How have veterans’ groups reacted to Pete Hegseth’s public conduct and comments?
Executive summary
Veterans’ groups and individual veterans have largely condemned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent public conduct — particularly a high-profile speech to senior officers and his threats around an “illegal orders” video — calling it politicized, insulting to service members, and dangerous to military norms [1] [2] [3]. Prominent veterans and advocacy groups say his rhetoric targets women and diversity in the force and risks undermining civilian‑military norms; a countervailing view from some conservative veterans and Republican lawmakers defended his push for uniform standards [4] [1].
1. Veterans call his Quantico speech “insulting” and “self‑aggrandizing”
Multiple veterans’ organizations and former service members reacted angrily to Hegseth’s hour‑long address to generals and admirals, characterizing it as a “Ted talk‑style” diatribe that lectured career officers on warrior ethos and fitness rather than advancing concrete policy; VoteVets’ senior adviser called the scene “clueless, self‑aggrandizing civilian leadership,” and Common Defense leaders said the tone was insulting to experienced leaders [1] [2].
2. Female veterans say his “male standard” language attacks their service
Women who served in combat and veteran advocacy groups publicly rejected Hegseth’s statement that combat roles should return to the “highest male standard,” saying the claim erases real service and progress. Former Marine Amy McGrath and Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran, said Hegseth’s remarks demean women who have qualified and fought, and some called for his resignation [3] [4].
3. Advocacy groups warn Hegseth is politicizing the military
Progressive and veterans’ advocacy organizations framed Hegseth’s rhetoric and personnel moves as an effort to remake the military into a politicized force hostile to diversity. Veterans for American Ideas at Human Rights First and Common Defense argued the administration’s focus on removing diversity initiatives and high‑profile leaders signals an intentional rollback of democratic norms inside the Pentagon [1] [4].
4. Some conservative veterans and lawmakers back his stance on standards
Not all veterans criticized Hegseth. Republican veterans like Sen. Joni Ernst expressed approval of returning to uniform standards and said his comments were “appropriate,” reflecting a faction of service‑connected figures and conservative groups that support tougher physical or cultural standards and the administration’s push against DEI initiatives [4].
5. Veterans condemn threats tied to the “illegal orders” discussion and labeled probes
When Hegseth publicly challenged Democratic lawmakers over a video about duty to disobey unlawful orders and suggested recalling veterans to face military tribunals, veterans’ groups and columnists called the response a politically motivated stunt that risks undermining separation of powers and threatening military independence; critics described the probes as “sham” investigations and argued they intimidate dissenting veterans in public life [5] [6].
6. Tone and substance both draw scrutiny — not just politics
Reaction has not been solely partisan. Commentators and veteran activists criticized both the substance of Hegseth’s proposals (e.g., how standards would be applied) and the tone — described as egotistical, lecturing, and dismissive of professional military judgment — asserting that the combination weakens trust between civilian leadership and uniformed leaders [2] [1].
7. How veterans’ reactions split along advocacy lines and political affiliation
Coverage shows a clear divide: progressive and women‑focused veterans’ groups strongly condemn Hegseth for attacking diversity and women’s service, while some conservative veterans and Republican lawmakers echo his calls for uniform standards and applaud the cultural reset. Reporting notes these splits reflect broader political battles over DEI and the role of the secretary of defense [4] [1].
Limitations and what’s not in the reporting: available sources document the immediate backlash from veterans groups, individual female veterans, advocacy organizations, and some Republican defenders but do not provide comprehensive polling of the veteran population nor long‑term institutional responses from uniformed leadership beyond reported personnel changes and public statements (not found in current reporting).