By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In 2016, then-Fox News contributor Pete Hegseth strongly asserted that U.S. military personnel had a duty to refuse unlawful orders, specifically those that could potentially come from then-candidate Donald Trump. He emphasized that the military would not follow illegal directives, a stance rooted in the understanding that service members could face criminal consequences for executing such commands. However, as Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Hegseth has recently shifted his position, criticizing Democrats for raising similar concerns about unlawful orders. These earlier comments have resurfaced amidst his current criticism of Democrats for encouraging troops to reject illegal orders, a message he now claims undermines the chain of command.
Read the original article here
Hegseth in 2016 repeatedly warned of Trump issuing unlawful military orders, and that’s a pretty striking point to consider. It seems like back then, he was very concerned about the potential for Trump to authorize actions that would cross legal and ethical boundaries. The core of his worries centered around the idea that Trump might order things like killing the families of enemies or engaging in torture, going even beyond practices like waterboarding.
The real kicker in Hegseth’s concerns, and the thing that seems to have proven eerily prescient, was his doubt about Trump’s commitment to protecting the people who would carry out those potentially illegal orders. He wasn’t just worried about the orders themselves, but about the soldiers or agents who might be put in an impossible position – asked to break the law and then left hanging if things went south. Hegseth recognized that Trump’s priorities seemed to be centered on himself, and this lack of assurance for those following orders created a dangerous environment. It highlighted a fundamental problem: a leader who might encourage actions without accepting accountability for the consequences.
It wasn’t just a matter of Trump being willing to authorize brutal acts, according to Hegseth. The deeper issue was the risk of creating a culture where people in the military or intelligence community were essentially told to cross moral and legal lines, all while serving a leader who might abandon them the second it became politically inconvenient. This perspective underscores a key point: in such situations, individuals become tools, expendable in a game of personal brand management. This can pave the way for war crimes and the erosion of institutions that are vital to a just and equitable society.
Hegseth’s insights also shed light on how this sort of attitude could undermine the very principles that the military is supposed to uphold. The prospect of soldiers having to question every order they receive, because they can’t trust the people at the top, is an incredibly dangerous situation. It introduces uncertainty and hesitation, potentially putting service members in harm’s way. This erosion of trust can have devastating effects on morale and the effectiveness of the armed forces.
The crux of the matter, as Hegseth saw it, wasn’t merely the authorization of potentially brutal tactics, but the lack of concern for the individuals who would be tasked with carrying them out. It was a warning that the leader, consumed with his own image and agenda, might throw those individuals under the bus if it suited him. This is what made Hegseth’s warnings so powerful: he saw the potential for a dangerous disconnect between the commander-in-chief and the troops, and understood the potential consequences of that disconnect.
That said, while Hegseth seemed to grasp the dangers early on, it’s also worth noting the irony of his own actions later. While he expressed concerns, at the time, about Trump’s potential use of unlawful orders, his later choices seem to have contradicted those initial concerns. In politics, we often see a dance between principle and power, and Hegseth’s story is no exception. It’s a reminder of the compromises that can be made in the pursuit of influence and access.
The underlying concern, as Hegseth articulated, was how a leader’s actions could create a climate of lawlessness and endanger those who are sworn to uphold the law. It highlighted a potential conflict between a leader’s personal ambitions and the best interests of the military and the nation as a whole. His earlier warnings serve as a somber reminder of the potential consequences when leadership prioritizes personal gain and disregards the welfare of those under their command. The overall message is this: power, in the wrong hands, is a dangerous thing, and it can twist even the most well-intentioned.