'Another Hegseth DEI Hire!': Marilyn Strickland Accuses Hegseth Of Hiring His Brother

Forbes Breaking News

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing in July, Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-WA) introduced an amendment which prohibits "nepotism" hires. Strickland pointed to Phil Hegseth, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's brother, who was hired to be senior adviser to the secretary for the Department of Homeland Security and liaison officer to the Defense Department.

Transcript

00:00We will now consider log number 5110R1 by Ms. Tricklin. For what purpose does the

00:07gentlelady from Washington seek recognition? I have an amendment at the

00:10desk, Mr. Chair. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without

00:14objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now

00:17recognizes the gentlelady from Washington for the purpose of explaining

00:20her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am offering a simple amendment to prohibit

00:25nepotism at the Department of Defense. And I want to say at the outset that it's

00:29unfortunate that I even have to offer this amendment. Federal law prohibits

00:33nepotism. A 1967 federal nepotism law prohibits government officials from

00:39hiring, promoting, or recommending relatives to any civilian position over which they

00:43exercise any control. But unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense either thinks he

00:48is above the law or he simply needs another reminder that we should not hire

00:52our immediate family members, including siblings or spouses, to work for you or

00:57report to you in any way. Pete Hegseth's brother has an office at the Pentagon. And

01:04the Department of Defense, as we know, handles some of the most sensitive issues of

01:07national security. It is deeply concerning that the Secretary of Defense's

01:12judgment is so poor that he included his wife and his brother in an unsecured

01:17signal chat where sensitive operational details were being shared. And while the

01:22Pentagon has stated that the Secretary's wife never, quote, attended a meeting where

01:26sensitive information was discussed, that's actually contradicted by widespread

01:30press reporting. And here's why this matters. Nepotism prioritizes personal

01:35relationships over qualifications, skills, and capabilities. And by the Republican

01:42definition of DEI, another Hegseth DEI hire. When Secretary Hegseth was sworn in, he sent a

01:50message to the force which said, DOD's standards will be, quote, high, uncompromising,

01:56and clear. The Secretary's use of unqualified people as his closest confidants

02:02demonstrates every single day that he's not holding himself to the standard that

02:07he demands of others. What message does this send to the troops? Making it crystal

02:13clear to this Department of Defense and to every administration after this that such

02:18behavior is unacceptable is the right thing to do. It does not matter who's in the

02:22White House. It does not matter who's Secretary of Defense. This should be a

02:26nonpartisan issue. I urge everyone to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back,

02:30Mr. Chair. The gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. I agree that

02:35nepotism is not good. It's not good government, which is why I support the

02:40nepotism laws already in place. Federal law at 5 U.S.C. subsection 3110 already

02:47prohibits a Federal official, including a member of Congress, from appointing, promoting

02:51or recommending for appointment or promotion any relative of the official or any agency

02:57or department over which the official exercises authority or control. This restatement of the

03:02law is simply a vehicle to attack the President. What it does do, however, is prevent the sons

03:07and daughters of military officers or other appointed officials from serving their country.

03:12For example, the enlisted child of the 101st Airborne Commanding General would be restricted

03:17from serving in that unit. That's not acceptable. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

03:22Any other members seek to Mr. Whitesides of California is recognized.

03:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Strickland, for offering. I wish this amendment

03:30wasn't necessary, but it is. Let's be clear. The Department of Defense runs on discipline,

03:35not on dynasties. The Secretary has made a lot of noise about wanting to run his department

03:39based on merit, not on immutable characteristics, but he's not applied that same standard to

03:44himself and his family. He's employed his own brother, a podcaster without substantive

03:48government or policy experience, and an important role at the Department. If the top civilian official

03:54disregards basic norms against nepotism, it sends a corrosive message down the ranks that

03:58connections matter more than conduct. This isn't about one family. It's about the future of

04:04civilian leadership. If we don't draw a line now, we're opening the door to politicized,

04:09unaccountable, family-run decision-making structures at the top of our nation's most powerful and

04:15important institutions. Make no mistake, good governance is built on norms that prevent conflict

04:21of interest. Nepotism erodes public trust, weakens morale within the Department, and creates

04:27vulnerabilities in decision-making that foreign adversaries can exploit. And let's be honest, it doesn't

04:33stop at the foreign risk. We have protocols for a reason. Nepotism introduces chaos into command.

04:39When family members are involved in informal decision-making, especially without relevant

04:43expertise or experience, it creates confusion, duplication, and risk. This amendment shouldn't

04:49be partisan nor controversial. In fact, it protects the secretary as well. It protects him and future

04:55secretaries from being pressured or tempted to involve family inappropriately. It strengthens the office

05:01by clearly underlying its ethical boundaries and will increase the American people's trust

05:06in this institution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back.

05:11Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on the Strickland amendment?

05:17There's no further debate. Question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Strickland. So many

05:21is there in favor? We'll say aye. Those opposed, no. No. Opinion chair, the no's have it. Recorded votes

05:28requested. Recorded vote is postponed.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended