Since his arrival at the Pentagon in January last year, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has pursued a singular mission: transform the United States military from a disciplined, rule-bound institution into a force defined by aggressive “lethality” and unwavering loyalty to conservative values. Formerly a Fox News presenter, opinion author, and Iraq War veteran, Hegseth has made it clear in public addresses and press briefings that the military under his watch should be composed of warriors, not mere defenders, and that they should embody the physical and cultural ideals he prizes—white, Christian, male, and fit. As El Pais reports, his language in addressing the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran has been nothing short of incendiary, promising “pure destruction” and a “fight without quarter,” always invoking God in his appeals for “overwhelming violence” against those deemed undeserving of mercy.
Hegseth’s rise has coincided with a broad expansion of presidential authority over the military. President Donald Trump has deployed troops domestically, attempting to use them for policing in Democratic cities and enforcing immigration policy, while also authorizing military strikes abroad without prior congressional approval. The Trump administration’s proposed defense budget for the next fiscal year is an eye-watering $1.5 trillion, roughly equivalent to the entire GDP of Turkey, reflecting the priority placed on Hegseth’s vision of a muscular, unconstrained military.
In recent weeks, Hegseth has accelerated his influence over the Pentagon’s top ranks. The resignation of General Randy George, the Army’s chief of staff, was announced on Thursday with immediate effect. George, a career officer with extensive combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, had been a trusted advisor under Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin, a Democrat and the first African American to hold the position. El Pais notes that George’s dismissal, framed as a resignation, appears less about performance and more about political alignment, coinciding with speculation that Hegseth aims to sideline Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, a potential successor with strong ties to the departing general.
The response from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, typically disciplined in tone, hinted at quiet protest. The organization’s social media expressed warm thanks to General George and his wife, recognizing years of “sacrifice and devotion” to the U.S. military while signaling the abrupt disruption of a stable leadership chapter. George’s departure is part of a broader pattern under Hegseth’s tenure, which has seen an unprecedented politicization of the Pentagon. El Pais highlights that he has systematically purged senior officers associated with diversity and egalitarian policies, including women and African Americans, replacing them with leaders aligned with a conservative, evangelical worldview.
Hegseth’s measures extend far beyond personnel changes. He has institutionalized prayer breakfasts at the Pentagon, imposed a gag order on accredited journalists that prompted mass resignations, and intervened to pardon pilots involved in controversial actions supporting Trump loyalists. He has prohibited transgender enlistment, demanded women meet “maximum” standards traditionally applied to men for combat roles, and blocked promotions for officers from minority backgrounds. The New York Times and NBC have reported multiple instances where the advancement of women and African American colonels to brigadier general has been stalled, raising concerns about systemic bias.
His influence has reshaped not just leadership but also the culture and appearance of the military. Soldiers are expected to maintain a disciplined physical profile, with beards, long hair, and excess weight strictly discouraged. Hegseth has openly criticized what he perceives as lax standards, declaring himself “fed up” with seeing overweight generals and soldiers in Pentagon corridors. El Pais reports that his personal convictions, including evangelical Christian beliefs and tattoos invoking medieval crusader imagery, inform his vision for the military as an instrument of both moral and martial authority. Pastors opposing women’s suffrage have been invited to Pentagon prayer events, signaling a fusion of religion, politics, and military policy unprecedented in modern U.S. history.
The purges have extended to legal advisors and intelligence officials, including the top lawyers for each military branch and leaders responsible for overseeing compliance with international law. Such positions, historically crucial for preventing misconduct, have been sidelined, giving Hegseth free rein to conduct operations without legal scrutiny. El Pais cites the recent U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran, which killed over 175 civilians, mostly schoolchildren, as an example of military action under his philosophy of “no quarter,” raising serious questions about adherence to the laws of war.
Despite the upheaval, Hegseth maintains significant support among lower-ranking troops. A retired officer described the mood in the ranks as mixed: alarm at the top, but enthusiasm lower down, where Hegseth’s hands-on style, including conducting physical exercises with soldiers, resonates. He continues to enjoy Trump’s backing, having been credited publicly as the first to recommend military action against Iran during a recent Cabinet meeting.
Yet the aggressive path Hegseth has charted carries risks. Should a conflict with Iran escalate with negative consequences, the political and military fallout may prompt President Trump—or a successor—to seek accountability. The man who has cast himself as a warrior and transformative figure could, in that scenario, become a convenient scapegoat.
In reshaping the Pentagon, Hegseth has redefined not just who leads the U.S. military but what it represents: a force aligned with a specific political and religious worldview, aggressively oriented toward external enemies, and reshaped in the image of a conservative ideal. For critics, this is a dangerous politicization of the armed forces; for supporters, it is a return to decisive, unflinching strength. The debate over the role, character, and values of America’s military is now being waged not only in Washington but in the very ranks of the Pentagon itself, with consequences that may be felt far beyond U.S. borders. El Pais’ coverage underscores that this transformation is as much about ideology and identity as it is about strategy and combat.
