For weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has faced a barrage of criticism over his nomination of Pete Hegseth for Defense secretary.

Hegseth, an Army National Guard major and co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend,” is a staunchly conservative combat veteran who has defended Trump’s “America First” policies and called for an end to decades of progress in the U.S. military, including the deployment of women in fighting roles.

He also has little leadership experience and a raft of personal baggage that has dripped out steadily since Trump selected him — from sexual assault allegations in California, to accusations of financial mismanagement at two veterans groups, to widespread claims of severe alcohol abuse going back years, including in work settings.

Those issues have sparked concern among senators who would need to confirm Hegseth to the Pentagon post, and reports swirled Thursday that the nomination was doomed and Trump was considering withdrawing it.

Trump, however, swung back sharply Friday, defending Hegseth as a “WINNER” who was still in the fight.

“Pete Hegseth is doing very well,” Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social. “His support is strong and deep, much more so than the Fake News would have you believe.”

The pitched battle over Hegseth is one piece of a broader fight among Trump, his critics on the left and a handful of Senate Republicans who have shown a willingness to block the president-elect’s most unqualified nominees. It is also one of the clearest examples yet, experts said, of how Trump’s own unorthodox rise to power and extreme need for loyalty will play a defining role in his second term.

That Trump would downplay traditional experience, dismiss alarming baggage and prioritize camera-ready adherence to his agenda as he seeks candidates for top positions in his new administration is not surprising, they said. Rather, it is in keeping with his own against-all-odds rise to power and his belief that the voters who reelected him — despite his own baggage — are largely unbothered by such issues, experts said.

Time and again, they said, Trump has shown he is willing to overlook criminal charges and convictions, allegations of sexual misconduct and various other red flags that may have short-circuited nominations in the past, as long as the nominees in question have a clear track record of loyalty to him. And while not all of those picks have panned out, and more may still fall, it remains likely that Trump will assemble one of the most unorthodox and inexperienced leadership teams in American history, the experts said.

In some ways, backers of the president-elect have championed that idea.

In a statement to The Times, Karoline Leavitt, a Trump transition spokeswoman, said that Trump “was re-elected by a resounding mandate from the American people to change the status quo in Washington,” and “has chosen brilliant and highly-respected outsiders” whom he will continue to “stand behind” despite efforts to “derail the MAGA Agenda.”

“All of President Trump’s cabinet nominees are receiving great feedback and support on Capitol Hill because they are qualified men and women who have the talent, experience, and necessary skill sets to help Make America Great Again,” Leavitt said.

Other conservative backers of Trump have echoed that idea — including in closing ranks around Hegseth — while Trump has lashed out at any suggestion that he is not in complete control of the nominations process. After the Wall Street Journal reported on a second Trump nominee pulling out under pressure, Trump lambasted the newspaper, writing on Truth Social that Chad Chronister, his pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration, “didn’t pull out, I pulled him out.”

Democratic critics and some outside experts take a different view. They say loyalty to Trump appears to be the only metric being applied to his nominees, and that those picks are facing stiff headwinds because they are clearly unfit for the roles otherwise.

Andrea Katz, a legal historian who teaches constitutional law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and writes often on presidential power, said all presidents make appointments based on a “mixture of who they like, who they can get, who will actually do the job well, and who needs to be rewarded for their loyalty.” And, conservative presidents for years have held the added assumption that many mainstream candidates and agency experts are too liberal to be trusted, she said.

“With the GOP generally, there’s been since Nixon — definitely accelerating under Reagan — this idea that the bureaucracy is not a conservative president’s friend, and you need to appoint people who are loyal to you and not to the agency you are appointing them to,” Katz said.

But Trump has taken that idea to a new level, she said, making the notion that career civil servants are “woke” and the “deep state” must be destroyed in favor of his own loyalists core to his approach to governance — and to nominations.

His picks, she said, “are historically aberrational outliers, beyond the pale normally, and therefore he is making a point by appointing them.”

In addition to Hegseth, Trump has put forward several Justice Department candidates who have raised eyebrows. His first pick for attorney general, former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, withdrew his name amid allegations that he paid for sex with a minor and used illicit drugs and the widespread concerns about his fitness for office among senators.

Critics have noted that some of the allegations were already public — and under investigation by a House ethics panel — when Trump selected Gaetz for the nation’s top law enforcement position.

Trump’s replacement pick for attorney general, former Florida Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, is viewed as more qualified, but has also been criticized for backing Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election being stolen. His pick for FBI director, Kash Patel, has been widely panned given his thin credentials and his embrace of Trump’s calls for retaliation against a “deep state” of government workers, members of the media and others who have challenged the once and future president.

FBI directors are normally appointed and left in office for 10-year terms, and Trump’s suggestion that he will replace current FBI Director Christopher A. Wray — who Trump himself appointed — has drawn derision in its own right.

Trump nominated Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to serve as ambassador to France. The elder Kushner was pardoned by Trump in 2020 after pleading guilty in 2005 to 16 counts of tax evasion, one count of retaliating against a federal witness and one count of lying to the Federal Election Commission.

Trump nominated Peter Navarro, a top trade aide in his first administration, to again serve as a trade advisor. Navarro got out of prison earlier this year after being convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena from a House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump also has taken heat for his nominations of former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to serve as his director of national intelligence despite her having little relevant experience and a history of defending U.S. adversaries; of billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to serve in his newly invented “Department of Government Efficiency” despite having clear conflicts of interest through their business holdings; and of various others with ties to the conservative Project 2025 playbook despite his disavowing the blueprint during the campaign.

Besides Gaetz, the only Trump nominee to withdraw to date is Chronister, Trump’s pick to run the Drug Enforcement Administration. Chronister, the sheriff in Hillsborough County, Fla., had been criticized by conservatives over his record on immigration and his having arrested a mega-church pastor who defied a COVID-19 lockdown.

The unorthodox nature and baggage of Trump’s various picks have raised questions about his process for selecting leaders for his next administration, with some questioning whether his transition team is simply bad at vetting. Others see a purposeful disregard for past improprieties, with loyalty being the only true test.

“Trump is assembling a palace of the most loyal guards,” said Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, who worked for years in the Senate — including as chief of staff to former Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado — and has written extensively about the checks and balances in American government.

Trump’s nominees, Sozan noted, include people who lent credence to wild conspiracy theories, who have promised to “weaponize government to assault Trump’s political enemies,” and who have been accused of sexual assault or served time in prison, as well as “billionaires with massive conflicts of interest.” The only thing they all have in common is that they are “extremely loyal to Trump” — which is by design, he said. “This is what we see from authoritarians, what we see in other backsliding democracies.”

Sozan said every president “should get a lot of deference” in standing up their own administration, but Trump’s nominees are “so far out of the mainstream” that they deserve special scrutiny. “We have never seen anything like this in modern times.”

Sozan said he doesn’t think Trump cares whether people have been accused or convicted of crimes, and might even see nominating such people as “a way of minimizing” his own legal troubles, including allegations of sexual assault. “It’s almost a way of inoculating himself when he is surrounding himself with loyalists who have gone through similar travails.”

Katz said Trump’s revelry in shocking the mainstream leaders of his own party, angering his progressive opponents and delighting his anti-establishment MAGA base is clearly a factor in his nominations. But so is his deeply held belief, which he has “tested” repeatedly in the past, that “the public is going to perceive a legal liability the way he wants it to be perceived,” she said.

Trump tested that idea when he fired FBI Director James Comey during his first term amid an investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia, and when he derided as baseless that investigation, the separate investigations into his political strong-arming of Ukraine, his 2020 election denial and the Jan. 6 attack, and both of his resulting impeachments, Katz said.

Each time, voters “didn’t leave him,” she said, “so I think he’s pretty confident that he is able to mold people’s perceptions of where an ethical red line is,” including when it comes to his nominees.

Robert C. Rowland, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Kansas and author of the book “The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy,” said Trump’s picks — a dozen now from Fox alone — have been characteristic of his approach to governing.

“Image and loyalty are always the first two things that influence Trump’s view of those with whom he works. He has picked any number of people who excel in praising him and who also have experience on television,” Rowland said.

Trump has “total faith in his own gut instincts” — over and above formal vetting — and “relishes playing the role of provocateur, with a special focus on ‘owning the libs,’” Rowland said.

Rowland said the result may well be a “crazy” mix of loyalists running the country — which he said was scary, as “they are not the adults in the room.”