Assistance from Claude AI.
Summary
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth delivered a major policy address at the Reagan National Defense Forum on December 6, 2025, positioning President Trump as the true heir to Ronald Reagan’s legacy while sharply criticizing decades of “neo-Reaganite” foreign policy. Hegseth announced four strategic priorities for the renamed Department of War: defending the homeland and Western Hemisphere, deterring China through strength rather than confrontation, demanding unprecedented allied burden-sharing, and transforming the defense industrial base. The speech confirmed Operation Midnight Hammer, which destroyed Iran’s nuclear program, detailed ongoing military operations against drug cartels throughout the hemisphere, and revealed that NATO allies committed to spending 5% of GDP on defense at a recent summit in The Hague. Hegseth also announced Golden Dome, a comprehensive missile defense system promised to provide protection within Trump’s current term, and articulated what he called the “Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine”—asserting renewed American military dominance in the Western Hemisphere including “key terrain” like the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the Arctic.
Participants
Pete Hegseth – Secretary of War, United States Department of War
Lucas Tomlinson – Fox News correspondent (mentioned as scheduled conversation partner, but Q&A session not included in transcript)
Unknown Moderator – Reagan National Defense Forum host (delivered opening remarks)
Detailed Breakdown by Topic
Trump as Reagan’s True Heir: Challenging the “Neo-Reaganites”
Secretary Pete Hegseth opened his keynote address by directly confronting what he characterized as misappropriation of Ronald Reagan’s legacy by Washington critics of President Trump. According to Hegseth, those who claim Trump differs fundamentally from Reagan “are wrong—they’re dead wrong.”
The Secretary argued that examining actual policies rather than rhetoric reveals Trump as Reagan’s rightful successor. Hegseth contended that most self-described Republican hawks and “neo-Reaganites” have championed policies “quite the opposite” of Reagan’s actual approach for the past thirty years. This represents a significant rebuke to prominent Republican defense establishment figures, some of whom Hegseth noted “have even been awarded for it on this very stage” at previous Reagan Forums.
The core of Hegseth’s argument centered on Reagan’s willingness to engage adversaries from positions of strength. He emphasized that Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev despite fierce domestic criticism, including from his own party. Similarly, Trump’s willingness to engage with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping reflects this same pragmatic approach rather than weakness, according to Hegseth.
The Secretary drew a sharp distinction between Reagan’s “disciplined, focused and realistic approach” and what he characterized as “grandiose nation building, moralistic and rudderless wars” led by Reagan’s self-described followers in subsequent decades—wars that Hegseth’s own generation fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Weinberger Doctrine and Focused Military Power
Hegseth devoted substantial attention to the Weinberger Doctrine, the military deployment framework developed under Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. This doctrine, created specifically to correct failures that led to Vietnam, established four key principles that Hegseth described as “sound stuff”:
First, the United States should only commit forces when vital national interests are at stake. Second, troops should only be committed “wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning”—otherwise they should not be deployed at all. Third, commitments should only occur with clearly defined political and military objectives and capacity to accomplish them. Fourth, military force should be considered only as a last resort.
Hegseth emphasized that Reagan actually governed according to these principles, committing U.S. ground forces only twice during his presidency: in Grenada and Lebanon. Otherwise, Reagan focused American military power on the Cold War priority theater of Europe and the Soviet threat.
This restrained use of force stood in stark contrast, according to Hegseth, to what came after: “Since the end of the Cold War, a generation of self-proclaimed neo-Reaganites have touted Reagan’s name but didn’t govern like him. All the bluster, none of the clarity.”
Critique of Post-Cold War Foreign Policy
The Secretary delivered one of his speech’s sharpest critiques when addressing the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that emerged after the Cold War. This “generation of self-proclaimed neo-Reaganites,” according to Hegseth, “abandoned Reagan’s actual wise policies in favor of unchecked neoconservatism and economic globalism.”
Hegseth outlined a two-pronged failure: economically, this generation “dismantled our industrial base, shipping it overseas.” In diplomacy and defense, they “swore off the clear-eyed flexible realism of Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower” and instead attempted to make America “the policeman, the protector, the arbiter of the whole world.”
This approach, Hegseth argued, turned American allies into dependents while encouraging free-riding on U.S. defense spending. The result: “rudderless wars in the Middle East, land war in Europe and the economic rise of China.” The Secretary suggested these policy architects lack credibility: “After presiding over such a poor performance, it’s remarkable that these people still think they’re qualified to speak in public, let alone moralize to the rest of us.”
Hegseth characterized this failed consensus as “really just a euphemism for disastrous foreign policy” and an “America last foreign policy” that Trump called out as “stupid” nearly a decade ago. According to the Secretary, establishment figures “tried to jail him for it and they failed.”
Trump’s Peace Achievements and Ukraine Diplomacy
Demonstrating the “peace” component of “peace through strength,” Hegseth highlighted Trump’s diplomatic accomplishments: “In less than a year, President Trump has secured eight major peace deals, including a historic end to the war in Gaza, and he’s not finished yet.”
The Secretary indicated active efforts to end the war in Ukraine, describing it as “a war that never would have started in the first place if he had been president.” This represents the administration’s position that Biden-era weakness invited Russian aggression.
Hegseth framed Trump’s willingness to negotiate with rivals as following Reagan’s model of engagement from strength rather than weakness, born of “clarity of purpose” rather than naivete. He emphasized this is producing “historic opportunities for peace” that “are not happening by chance.”
Department of War Renaming and Budget Increases
The speech confirmed the controversial renaming of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which Hegseth described as reflecting the department’s core mission. He emphasized this terminology: “The War Department is the sword and the shield of peace through strength. We are the strength department, and we stand ready to wield that sword as President Trump directs.”
Regarding resources, Hegseth announced the department “received a historic boost in funding last year” thanks to Trump’s leadership and Congressional support, adding “and believe that is only just the beginning.” This signals expectations for continued defense budget increases.
The Secretary emphasized the administration’s focus on restoring “the warrior ethos back to basics: readiness, accountability, standards, discipline, lethality”—a reference to his recent speech to generals at Quantico that has generated controversy for its critique of military leadership.
Biden-Austin Record: “Wokeness, Weakness, War”
Hegseth employed the catchphrase “wokeness, weakness, war” to characterize the previous administration’s defense record under President Joe Biden and Secretary Lloyd Austin. He cited several examples:
The Afghanistan withdrawal was labeled “a stain on our country and a sin committed against the troops.” Hegseth specifically referenced the Abbey Gate attack and subsequent U.S. strike that killed an Afghan family, which General Mark Milley called a “righteous strike” for two days despite knowing within hours they had struck civilians. Hegseth noted he was “recently tempted” to use that phrase for current operations but his team advised against it given its tainted association.
The Secretary attributed the October 7th attack on Israel to Biden administration weakness that “unleashed Islamist war.” Similarly, he claimed the same weakness “invited war in Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin saw the open door and he took it.”
Additional failures cited included Chinese spy balloons flying over American territory and Austin going “AWOL for a week”—a reference to Austin’s hospitalization that wasn’t immediately disclosed to the White House or public.
Operation Midnight Hammer: Destroying Iran’s Nuclear Program
In perhaps the speech’s most significant operational disclosure, Hegseth confirmed Operation Midnight Hammer—an attack that “obliterat[ed] the Iranian nuclear program.” The Secretary framed this as decisive action after “decades of hemming and hawing.”
“President Trump said they can’t have a nuclear bomb, and he meant it,” Hegseth declared. “Others have said it; President Trump did it.”
The operation was characterized as “a textbook example of the Weinberger Doctrine in action: decisive focus applied in a focused, clear-eyed way that advanced our nation’s interests while avoiding another protracted war.” This suggests the strike was carefully targeted to destroy nuclear facilities without triggering broader military conflict with Iran.
No specific details about timing, targets, or military assets employed were provided in the speech.
Yemen Operations and Freedom of Navigation
Hegseth detailed military actions against Houthi forces in Yemen, framing them as restoring core American interests. Under Biden, according to the Secretary, the administration “tolerated the targeting of U.S. shipping.” In contrast, “President Trump restored freedom of navigation, another foundational and core national interest.”
The Yemen operations were described as “limited but lethal actions”—suggesting targeted strikes rather than sustained combat operations. Hegseth invoked Thomas Jefferson in this context, connecting contemporary freedom of navigation to America’s early conflicts with the Barbary pirates.
These operations fit the administration’s framework of using decisive military force for clearly defined objectives that advance vital national interests without becoming entangled in protracted conflicts.
Drug Interdiction: Naval Operations Against Cartels
The Secretary detailed aggressive military operations against drug trafficking, particularly maritime interdiction. The policy is straightforward: “If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you.”
Hegseth emphasized clarity of purpose: “Let there be no doubt about it. President Trump can and will take decisive military action as he sees fit to defend our nation’s interests.”
The operation was referenced in context of Hegseth being “recently tempted” to use the phrase “righteous strike” when discussing hitting drug boats, before his team reminded him of that phrase’s association with the mistaken Kabul strike.
This represents a significant expansion of military operations against transnational criminal organizations, treating cartel drug smuggling as a military threat warranting lethal force rather than purely a law enforcement matter.
Four Lines of Effort: Strategic Framework
Hegseth outlined four “key lines of effort” that structure the Department of War’s priorities under Trump’s “commonsense approach”:
First: Defending the U.S. homeland and our hemisphere. This represents the top operational priority, reflecting the principle that these missions “matter the most for safety, freedom and prosperity of Americans.”
Second: Deterring China through strength, not confrontation. This is the other primary operational focus, balanced with homeland defense as the joint force’s main effort.
Third: Increased burden-sharing for U.S. allies and partners. For the first time since Reagan’s era, according to Hegseth, allied burden-sharing is “no longer an afterthought or a nice to have. Today it’s a core element of our national defense.”
Fourth: Supercharging the U.S. defense industrial base. Hegseth called this “maybe the most important” as it “underwrites everything else.”
The Secretary noted that while homeland and China deterrence are primary operational focuses, “other threats persist around the world, including in Europe and the Middle East. We cannot ignore them, nor should we”—hence the emphasis on burden-sharing and industrial base transformation.
Border Security as National Security
Hegseth declared flatly: “Border security is national security,” criticizing the Biden administration for being “more concerned about Ukraine’s borders than our own.”
Since January 20 (Trump’s second inauguration), the Department of War has made border defense “a top priority to defend our nation’s borders, to get 100% operational control of that border.” This involved “surging forces where our troops partner with DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and CBP [Customs and Border Protection] to seal the border.”
The Secretary claimed dramatic results: Under Biden, “tens of millions of illegals—and we have no idea where the hell they came from or where the hell they are—flowed across our border, not to mention lethal narcotics responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Today, the number of illegals crossing into our country is zero.”
Military involvement extends beyond border monitoring. Hegseth stated the department is “proud to support our law enforcement partners as they conduct mass deportations of dangerous illegals who have no business being in our country.”
The military is also “organizing training and equipping units specifically for border defense missions, including operations in the land, maritime and air domains alongside our interagency partners.” Additionally, “nobody has built more new border wall than the Department of War” in this administration.
Pressure extends to Mexico: “We’re also leaning on our Mexican counterparts to do more. They have made progress, and we’ll need to see more and quickly.”
Hemisphere-Wide Counter-Cartel Operations
Hegseth characterized drug cartels as “the al-Qaida of our hemisphere” and announced the military is “hunting them with the same sophistication and precision that we hunted al-Qaida.”
The approach is unambiguous: “We are tracking them, we are killing them, and we will keep killing them so long as they are poisoning our people with narcotics so lethal that they’re tantamount to chemical weapons.”
This campaign extends throughout the Western Hemisphere, not just at U.S. borders. According to Hegseth: “The days in which these narco-terrorists, designated terror organizations, operate freely in our hemisphere are over.”
The operations involve cooperation with regional partners: “Throughout our hemisphere, our allies and partners recognize that these narco-terrorists threaten them as well. So, we’re working together, sometimes overtly, sometimes not.”
However, Hegseth issued a warning to nations harboring cartels: “Where a country cannot or will not do its part, then we at the Department of War will always be ready to take decisive action. In this hemisphere, in our hemisphere, there is no safe haven for narco-terrorists.”
The Secretary framed borders as “the last line of defense” rather than the first, emphasizing the importance of destroying cartel capabilities at their source rather than merely interdicting at the border.
Golden Dome: Comprehensive Missile Defense
One of the speech’s major announcements was Golden Dome, described as “a revolutionary approach to defend our nation from advanced aerial threats.” This initiative stems from “one of the first executive orders signed by President Trump.”
Hegseth positioned Golden Dome as Trump’s equivalent to Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI): “President Reagan promised SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative. President Trump’s doing the same thing.”
The critical difference from Reagan’s era: “Now the tech has caught up, and we can actually build a Golden Dome for America.” Hegseth called it “a game-changer” and committed that “Golden Dome will produce tangible protection for this country inside the timeframe of this administration and beyond.”
This suggests an accelerated deployment timeline, with operational capability expected during Trump’s current term rather than as a long-term research program like SDI.
The system is designed to defend against “advanced aerial threats,” though Hegseth did not specify whether this encompasses ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic weapons, or some combination thereof.
Cyber Command Overhaul
Alongside Golden Dome, Hegseth announced major cyber defense initiatives: “We’re also rapidly strengthening our nation’s ability to deter and defend against cyber attacks on Department of War and dual use targets, including through the most comprehensive overhaul of U.S. Cyber Command since it was started 15 years ago.”
This represents a fundamental restructuring of U.S. Cyber Command, which was established in 2010. The Secretary provided no specific details about what changes this overhaul entails, but the characterization as “most comprehensive” since the command’s founding suggests significant organizational, operational, or doctrinal changes.
The focus on “dual use targets” indicates concern about attacks on infrastructure that serves both civilian and military purposes—critical systems like power grids, communications networks, and transportation infrastructure.
Nuclear Modernization and Testing
Hegseth emphasized the centrality of nuclear deterrence: “All of this, of course, rests upon the power of our nation’s nuclear deterrent, which is foundation—which is the foundation of our nation’s defense. Nothing else matters if we don’t get this right, and so we will.”
The administration’s nuclear priorities include:
Modernizing the nuclear triad (land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers). As Hegseth stated: “As President Trump has said, we will modernize our nation’s nuclear triad.”
Developing additional options for “deterrence and escalation management”—suggesting new weapon systems or deployment concepts to provide presidents with more choices between conventional conflict and full nuclear exchange.
Ensuring invulnerability to nuclear blackmail, even facing two other major nuclear-armed powers (clearly referencing China and Russia). The United States “will never allow this nation to be left vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.”
Resuming nuclear testing: In a significant policy announcement, Hegseth declared: “And we will test nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems on an equal basis as others.” This suggests the administration may end the U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing that has been in place since 1992, particularly if other nations conduct tests.
The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Hegseth articulated what he called “the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” describing it as “recently codified so clearly in the National Security Strategy.” This represents a major expansion of American assertions in the Western Hemisphere.
The core principle: “After years of neglect, the United States will restore U.S. military dominance in the Western Hemisphere. We will use it to protect our homeland and access to key terrain throughout the region.”
Key terrain specifically identified includes:
- The Panama Canal
- The Caribbean
- The Gulf of America (the administration’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico)
- The Arctic
- Greenland
The doctrine includes both defensive and offensive components. Defensively: “We will also deny adversaries’ ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities in our hemisphere.”
Operationally: “The department will always provide the president with credible options when needed,” including “guaranteeing U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain.”
Hegseth emphasized willingness to work cooperatively: “In all instances, we stand ready to work in good faith with our neighbors, but they must do their part to defend shared interests. Where they do not, the War Department stands ready to take focused and decisive action that advances U.S. interests.”
The Secretary directly challenged the notion that the Monroe Doctrine had become obsolete: “Past administrations perpetuated the belief that the Monroe Doctrine had expired. They were wrong. The Monroe Doctrine is in effect and it is stronger than ever under the Trump corollary.”
He characterized this as “a common sense restoration of our power and prerogatives in this hemisphere consistent with U.S. interests,” positioning it as pragmatic rather than imperial.
China: Deterrence Through Strength, Not Confrontation
Hegseth devoted substantial attention to the administration’s China policy, characterizing it as seeking “a stable peace, fair trade and respectful relations with China” rather than confrontation or containment.
He highlighted recent diplomatic progress: “In November, President Trump and President Xi reached a major breakthrough trade, putting both nations on a strong economic pathway.” Furthermore, “Reciprocal state visits in 2026 provide the opportunity for even more progress.”
Militarily, the department is “opening a wider range of military-to-military communications with the People’s Liberation Army, aimed at deconfliction and de-escalation.” Groundwork was laid “months ago at ASEAN in Malaysia,” with ongoing engagement planned.
Hegseth framed this approach as “based on flexible realism, not naivete, an approach aimed not at domination but rather at a balance of power.” The goal is enabling “all countries to enjoy a decent peace in an Indo-Pacific where trade flows openly and fairly, where we can all prosper, and all interests are respected.”
Invoking Theodore Roosevelt, Hegseth summarized: “We will speak softly and carry a big stick.”
The Secretary specifically outlined what the U.S. is not trying to do: “We’re not trying to strangle China’s growth. We’re not trying to dominate or humiliate them, nor are we trying to change the status quo over Taiwan.”
However, American interests remain clear: “This includes the ability for us, along with allies, to be postured strongly enough in the Indo-Pacific to balance China’s growing power. This means ensuring none of our allies are vulnerable to sustained successful military aggression.”
Hegseth acknowledged China’s military buildup directly: “Our department maintains a clear-eyed appreciation of how rapid, formidable and holistic the military buildup has been. We take these capabilities seriously. It would be silly and, frankly, disrespectful not to.”
The deterrence strategy focuses on the first island chain—the geographic line running from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines: “That’s why we will ensure our military can, if God forbid necessary, project sustained capabilities along the first island chain and throughout the Indo-Pacific.”
The objective is “deterrence by denial”—being “so strong that aggression is not even considered, and that peace is preferred and preserved.” Hegseth emphasized this requires providing Trump the ability to “negotiate from a position of strength in order to sustain peace in the Indo-Pacific.”
Importantly, he stressed: “This is not a pivot for tomorrow. It is a reality for today”—indicating the Indo-Pacific focus represents current operational priorities, not future planning.
Allied Burden-Sharing: The NATO Hague Summit
Hegseth delivered sharp criticism of what he called the “neo-Reaganite attitude” that “only the United States has the ability to provide for defense and deterrence in Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.”
This view, according to the Secretary, holds that “if the United States doesn’t do it, nobody will” and that “America is actually better off subsidizing these allies’ defenses even if they’re perfectly capable of doing more for themselves.” Hegseth called this “patently ridiculous, not to mention insulting to our allies.”
The administration’s approach is pragmatic: as the U.S. “rightly prioritize[s] our homeland, hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific, threats persist in other regions, and our allies need to step up and step up for real.”
Hegseth announced dramatic results from Trump’s pressure on allies. At NATO’s Hague summit, alliance members made unprecedented commitments:
- 5% of GDP total defense spending
- 3.5% of GDP specifically on “core military” capabilities
- 1.5% of GDP on “security related investments”
- Pledge to “take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense”
The Secretary characterized these commitments as achievements “most folks sitting here just five years ago would have thought completely impossible.” He added: “We’re now using this template to press our allies around the world to meet this new global standard the president has set, and it’s working.”
Beyond Europe, South Korea recently committed to matching the 3.5% GDP core military spending target and to “assume the leading role in the ROK’s [Republic of Korea] conventional defense.” Hegseth expressed optimism that “other Indo-Pacific allies will follow suit.”
The Secretary projected ambitious results: “In a few years, thanks to President Trump’s visionary leadership, we will have our allies, which include some of the wealthiest and most productive countries in the world, once again fielding combat credible militaries and boasting revived defense industrial industries.”
This would create “a powerful shared defensive shield with well-armed allies around the world ready to defend themselves, their interests and our collective interests—real partnerships and alliances based on hard power, not just flags and fancy conferences, based on theories and hot rhetoric.”
Hegseth emphasized treating allies as capable partners: “Our allies are not children. They’re nations capable of doing far more for themselves than they have. And it’s time they stand up, and they are.” Many possess “proud and powerful martial traditions of their own, and we should treat them that way.”
The approach includes both carrots and sticks. Model allies mentioned specifically include Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others—these nations “will receive our special favor.” Conversely, “Allies that do not, allies that still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences.”
Hegseth summarized the philosophy: “President Trump likes helping countries that help themselves, and we feel the same way. That’s the nature of partnerships rather than dependencies.”
Defense Industrial Base Transformation
While Hegseth noted he had delivered a separate speech on this topic the previous month to defense industry leaders, he characterized the fourth line of effort as “maybe the most important” since it “underwrites everything else.”
The objective: “transform the entire acquisition system to rapidly accelerate the fielding of capabilities and focus on results.”
This involves moving from what Hegseth described as “the current prime contractor dominated system, defined by limited competition, vendor lock, cost-plus contracts, stressed budgets and frustrating protests.”
The future vision features “a dynamic vendor space that accelerates production by combining investment at a commercial pace with the uniquely American ability to scale and scale quickly, all at the speed of urgency.”
Hegseth characterized this as “historic generational and transformational changes” representing a fundamental restructuring of defense procurement rather than incremental reform. The Secretary stated the changes would be implemented across requirements, acquisitions, and foreign military sales.
Global Jihadism and Counter-Terrorism
While emphasizing that the administration would not pursue “undefined wars” or “democracy building interventionism,” Hegseth confirmed continued counter-terrorism operations against jihadist threats.
“We have not lost sight of the threat of global jihadism,” the Secretary stated. “As with narco-terrorists, working alongside our partners in the IC [Intelligence Community] and other agencies, as well as partners abroad, we will continue to hunt and kill Islamist terrorists with the intent and ability to strike our homeland.”
This represents a narrowed counter-terrorism focus compared to the global War on Terror approach of the 2000s-2010s. The emphasis is specifically on groups with capability and intent to attack the American homeland, rather than all terrorist organizations globally.
The integration with intelligence agencies and international partners suggests continued reliance on intelligence-driven targeting and partnerships rather than large-scale military deployments.
Exclusions: What the Department Won’t Do
Hegseth was explicit about activities the Department of War would not pursue under this administration, listing them as distractions from core missions:
- Democracy building interventionism
- Undefined wars
- Regime change
- Climate change initiatives
- Woke moralizing
- Feckless nation building
Instead: “We will put our nation’s practical, concrete interests first. We will deter war. We will advance our interests. We will defend our people. Peace is our goal.”
The Secretary framed this in terms of obligations to the American people: “We’re asking mothers and fathers across America to trust us with their most precious resource, their sons and daughters, and we will honor their trust and their sacrifice.”
This means: “We will not send America’s best to advance foolhardy or reckless adventures halfway around the world. It also means not asking them to pick up the tab for allies who should fund their own defense.”
The commitment: “We only ask our warriors to fight for things that make America and Americans safe, free and prosperous: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more and nothing less.”
Recruiting and Retention Success
Hegseth cited military recruiting and retention as evidence of public confidence in the administration’s approach: “The historic recruiting and retention numbers of President Trump’s first year show who the American people trust.”
This represents a notable contrast with widely reported recruiting challenges the military faced in recent years. The Secretary attributed improved numbers to the administration’s focus on warrior ethos, clear mission focus, and respect for service members.
Religious Framework and Divine Providence
Hegseth concluded his address with explicit religious framing, positioning the administration’s defense policies within a providential tradition. He invoked George Washington, “the founder of the War Department,” who “appealed to God’s providence during every step of our improbable revolution, on prayer, on bended knee, on the battlefield.”
Similarly, Ronald Reagan “appealed to heaven as the world hung in the balance” during the Cold War.
“We do the same today with Jesus Christ as our guide,” Hegseth declared. “May he grant us the wisdom to see what is right and the courage to do it. May God bless our warriors, and may God bless our great Republic.”
This Christian nationalist framing positions American military power as divinely guided and righteous, consistent with Hegseth’s public religious identity and previous statements about faith’s role in military service.
Citation
Hegseth, Pete. “Remarks by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at the Reagan National Defense Forum (As Delivered).” U.S. Department of War, 6 Dec. 2025, Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, CA. Speech.