Pete Hegseth was already a risk during his confirmation hearing, a political experiment that even parts of the Republicans accepted only through gritted teeth. A former television commentator who brought more headlines than trust and entered the position of defense secretary with a mixture of aggression, overconfidence, and loud disdain for existing rules. Not even a year later he stands exactly where his critics expected him from the start: at the center of a scandal that is shaking his tenure. After Signalgate, in which Hegseth and other senior officials discussed military attacks over an encrypted messenger app, a new accusation is now rising over him, one of a possible illegal killing. A special operations team is said to have attacked not only the target but also survivors after a strike on an alleged drug boat off the coast of Venezuela. For some senators this is not just any mistake, but a breach of the laws of war, an event that crosses the line between military operation and excessive force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hegseth defends himself with the \"fog of war,\" speaks of explosions, fire, lack of visibility. Yet for months he created a climate that made such operations almost inevitable. He proclaimed a \"culture of warriors,\" mocked rules that are meant to protect soldiers, and declared that one must act \"with maximum force.\" For him rules are not guardrails but shackles. Anyone who raises concerns belongs in his world automatically to those who have understood nothing. But now his slogans collide with the reality of Congress. Republicans like Roger Wicker or Thom Tillis, who initially supported Hegseth, speak of serious allegations and demand clarification. Some Democrats go further: for them it is clear that the attack was an extrajudicial killing and that Hegseth must step down. That a senator publicly speaks of \"murder\" and \"war crimes\" is rare in Washington - but in this case not at all exaggerated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Support in the White House is shaky and stable at the same time. Donald Trump protects Hegseth publicly, but the investigations by the responsible committees show how thin this protection actually is. The chairs of both chambers are demanding answers, and this time no one can hide behind party loyalty. What matters is not whether Hegseth is loyal to Trump, but whether he respects the law - and it is precisely on that point that there are significant doubts. At the same time the defensive line is forming: JD Vance, who with his tie-breaking vote put Hegseth into office, demonstratively stands behind him. Senators like Eric Schmitt attack the critics and claim that the goal is merely to sabotage Trump's strategy in Central and South America. But even within the Republicans it is noticeable that many have had enough of a minister who prefers to provoke rather than lead. Every week new conflicts, every week new missteps - most recently a photo of a cartoon turtle character that Hegseth posted in response to the allegations. It looked like a child's joke in a moment when the matter involved life and death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soon the responsible admiral is expected to testify before Congress, the man who is said to have ordered the second strike. The committees will then learn for the first time whether it was a tragic mistake, a communication failure, or something much darker. And they will once again have to ask themselves whether this defense secretary was ever capable of carrying responsibility. Many, including Senator Tim Kaine, do not believe so - and point to the long list of warning signs: leadership failures, questionable decisions in earlier organizations, allegations of misconduct, and a past that cannot simply be wiped away by taking the oath of office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These days something becomes visible that is often lost in the political noise: power does not change people. It amplifies what is already there. In Pete Hegseth it was visible from the beginning. Now, in the decisive moment, it becomes impossible to overlook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n