Charlotte Howard, our New York bureau chief, on why divisive machismo is at the core of the Trump administration’s military policy
Photograph: AP
Listen to this story
AI Narrated
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
Pete Hegseth is not for everyone, and that’s fine with him. When Donald Trump tapped him to lead the Defence Department, he launched himself on Washington like a crowd-surfing frat brother. Yes, he was trailed by stories of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. True, as a TV commentator and a former National Guard member he had scant qualifications to oversee the world’s most powerful armed forces, an $850bn budget and nearly 3m employees. But his résumé did include broad shoulders and a promise to shake things up. In January 2025 J.D. Vance cast the Senate’s tie-breaking vote to confirm him. Rarely has a man with more confidence and less experience held such power.
In the months since, Mr Hegseth has endeavoured to convey strength. He pushed to rename his new domain as the Department of War. At a press conference celebrating the change, he asserted that America would “go on offence, not just on defence”, prioritising “maximum lethality, not tepid legality”. At a gathering of top military leaders, he lectured generals on grooming standards and “fat troops”. He had his staff post videos of him pumping iron, becoming the only public figure whose “Saturday Night Live” caricature seems more sensible than the original.
The sight of Mr Hegseth doing a wiggly pull-up may cause some women to throw up ever so slightly in their mouths, and wonder how anyone can so precisely personify a red Solo cup. They are not Mr Hegseth’s target audience. More than half of Republican men describe themselves as “highly masculine”, according to a 2024 survey from the Pew Research Centre. Three in ten Republican men think that women’s economic and social gains have come at the expense of men, twice the share of Democratic men or Republican women. Three times as many Republicans as Democrats think that physical strength and confidence in men should be more highly valued. For them, Mr Hegseth is reinvigorating a manly ideal, less a symbol of toxic masculinity than a masculine tonic.
Mr Hegseth also represents—and has worked to advance—a new, troubling model of military power. The problem is not that he is a macho symbol prioritising style over substance. The problem is that his style is the substance: it is increasingly clear that a divisive machismo is at the core of the Trump administration’s military policy.
This has been evident in (relatively) smaller moves, such as the decision to limit press activity in the Pentagon and the firing of top Pentagon lawyers—Mr Hegseth has long argued that laws and codes of conduct unduly restrain soldiers. But the past month has proved just how broad the risks of macho policy can be.
Witness Mr Hegseth’s extraordinary treatment of Anthropic, an AI lab. Mr Hegseth objected to the firm’s contractual restrictions on the military’s use of its large-language model. He could have responded by cancelling work with Anthropic. Instead he has formally declared Anthropic to be a supply-chain risk. In an interview with The Economist this week, Dario Amodei, the firm’s boss, said he would challenge the designation in court. But Mr Hegseth has revealed a disturbing enthusiasm for using state power to bully one of America’s fastest-growing companies.
A more literal obliteration is being conducted with Operation Epic Fury, the assault America is waging with Israel on Iran. Messrs Hegseth and Trump are hardly the first Americans to view Iran as a serious risk. The regime has worked to develop a nuclear arsenal, funded dangerous militias across the Middle East and killed thousands of its own people.
But since attacks began on February 28th, neither Mr Hegseth nor his colleagues have provided a consistent rationale for the war, nor attempted to justify the war to allies. Indeed, Mr Hegseth took the opportunity to deride countries that “clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force”, casting war deliberations as both weak and feminine. Burn.
In press conferences Mr Hegseth has provided smirking assertions of American strength, recently recounting how an American submarine destroyed an Iranian ship in international waters, killing more than 80 people. He says wars should not be “politically correct”.
To be clear, war is not inherently cool. Any conflict should be treated with the utmost gravity, to advance a clear goal, with recognition of deadly risks. The novelty of Mr Hegseth’s approach was laid bare on March 4th, after an Iranian drone killed six American soldiers in Kuwait. Mr Hegseth chided the media for focusing on the deaths, claiming the press “wants to make the president look bad”. General Dan Caine, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, presented a different model of male strength, announcing the soldiers’ names with “profound sadness and gratitude”.
The problem, again, is not simply that Mr Hegseth revels in machismo style. It is that machismo style seems to be the policy. The Trump administration has no plan to support a more stable Iran. Already, the war is sucking in other countries in the region, as well as European allies. Our cover leader this week lays out the perils of war without strategy. Mr Hegseth may relish American power, but obsessive machismo will surely erode it.
This week I spoke about the war with my colleagues James Bennet and Jon Fasman on Checks and Balance. I’d love to know what you think about the conflict, and Mr Hegseth himself. Email me at checksandbalance@economist.com.
Explore more
→See the latest from topics you follow
US President Donald Trump has posted a photo posing with Jesus Christ on Truth Social
A cartoon in which J.D. Vance inflates and releases MAGA-emblazoned helium balloons. Trump stands above, popping them from a balcony.
Lexington
J.D. Vance’s theory of Trumpism is no match for the practice
This White House is a graveyard for grand strategies
Pope Leo XIV
POTUS v the Pope
Running short of new people to poke, the president has a go at God’s vicar
The big business of survival bunkers
Another sign that prepping has gone mainstream
논증 분석
유형: diagnosis
핵심 주장
Pete Hegseth의 과시적 마초이즘은 단순한 스타일의 문제가 아니라 Trump 행정부 군사 정책의 핵심 실체이며, 이는 미국의 군사력을 심각하게 훼손할 위험이 있다.
논리구조
- 전제: Pete Hegseth는 성추문과 과음 전력, 실무 경험 부족에도 불구하고 Donald Trump의 지명과 J.D. Vance의 캐스팅 보트로 국방부 장관에 취임했으며, 압도적 자신감과 변화 의지를 핵심 자격으로 내세웠다.
- 논거: Hegseth는 국방부를 ‘Department of War’로 개칭하고, ‘최대 살상력’ 우선, 장군들에게 외모·체중 훈계, 역기 드는 영상 공개 등 마초적 이미지를 정책의 전면에 배치했다.
- 논거: Pew Research Centre 2024년 조사에 따르면 공화당 남성의 절반 이상이 스스로를 ‘매우 남성적’으로 정의하고, 공화당 지지자들은 민주당 지지자보다 3배 많이 남성의 체력과 자신감을 높이 평가해, Hegseth의 마초 이미지는 명확한 정치적 지지 기반을 갖는다.
- 진단: 문제는 Hegseth가 실질보다 스타일을 우선하는 마초적 상징이라는 점이 아니라, 그 스타일 자체가 곧 정책의 실체라는 점이다—분열적 마초이즘이 Trump 행정부 군사 정책의 핵심을 구성하고 있다.
- 논거: Hegseth는 Anthropic의 AI 모델 사용 계약 조건에 반발해 계약 해지 대신 Anthropic을 ‘공급망 위험’ 기업으로 공식 지정하는 국가 권력 남용을 통해 미국 최고성장 기업 중 하나를 위협했다.
- 논거: 2026년 2월 28일 시작된 이란 대상 Operation Epic Fury(미-이스라엘 공동 작전)에서 Hegseth는 일관된 전쟁 명분을 제시하지 않고, 동맹국 설득도 생략한 채 전쟁 숙고를 ‘나약하고 여성적인 것’으로 조롱했다.
- 논거: 2026년 3월 4일 이란 드론 공격으로 미군 6명이 쿠웨이트에서 전사하자, Hegseth는 사망자 보도를 ‘대통령을 나쁘게 보이려는 언론 행태’로 일축한 반면, 합참의장 Dan Caine 장군은 ‘깊은 슬픔과 감사’로 전사자 이름을 호명하며 대조적인 남성적 강인함의 모델을 제시했다.
- 반론: Iran이 핵 개발, 중동 전역 민병대 지원, 자국민 학살 등 실질적 위협 세력임은 Hegseth와 Trump만의 판단이 아니라 역대 미국 행정부의 공통된 인식이다—그러나 이것이 전략 없는 전쟁을 정당화하지는 않는다.
- 결론: Trump 행정부는 더 안정적인 이란을 지원할 계획이 없으며, 전쟁은 이미 역내 국가들과 유럽 동맹국들을 끌어들이고 있다—전략 없는 마초이즘적 군사 정책은 결국 미국의 군사력을 스스로 잠식할 것이다.
결론
Pete Hegseth의 마초이즘은 단순한 이미지 정치를 넘어 전략적 사고와 동맹 관리를 대체하는 실질적 군사 정책이 되었으며, 이는 미국이 자랑하는 군사력의 토대를 侵식할 것이다.