Who had Joni Ernst's ear—and who didn't—on Hegseth nomination

A selective search for the truth

Screenshot from C-SPAN video of Senator Joni Ernst questioning Pete Hegseth at his January 14 confirmation hearing

This original reporting and analysis first appeared at Bleeding Heartland and is shared here as part of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. For regular emails linking to all recent Bleeding Heartland articles and commentary, subscribe to the free Evening Heartland newsletter. If your email provider truncates this post, you can read the whole article without interruption at this link.

What had been obvious for weeks became official on January 14. Hours after Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Joni Ernst announced in an interview with WHO Radio’s Simon Conway and later in a news release that she would vote to confirm President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense.

It never seemed likely Ernst would stand in Hegseth’s way. However, she had suggested in early December that he needed a “thorough vetting,” and she wasn’t ready to commit. Facing a barrage of attacks from conservative influencers and threats of a 2026 GOP primary challenge, the senator quickly changed her tune, saying in a statement, “As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources.”

In the end, Ernst conducted a selective search for the truth about Hegseth. She discounted facts that raised doubts about his fitness while playing up a testimonial from someone with a stake in the outcome.

Her approach was quite different in 2019, when she considered a controversial Trump nominee for another military role—in the absence of any coordinated effort to influence her decision.

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR ONE NOMINEE ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

For the first time this week, I watched Ernst question Air Force General John Hyten during a July 2019 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was eye-opening.

Trump had nominated Hyten to serve as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When the Senate confirmed him in September 2019, Ernst was the only Republican to vote no. I cannot recall any other time when she voted against a Trump appointee.

Like Hegseth, Hyten had been accused of sexual assault, had denied the allegations, and was never charged with a crime. His accuser later filed a lawsuit and eventually was paid to settle the case.

While Hyten’s nomination received some national media coverage in 2019, it did not become a priority for Trump, his grassroots followers, or his big money backers. Nor was it a top news story. I was unable to find any contemporaneous Iowa media reports about Ernst grilling Hyten or voting against his confirmation. That’s not surprising, since a search of her U.S. Senate website turned up no press releases or public comments about the episode. (The Iowans in Congress often use official statements to set the agenda for local news organizations.)

Despite Hyten’s long military career and qualifications for the position he was seeking, Ernst struck an adversarial tone at his confirmation hearing (see this C-SPAN video).

She began by observing, “General Hyten, you have been nominated to be the second highest-ranking military officer in the United States Armed Forces. This position demands the highest levels of trust and responsibility, of course sound judgment, and an impeccable moral compass. You have been accused of sexual misconduct by a subordinate officer.”

She said she had reviewed the evidence, as well as his performance leading U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). “We’ve heard numerous times, members of this committee have stated to focus on the facts,” Ernst said. “And yet the facts have left me with concerns regarding your judgment, leadership, and fitness to serve as the next vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

Ernst proceeded to ask hard-hitting questions. How many subordinates had reported concerns to Hyten about the alleged “toxic leadership style” of an officer under his command? Were they high-ranking, experienced people? (The allegedly toxic leader was the same officer who accused Hyten of unwanted sexual advances.)

After some back and forth, Ernst asked, “And despite the fact that you were cited numerous times throughout the investigation as ‘enabling’ this alleged toxic leader within your command, you didn’t take the inquiry outside of STRATCOM for an impartial commander to review or adjudicate, correct?” Hyten admitted he did not.

Ernst highlighted that about a month before the investigation into the allegedly toxic officer, Hyten gave her “a phenomenal officer evaluation report, rating her number one of 71 colonels within your command, and evaluated her as having multi-star potential.” She zeroed in on Hyten’s failure to formally counsel this officer “about the deficiencies in her leadership or performance.”

Ernst then pointed out that once the investigation was underway, “You actively advocated for her by emailing and calling several other general officers to secure a follow-on position for her.” Hyten said he was letting the process play out, not treating her differently without evidence supporting allegations she denied.

That explanation didn’t satisfy Iowa’s senator. She brought down the hammer.

You serve in one of the most important positions within our United States military, overseeing our nuclear arsenal. However you could not bring yourself to admit or recognize toxic leadership within your command. You did nothing to change that course until a 15-6 investigation was brought forward. And you continued to endorse her.

You only did something about it when concerns were raised about your own leadership. And the investigation was not forwarded on to your higher echelon command, which I see as a clear conflict of interest.

So all of this suggests a conflict between your personal inclinations and your professional responsibilities. There are professional responsibilities associated with being such a high-ranking leader. And that is to make sure that those within your command are following your directive, and not, not engaging in toxic leadership.

Ernst concluded, “So this leaves me with concerns about your judgment and ability to lead in one of the highest positions in the U.S. military.” She said she would listen to the rest of the confirmation process—but she ended up voting against Hyten in committee and on the Senate floor.

A HEGSETH ENDORSER WITH AN AGENDA

Hegseth doesn’t have anything resembling Hyten’s qualifications. He has never managed an organization with a large staff or budget. He was unfamiliar with basics about the job, such as the international security negotiations he would lead as secretary of defense. A former Republican National Committee staffer deemed him unqualified for under secretary positions during the first Trump administration. Former colleagues raised concerns about mismanagement, heavy drinking, and a hostile work environment at the veterans’ groups Hegseth led in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

The biggest red flag was a sexual assault allegation, which prompted a police investigation but no criminal charges. (Hegseth denies wrongdoing but paid to settle with his accuser to avoid a lawsuit.)

Ernst didn’t press Hegseth on any of the above during his confirmation hearing. Instead, she spent more than seven minutes building him up. This PBS NewsHour clip shows all of her remarks and questions.

Five and a half years ago, Ernst began her questioning of General Hyten by implying that “sound judgment” and an “impeccable moral compass” were incompatible with the sexual misconduct accusation leveled against him. In contrast, she led her questioning of Hegseth by entering into the record a glowing testimonial from Mark Lucas. She described Lucas as a fellow Iowan with whom she had served in the Iowa National Guard, adding,

He succeeded Pete Hegseth as executive director of Concerned Veterans for America. And in his letter, Mr. Lucas says that Mr. Hegseth, quote, “laid a strong foundation that postured CVA for long-term success,” end quote, and that Mr. Hegseth, quote, “continued to be an invaluable asset to both me as a leader and the organization,” end quote.

The Des Moines Register referred to Ernst reading a letter of support from “a fellow Iowan,” but didn’t identify Lucas or explain his position in the MAGA ecosystem.

Lucas is the executive vice president of the Article III Project, formed by Trump’s self-styled “viceroy” Mike Davis. Since November, that dark money group has been working to mobilize support for the incoming president’s cabinet. Both Lucas and Davis have used social media and interviews with conservative podcasts to drum up support for Hegseth and other picks, particularly Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence and Kash Patel for FBI director.

Lucas is entitled to his opinion of Hegseth’s qualities. But if Ernst was troubled by Hyten’s “clear conflict of interest” when faced with an investigation of his subordinate, why wasn’t she concerned that Lucas works full-time for a group pressuring senators to back Trump’s nominees?

Ernst was determined to get Lucas’ letter into the Congressional record. Meanwhile, she ignored other accounts attesting to Hegseth’s poor performance in previous jobs. Jane Mayer reported for The New Yorker in December on a “previously undisclosed whistle-blower report on Hegseth’s tenure as the president of Concerned Veterans for America.” Former employees sent the “detailed seven-page report” to senior management in 2015. They described Hegseth “as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity.” They also wrote that he presided over a hostile workplace where he and other managers “sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers.”

Ernst has dismissed Hegseth’s critics as “anonymous sources.” But tax filings known as 990s, which Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal cited during the confirmation hearing, show that Concerned Veterans for America and Vets for Freedom, a group Hegseth led in the late 2000s, repeatedly spent more money than they raised. And Margaret Hoover, who advised Vets for Freedom during Hegseth’s time there, recalled during a prime-time CNN segment from November,

I watched him run an organization very poorly [and] lose the confidence of donors. The organization ultimately folded and was forced to merge with another organization who individuals felt could run and manage funds on behalf of donors more responsibly than Pete could. […]

This was a small nonprofit full of maybe less than ten individuals with a budget less than $5 million, $5 million to $10 million. And he couldn’t do that properly. I don’t know how he’s going to run an organization with an $857 billion budget, and 3 million individuals, based on what I saw in those years.

Ernst ran interference for Hegseth in other ways during the confirmation hearing.

ONE FRIENDLY QUESTION AFTER ANOTHER

After discussing the letter from Lucas, Ernst expressed appreciation for Hegseth’s military service and his “productive” and “frank conversations” with her. She used the remainder of her time to help Hegseth rebut several arguments against his fitness for the job.

“I am trusting my fellow Iowan”

First, the senator brought up an audit for the Department of Defense, saying “this will tie into some of the financial concerns that have been raised here, as well, and it is why I am trusting my fellow Iowan [Mark Lucas], asked for unanimous consent of his letter to go into the record.”

Ernst said she’s upset about “wasteful” spending: “So there is significant room for greater efficiency and cost-cutting within the Department, and the DoD is the only Federal agency that has never passed an audit.” She wanted to know: what would Hegseth do to ensure the Pentagon has a clean audit by 2028?

The question was ironic, since Hegseth couldn’t stick to a budget at small nonprofits, and was unable to answer Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth‘s yes-or-no question about whether he had ever led an audit of any organization.

Nevertheless, Hegseth assured Ernst, “you have my word it will be a priority.”

“Very, very high standards” for women in combat

As the Senate’s first female combat veteran, Ernst said in December she wanted to hear more from Hegseth “about the role of women in our great United States military.” During the confirmation hearing, several Democratic senators quoted from a long list of the nominee’s statements on the subject. Only two months ago, he said on a podcast, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.”

Ernst didn’t challenge Hegseth on those views. Rather, she emphasized her agreement that women should be able to meet “very, very high standards.” And she gave Hegseth a chance to “make it very clear for everyone here today: as Secretary of Defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles?”

Hegseth agreed to the caveat: “Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, given the standards remain high. And we will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded.”

Speaking to Conway, Ernst praised the nominee for his focus “on readiness for men and women,” adding it’s important to her “that we recognize that women do have an important role in our military.”

Lyz Lenz observed in her Substack newsletter, Men Yell at Me, that Ernst “was the vehicle for Hegseth’s dodge on the question of women in combat roles.”

Hegseth hasn’t changed his position. He doesn’t support women serving in combat roles. His answer is akin to the stepmother in the fairy tale telling Cinderella she can go to the ball if she gets all her work done. But the work is never done. The bar continues to be raised. In Hegseth’s mind, even if and when women overcome the highest standards, they won’t belong and they don’t belong.

Brushing off Hegseth’s accuser

As a sexual assault survivor, Ernst has repeatedly criticized the military’s failure to adequately investigate sexual assault claims. She indicated in December that issue would be part of Hegseth’s “thorough vetting.”

With less than a minute left, Ernst broached the topic: “A priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military, and making sure that all of our servicemembers are treated with dignity and respect.” She didn’t allude to the accounts of Hegseth behaving inappropriately with women at work or allegedly assaulting a woman he met at a conference.

Rather, she asked, “So as Secretary of Defense, will you appoint a senior-level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response?” Hegseth said he would. And Ernst’s time expired.

On Conway’s show, Ernst claimed credit for getting that promise in a public setting. “When it comes to making sure that we continue supporting those women that have been sexually assaulted, and he committed to that publicly. He had committed to that in private, but we wanted to make sure that we captured that publicly today, and he did that for me.”

Similarly, Ernst’s news release announcing her support for Hegseth sought to create the impression that she had secured some important concessions. She promised to “hold him to his commitments of auditing the Pentagon, ensuring opportunity for women in combat while maintaining high standards, and selecting a senior official to address and prevent sexual assault in the ranks.”

Ernst didn’t want to hear from the unnamed woman who accused Hegseth of sexual assault in 2017, though. In a January 13 article for The New Yorker, Mayer covered how “The Trump transition team has waged an intense, and in many ways unprecedented, behind-the-scenes campaign ahead of the hearing to intimidate and silence potential witnesses, aimed at keeping Republican senators in line and in the dark.”

Mayer reported,

Republican senators have disparaged anonymous critics of Hegseth. But some of these senators have also declined to speak face to face and confidentially with such critics, including the woman who accused Hegseth of rape. According to three sources with knowledge of the situation, Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, is one of the senators who have turned down offers to hear privately from Hegseth’s accuser. […] (Ernst’s office did not respond to questions from The New Yorker about her refusal to see Hegseth’s accuser.)

Ernst’s staff did not reply to my email seeking comment on Mayer’s article.

“IT REALLY CHANGED THE DYNAMIC”

Republican strategist David Kochel, who has helped mold Ernst’s career since she launched her first Senate campaign in 2013, has been working hard to promote the idea that Ernst didn’t capitulate out of fear. “Has there been Twitter pressure? Sure. But Joni’s a combat veteran. She’s not easily pressured,” Kochel told the Associated Press in December. Speaking to the Des Moines Register’s Brianne Pfannenstiel after the Hegseth hearing, Kochel asserted, “She’s not going to get bullied online by Twitter personalities. She’s a combat veteran. She’s not going to get pushed around.”

It wasn’t just “Twitter personalities”—though some with huge followings on the X platform did bash Iowa’s senator.

Once it became clear Trump was sticking with Hegseth, MAGA world turned the screws on Ernst. The dark money group Building America’s Future spent some $500,000 on a pro-Hegseth advertising campaign, with a 30-second ad for national television networks and digital ads targeting Iowa. For example, the group spent more than $35,000 on a series of Facebook ads urging Iowa users, “tell Senator Joni Ernst: Confirm President Trump’s cabinet!” The ads received more than a million impressions, according to Facebook’s ad library.

The Heritage Foundation allocated $1 million to advocating for Trump’s nominees to be confirmed. Its affiliate Heritage Action for America used part of that funding “to target the home states of key senators.”

The architects of the pressure campaign don’t share Kochel’s view that their work had no impact. Lucas posted on X, “The conventional wisdom said Hegseth’s confirmation was dead on arrival. Our strategy helped make his confirmation inevitable.” He has bragged on several podcasts about Mike Davis’ ability to influence Senate confirmations. He thanked Ernst for introducing his letter of support into the record.

During a January 17 appearance on The State of Freedom podcast, Lucas said, “Initially, when Pete was announced, people said that his confirmation was dead on arrival. But the Article III Project, we quickly went to work, and we were able to connect people to Senate offices. Almost 25,000 messages were logged in just for Pete Hegseth alone. And it really changed the dynamic for his confirmation proceeding.” Elsewhere, Lucas has estimated that the Article III Project generated “over 35,000 messages into U.S. Senate offices urging them to support Pete.”

Other Republicans have drawn the obvious conclusions. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told the Associated Press in December that “the potential attacks don’t weigh into her decision-making, but added, ‘I’m sure that it factors into Sen. Ernst’s.'”

Eric Woolson, who has worked for numerous Iowa Republican campaigns but no longer affiliates with the GOP, described Ernst’s position as “clearly a decision of political expedience” in comments to the Des Moines Register. Woolson perceives that “people in the party are afraid to think for themselves and act for themselves for fear of retribution.” He suggested that Ernst’s support for Hegseth “doesn’t match up. What she has stood for and now saying that she supports this nominee — they’re completely in conflict with each other.”

Remember, Ernst found the allegations against General Hyten disqualifying for the number two position at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet she is content to put Hegseth in charge of the Pentagon.

Ernst told Simon Conway that she and her GOP colleagues took the opportunity to vet Hegseth “very seriously,” unlike others who, she claimed, used the confirmation hearing “as theater” and “were just there to score political points.”

The main points scored were for Trump and his MAGA allies. They now have a “template” for pushing through nominees who would never be confirmed if senators could vote by secret ballot.