Is there a better example of the Peter Principle — the theory that, sooner or later, most employees get promoted above their level of competence — than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth?
The Washington Post
Hegseth is in over his head. No wonder the Pentagon is a mess.
His lack of readiness is plainly evident in the continuing Signalgate scandal.
April 22, 2025
But he never rose above the rank of major and never commanded above the platoon level (a typical platoon has 36 soldiers). If he had stayed in the military, it would have taken him years to qualify for battalion or brigade command — not that he would have been likely to make it that far, given his well-documented personal problems. While he is a graduate of Princeton University, Hegseth never attended the military schools — command and staff colleges and war colleges — that are typically necessary for higher-level promotions. His performance as a Fox News weekend host appears to have played a big role in how he landed his present position.
Thus, the 44-year-old Hegseth is in way over his head now that he leads a department with 3.4 million civilian and uniformed employees. His lack of readiness for such a senior position, which vaulted him into command of generals and admirals who have decades more military experience than he does, is plainly evident in the continuing Signalgate scandal.
This is the revelation that Hegseth shared details of an upcoming U.S. attack on the Houthis in Yemen over the unsecure Signal app. The Atlantic had previously reported that he did so in a group chat that included the magazine’s editor. Now the New York Times reports that he also shared the same plans in a Signal group that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer.
Such flagrant misbehavior, possibly putting the lives of U.S. service members at risk, probably would result in dismissal, and possibly criminal charges, for a lower-level employee. That Hegseth has so far been able to escape accountability — after issuing weaselly worded denials that he had shared any “war plans” (as opposed, presumably, to attack plans) — sends a dispiriting signal to the armed forces that the rules apply only to them, not their leader.
Hegseth’s flouting of guidelines governing the handling of such sensitive information is only one indicator of the “total chaos” that has engulfed the Defense Department since he took over. That description comes from John Ullyot, a former communications adviser to Hegseth who recently left the Pentagon. Writing in Politico, Ullyot notes that, in a “strange and baffling purge,” three senior aides to Hegseth were fired last week for allegedly leaking to reporters, and there are reports that Hegseth’s chief of staff may be on the way out too. “The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon,” writes Ullyot, who notes that he had previously been a “strong backer” of Hegseth and values his friendship.
The most interesting explanation I’ve heard so far for Hegseth’s troubled tenure comes from a retired Army officer who described the defense secretary to me as a “typical major.” No insult intended to majors! A former senior military official told me that “most majors I know would do a better job than Hegseth is doing right now … because most majors know just how much they don’t know.”
But the limits of a major’s mindset help to explain Hegseth’s preoccupation with “lethality” and the “warrior ethos.” That’s very much in keeping with the outlook of a younger officer who is laser-focused on tactics — i.e., finding and destroying the enemy. But, as Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who now teaches at Hamilton College, emailed me: “When has lethality been an issue for the U.S. military? We have outclassed everyone on the planet, by far.”
Experienced senior leaders know that they have to focus on bigger and tougher issues, such as translating tactical gains into strategic achievements. Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and Iraq War veteran who is now a professor of military history at Ohio State University, told me: “Military effectiveness is far more than just lethality. The ability to formulate sensible strategy, craft sound operational plans and orders, and inculcate a healthy organizational culture are more critical to military effectiveness than tactical brilliance.”
It is precisely on the bigger issues that Hegseth falls so short. While focusing on lethality, he is undermining the military’s effectiveness.
One of Hegseth’s less-noticed measures has been closing the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, a legendary lair of deep thinking on how to counter first the Soviet Union and, in more recent decades, China. Presumably Hegseth thinks its work has nothing to do with “lethality,” but it has a lot to do with helping the nation to achieve its strategic objectives.
Hegseth is further undermining the force with his anti-DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, which have resulted in the removal of 381 books (many by women or minority authors) from the Naval Academy library and the temporary removal of information on Defense Department websites about the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and other minority heroes. Hegseth’s firings of a number of general officers who are women and minorities signal to those groups that they are no longer as welcome in the armed forces as they once were. And his dismissal of the top lawyers for the Army, Air Force and Navy indicate that he is not as interested as his predecessors in upholding the laws of war — the ethical lodestar for troops in combat.
Hegseth’s former aide John Ullyot is right: It’s time for Hegseth to go. The job should be given to someone who has the right experience and qualifications to lead one of the world’s largest and most complex organizations in these increasingly dangerous times.