How do veterans who served with Hegseth describe his actions and role overseas?
Executive summary
Veterans who served with Pete Hegseth offer sharply divided portraits: some praise his battlefield teaching, counterinsurgency work and decorations, while others call his public conduct “insulting,” “dangerous,” and unrepresentative of career military leadership [1] [2]. Reporting shows praise from allies citing high training marks and Bronze Stars [1] [3] and widespread veteran criticism of his rhetoric, personnel purges, and controversial operational choices as secretary [2] [4] [5].
1. Praise from people who knew him: “battle‑proven” and a good instructor
Supporters and some contemporaries emphasize Hegseth’s hands‑on combat and training record. Fox News reported copies of past military evaluations saying he “worked extremely hard” on counterinsurgency instruction, “developing into one of my best COIN instructors,” and that he “always received high marks on the end‑of‑course critiques,” while profiles list deployments to Guantánamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan and awards such as Bronze Stars [1] [3]. Pro‑Hegseth commentary by allies frames those credentials as the basis for his claim to understand troops and battlefield decisions [1].
2. Veterans critical of his tone and messages: “insulting” and alarming
Multiple veterans and veterans’ advocates publicly rejected Hegseth’s address to flag officers and his broader messaging. Veterans quoted by The Guardian described his speech as “insulting” to career generals and warned that talk of “lethality” and regimenting appearance (physical fitness, clean‑shaven faces) was dangerous or tone‑deaf to long‑serving officers’ experience [2] [6]. Those critics argued Hegseth’s rhetoric shortchanged institutional knowledge and disrespected service members who spent decades in uniform [2].
3. Discrepancy between battlefield citations and civilian leadership style
Several pieces trace a gap between accolades for Hegseth’s National Guard service and unease about his Pentagon leadership. While his record as a mid‑rank officer and instructor is invoked by supporters, reporting in outlets such as Military.com and The New York Times documents friction at the Pentagon: personnel purges, abrupt firings, and an atmosphere of anxiety among senior officers [7] [4]. Veterans who served with him are thus sometimes split between respect for prior service and alarm at how he exercises authority as secretary [7] [4].
4. Veteran activists and anti‑war voices oppose his “might makes right” approach
Some veteran‑led and anti‑war commentators explicitly oppose Hegseth’s worldview. Opinion outlets and advocacy groups describe his emphasis on lethal force and “warrior ethos” as contrary to lessons from the post‑9/11 wars, urging listening to veterans who warn about the costs of unrestrained militarism [8] [9]. Those veterans portray Hegseth not as their representative but as a political actor pushing a combative vision of the military [8] [9].
5. Allies frame criticisms as politically motivated; veterans’ praise is also political
Defenders including elected Republicans and conservative outlets cast attacks as partisan, stressing his combat decorations and work leading veterans’ organizations [1] [10]. Pro‑Hegseth commentators emphasize his service and record at Concerned Veterans of America as proof of commitment to troops [10]. Readers should note praise and dissent alike come with political stakes: praise often appears in partisan outlets or from Republican officials, while criticism appears in outlets and organizations aligned with veterans’ advocacy or progressive perspectives [1] [8].
6. Operational controversies change how many veterans evaluate him
Recent operational questions — notably the Navy “double‑tap” boat strikes and Signal messages that watchdogs say may have exposed operational details — have sharpened veteran criticism of Hegseth’s judgment; critics contend those actions carry legal and ethical implications that former service members find troubling [5] [11]. Hegseth defended follow‑on strikes by invoking the “fog of war” and saying he did not witness survivors in the water, but reporting and watchdog findings have prompted veterans to reassess whether his battlefield instincts translate to lawful civilian oversight of force [5] [11].
7. What sources don’t say: direct, widespread on‑the‑record combat peer testimony
Available reporting includes evaluations, public statements from veterans’ groups, opinion pieces and selective veteran interviews, but the sources provided do not offer a broad catalog of on‑the‑record contemporaries who served in his exact units recounting detailed everyday conduct overseas. That absence means conclusions rely on a mix of official records, critics’ statements and partisan defenses rather than a wholesale archive of battlefield peer testimony (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers: a divided veterans’ view with political overtones
Veterans who served with Hegseth are invoked on both sides: some cite his instructional excellence and decorations; others call his rhetoric and operational choices insulting or dangerous and say his Pentagon tenure undermines career military norms [1] [2] [4] [5]. Evaluations of his overseas actions depend on which sources one privileges: contemporaneous service records and allies’ recollections or watchdog reporting and veteran‑activist testimony critical of his leadership [1] [3] [11].