Fact check: How do experts evaluate Pete Hegseth's performance in comparison to previous Defense Secretaries?

1. Why the “Department of War” Talk Matters and How Experts Read It

Reports in early September 2025 that President Trump is preparing to rebrand the Department of Defense as the “Department of War” have become a central prism through which experts judge Hegseth’s role, because a renaming would signal a substantive shift in mission framing and civil‑military priorities, not just semantics ^[1]. Observers argue that such a rebrand changes expectations placed on the secretary, aligning the office with a more aggressive posture and raising questions about strategic doctrine, legal frameworks, and interagency coordination. Analysts compare this potential shift unfavorably to prior secretaries who prioritized institutional continuity and multilateral engagement, while proponents frame it as restoring clarity and readiness.

2. Military Leadership’s Warnings: A Fracture with the Uniformed Ranks

By late September 2025, multiple accounts documented concern among senior military officers about the administration’s defense strategy and Hegseth’s management style, describing an unusual summons of top brass to a Virginia summit and revealing tensions between political appointees and uniformed leadership ^[2]. Experts use these episodes to measure Hegseth against predecessors who maintained routine, professional civil‑military relations; critics see diminished trust and increased politicization, while defenders say direct engagement is necessary to enact rapid reforms. The comparison centers on whether Hegseth’s approach undermines the institutional independence of the armed forces or reflects a deliberate effort to impose new strategic direction.

3. Grooming Rules as a Window into Leadership Priorities

Hegseth’s orders tightening grooming standards and limiting extended medical exemptions for facial hair became a high‑visibility policy reflecting his emphasis on uniformity and a “warrior ethos,” drawing scrutiny from experts about operational and medical implications ^{[3] [4]}. Analysts contrast this with recent secretaries who balanced unit discipline with medical and cultural accommodations, noting that policy details can disproportionately affect servicemembers with specific medical needs. Supporters argue the change reasserts readiness standards; detractors argue it risks sidelining health‑based accommodations and distracts from larger strategic challenges facing the department.

4. Axing the Women’s Advisory Committee: Representation vs. Reform

The termination of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services in September 2025 prompted criticism from female lawmakers and veteran advocates who warned it would worsen data gaps and hinder policy improvements for women in uniform, juxtaposed against Hegseth’s characterization of the committee as promoting a “divisive feminist agenda” ^{[5] [6]}. Experts compare this move with earlier secretaries who retained or reformed advisory bodies to preserve stakeholder input; removing institutional feedback mechanisms is judged by many as a departure from inclusive policy development. Proponents argue the action eliminates politicized advocacy; opponents warn it removes historically effective channels that produced high adoption rates of recommendations.

5. How Analysts Weigh Discipline, Readiness, and Governance Trade‑offs

Taken together, experts weigh Hegseth’s actions against three metrics commonly used to evaluate defense secretaries: institutional stability, civil‑military trust, and policy effectiveness. Reporting indicates a pattern of assertive reforms and controversial personnel decisions that some experts compare unfavorably to secretaries who prioritized consensus and technocratic management ^{[2] [5]}. Others contend that bold measures are necessary to correct perceived softness or bureaucratic drift. The debate hinges on whether immediate disciplinary gains justify potential costs in morale, legal exposure, or degraded advisory capacity.

6. Timelines and Evidence: Why September 2025 Is a Pivotal Comparison Point

All cited reporting stems from September 2025 and clusters around a compressed sequence of high‑profile actions—rebranding discussion in early September, grooming directives mid‑September, and the advisory committee termination later that month—making expert assessments provisional and time‑bound ^{[1] [3] [4] [5]}. Analysts note that comparisons to previous secretaries are constrained by the short time frame, so judgments emphasize trajectory and intent more than long‑term outcomes. Evaluators caution that subsequent operational results, congressional oversight, and legal reviews will reshape the record used to compare Hegseth with predecessors.

7. What’s Missing from the Public Record and Why It Matters

Experts flag several important omissions in available reporting that complicate definitive comparisons: comprehensive assessments of force readiness metrics, classified strategy documents, systematic morale surveys, and long‑term personnel data—information typically used to evaluate prior secretaries’ legacies ^{[2] [6]}. The absence of these metrics means analysts must rely on policy signals and political interactions to infer performance, increasing the role of interpretive judgment and partisan framing. Until more objective data appear, cross‑secretary comparisons will remain contested and dependent on which performance indicators observers prioritize.