing lead paint hazards by preventing out-of-state workers from contributing to that work. And some of the richest cities skirt the rules of the Community Development Block Grant program, using funds in ways that make housing more expensive, not more attainable. Federal agencies can easily curtail these inefficiencies.
Even better, the Department of Housing and Urban Development should find funding to offer technical assistance to small cities and towns that want to allow more housing. When I advised Auburn, Maine, on its nation-leading reforms, the limiting factor was local staff time. For municipalities that share Auburn’s goals, HUD can be a valuable resource.
Regulators at the Federal Housing Finance Agency have an outsize role in determining who gets a mortgage and why. The agency should seriously investigate the possibility that its own well-intended regulations have cut off mortgage lending to working-class families. My colleague Kevin Erdmann argues that unreasonably strict credit standards have eliminated most buyers for lower-cost homes and created a new constituency for single-family rentals. They would rather buy, if anyone would give them a mortgage.
Despite these many touchpoints, Americans should remember that the fault is not in our presidents, but in ourselves, that we are underbuilding. In California, for example, obstacles to construction include strict local zoning, NIMBY resistance and laws that require builders to pay above-market wages and force landlords to collect below-market rents. Such factors have aggravated a housing shortage and contributed to outmigration, homelessness and even more deferred dreams. Federal innovation and efficiency can support local efforts but cannot replace them.
Salim Furth is a senior research fellow and director of the urbanity project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
-
Technology1 week ago
Trump’s first 100 days: all the news affecting the tech industry
-
World1 week ago
Trump says US will ‘own’ Gaza in redevelopment plan
-
News1 week ago
Congressional Democrats to Trump: Changes can't be done in secrecy
-
Politics1 week ago
CIA offering buyouts to its entire workforce: report
-
Education1 week ago
Trump’s Orders Could Drain Millions From Universities, but Few Protest Openly
-
Education1 week ago
Lawsuit Accuses University of California of Allowing Race to Factor in Admissions
-
News1 week ago
U.S. cannabis shoppers face a market flush with illegal weed
-
Education1 week ago
Education Officials Placed on Leave in Trump’s Sprawling Effort to Curb D.E.I.