Angus King GRILLS Pete Hegseth Over Torture & Geneva Convention Questions

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]This hearing didn't start with a question. It started with a contradiction that had been sitting in plain sight for exactly one year. A man walks into a Senate chamber claiming discipline, restraint, and respect for the law. That same man 12 months earlier wrote that American soldiers should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms 80 years ago. So, which version is real? This is not a normal confirmation hearing. This is a live stress test of whether Pete Hegsth is rewriting his beliefs under oath or simply rebranding them. Because at the center of this exchange is not policy, it's credibility.

[00:00:46]Senator King doesn't begin politely. He goes straight for the fracture line. He reminds Pete Hegath of his own book, War on Warriors, published just last year.

[00:00:58]He quotes him directly. If we send our boys to fight, we need to unleash them to win. Then he tightens the trap.

[00:01:08]Because today, under oath, Hegsth says he supports women in combat.

[00:01:15]So which is it? Was that statement in the book a belief or a mistake? Pete Hegsth answers carefully, too carefully.

[00:01:25]He says, "Writing a book is different than being Secretary of Defense." That sounds reasonable until you realize what he's actually implying, that his public convictions, published, sold, defended, are now adjustable. And then he pivots.

[00:01:43]He reframes the issue away from gender and into something broader. Rules of engagement. He starts talking about ISIS, Iraq, Afghanistan. He invokes President Trump. He says Trump untied the hands of war fighters and allowed them to crush ISIS. It's a powerful narrative. It's also a strategic deflection. Because the question was never about battlefield tactics. It was about whether Pete Hegsth believes the rules themselves are the problem. And Senator King sees it. He doesn't let Hegsth escape into abstraction. He pulls the conversation back to law. Title 18, Title 42, Geneva Convention, the legal framework that governs how wars are fought. And then he asks the question that changes the entire tone of the room. Are you saying these laws should be repealed?

[00:02:43]Now the stakes are visible. Pete Hegsth responds by splitting reality into layers. He says there are laws on the books and then there are burdensome rules of engagement that make it difficult to win. He insists he respects the law, but he keeps returning to one idea. The rules are too restrictive. The enemy doesn't follow them and that puts American troops at risk. It sounds logical until you listen closely to what's not being said. Because Senator King pushes again harder this time. If the enemy breaks the rules, are you saying we don't have to follow them either? That's the moment the hearing stops being theoretical because now we're not talking about strategy. We're talking about the boundary between lawful combat and war crimes. And Pete Hegsth hesitates, not with silence, but with language that moves just enough to avoid clarity. He says there's a distinction warfighters understand that rules exist, but they evolve as they move down the chain of command. That by the time they reach the battlefield, they become unrecognizable.

[00:04:03]It's a subtle argument and a dangerous one because if rules can be diluted at every level, then who is actually responsible for enforcing them? This is where the contradiction sharpens. On one side, Pete Hegsth claims allegiance to the law. On the other, he describes a system where that law becomes optional in practice. And Senator King doesn't need to accuse him. He just asks the next question. Clear, direct, unavoidable.

[00:04:38]Are you saying torture is acceptable?

[00:04:42]That word lands like a detonation in a quiet room. Because now the debate is no longer about burdensome rules. It's about something every American understands.

[00:04:54]Waterboarding, prisoners, lines that were supposed to be permanent. Pete Hegsth responds immediately, "That is not what I said."

[00:05:05]But the problem isn't what he just said.

[00:05:08]It's everything he said before that led to this exact question. And that's where this hearing begins to shift from a confirmation into a crossexamination.

[00:05:19]And this is where the hearing stops being about interpretation and becomes about memory because Senator King doesn't argue with Pete Hegsth's denial. He brings up his own words, not theory, not paraphrase, a recorded statement. Pete Hegsth had previously said that Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz were willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. That sentence doesn't sit in a vacuum. It carries implication, approval, justification, a willingness to reopen a door that was supposed to be sealed after years of legal and moral reckoning.

[00:06:01]So, Senator King narrows the question again. No room left to pivot. Are you okay with waterboarding?

[00:06:09]This is not a policy discussion anymore.

[00:06:12]This is a yes or no. Pete Hegsth doesn't say yes. He doesn't say no. He says something else. The law of the land is that waterboarding is not legal. That answer sounds correct. It also avoids the actual question because Senator King didn't ask what the law is. He asked what Pete Hegth believes. And that gap between legality and belief is where the entire hearing starts to collapse inward. So, Senator King presses again.

[00:06:49]You made that statement. You expressed it with approval. Do you now recant?

[00:06:56]This is the moment of accountability.

[00:06:58]A chance to draw a clean line between past rhetoric and present responsibility.

[00:07:04]But Pete Hegth doesn't draw a line. He builds a wall of context. He talks about Guantanamo Bay. He mentions guarding detainees after 9/11. He reframes the conversation around experience, sacrifice, and proximity to danger. It's a familiar move shift from the moral question to the emotional authority of having been there. And for a second, it almost works because the image is powerful. 700 detainees, a year of service, a frontline perspective that most lawmakers in that room do not have.

[00:07:44]But Senator King doesn't let the narrative drift. He pulls it back again to the same question. Are we going to abide by the Geneva Convention and the prohibitions on torture or not? There it is again. Not softened, not diluted, a binary choice. And Pete Hegsth responds with something that sounds like an answer but functions like an escape route. He says the Geneva Conventions are what we base our conduct on. But then he adds something else. An America first national security policy will not hand its prerogatives over to international bodies. That sentence changes everything because now the framework shifts from law to sovereignty, from obligation to discretion. And that raises a deeper problem. If the Geneva Conventions are only a base and not a boundary, then who decides when to step beyond them? The answer isn't written in law anymore.

[00:08:50]It's written in judgment. Pete Hegsth's judgment. And that is exactly what this hearing is supposed to test. So let's slow this down.

[00:09:00]On one side, Pete Hegsth says, "We follow the law. We respect the Geneva Conventions. Waterboarding is illegal."

[00:09:10]On the other side, he says, "The rules can be too restrictive. Enemies don't follow them. America should not surrender decision-making to international frameworks. Those two positions don't align. They collide.

[00:09:26]Because you cannot simultaneously treat a rule as binding and optional. You cannot say torture is illegal while defending the mindset that made people consider it necessary. And Senator King understands that. He doesn't accuse Pete Hegsth of supporting torture directly.

[00:09:45]He does something more precise. He forces Pete Hegsth to confront the logical outcome of his own philosophy.

[00:09:53]If winning is the priority and the rules are flexible, then what exactly is offlimits? That question hangs in the air longer than any answer because this is no longer about what Pete Hegsth says he will do. It's about what he has already made room for. And in a hearing like this, that distinction is everything. And just when it seems the pressure has peaked, Senator King shifts the battlefield entirely. Because up to this point, the argument has been about war, how it's fought, what rules apply, where the limits are. Now he moves to something even more dangerous. Not what happens on the battlefield, but what happens when the world is watching.

[00:10:41]He brings up Pete Hegsth's opening statement. Not the parts about strength or readiness. Not the rhetoric about winning wars. One specific omission.

[00:10:52]There was no mention of Ukraine, no reference to Russia, no acknowledgment of an ongoing war that has defined global security for years. And Senator King doesn't ask why it was brief. He asks something sharper. Is this code for abandoning Ukraine?

[00:11:11]That question doesn't just test policy, it tests signal. Because in geopolitics, what you say matters, but what you don't say can matter even more. Pete Hegsith answers carefully again. He says that's a presidential level decision. He says the goal is to end the conflict. He says they know who the aggressor is and who the good guy is. It sounds balanced, measured, but it avoids the core of the question. Will the United States stand or step back and Senator King doesn't let the answer settle. He widens the frame. He brings in a second audience, not the Senate, not the American public, Xiinping. Because while this hearing is happening in Washington, someone else is watching from Beijing. And Senator King says it out loud. If we abandon Ukraine, that would be the strongest possible signal to Xiinping that he can take Taiwan without significant resistance.

[00:12:20]That is not speculation. That is strategic translation. take one decision, project it onto another conflict, and calculate the consequence.

[00:12:32]Now, the hearing is no longer about Pete Hegsth's past statements. It's about future wars because the logic is brutally simple. If America shows hesitation in Europe, it invites escalation in Asia. If rules are flexible in one conflict, they become negotiable in the next. And suddenly everything Pete Hegth said earlier about unleashing war fighters starts to echo differently because strength without boundaries doesn't just deter enemies.

[00:13:07]It also confuses allies and confusion at that level is not neutral. It's destabilizing.

[00:13:16]So let's connect the threads. Pete Hgsith argues that restrictive rules of engagement put American troops at risk.

[00:13:24]He suggests those rules have become detached from battlefield reality. He implies that adapting them is necessary to win. At the same time, he avoids committing to a clear, unwavering adherence to international law in every circumstance. And now when asked about Ukraine, he avoids committing to a clear strategic posture. This is not coincidence. This is a pattern. A pattern of keeping options open by keeping answers incomplete. And that might work in media interviews. It might even work in political campaigns. But inside a confirmation hearing under oath with global consequences attached, ambiguity becomes risk. Because the role Pete Hegth is seeking is not commentator, it's commander.

[00:14:20]Not someone who debates hypotheticals, but someone whose decisions become orders. Orders that ripple through chains of command. Orders that determine how wars are fought. Orders that define what is allowed and what is not. And here's the uncomfortable truth that starts to emerge. When Pete Hegsth talks about unleashing war fighters, he frames it as empowerment. But from another angle, it can look like removing constraints without clearly redefining limits. And that's where the danger lives. Because soldiers don't operate in philosophical gray zones. They operate under rules, clear rules, enforcable rules, non-negotiable rules. If those rules become fluid, then accountability becomes fluid, too. And when accountability disappears, history has already shown us what follows. This is the moment where the hearing stops being about one man. It becomes about a system. A system that depends on clarity, being tested by ambiguity.

[00:15:31]And the question that now sits at the center of everything is no longer subtle. If Pete Hegsth cannot clearly define the line, then who will? And this is where the hearing stops being about policy and becomes about consequence.

[00:15:49]Because everything Pete Hegth said in that room doesn't stay in that room. It travels. It travels to a platoon leader in a night operation who has to decide in 3 seconds whether a detainee is protected or expendable.

[00:16:06]It travels to an intelligence officer deciding how far interrogation can go before it crosses into something no longer reversible. It travels to an ally watching closely asking a simple question. Can we still trust the United States to mean what it says? This is not theoretical because when rules become burdensome, when laws become layers, when conventions become a base instead of a boundary, what you are really doing is moving the line quietly, incrementally, deniably. And once that line moves, it doesn't just affect enemies, it affects Americans. It affects the soldier who follows an unclear order and later stands alone in a courtroom. It affects the prisoner who becomes a symbol used against the United States for decades. It affects the civilian caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, turned into collateral in a system that no longer clearly defines restraint.

[00:17:14]This is the moral scene the hearing never explicitly shows but constantly implies.

[00:17:22]A dim detention room, a bound prisoner, a soldier waiting for instruction, not a speech, not a doctrine, a decision. And the only thing separating lawful action from irreversible abuse is clarity.

[00:17:38]That's why Senator King didn't ask complicated questions. He asked simple ones. Do we follow the Geneva Convention or not? Is torture acceptable or not?

[00:17:51]Are we abandoning Ukraine or not?

[00:17:54]Because simplicity exposes truth. And Pete Hegsth never fully answered in that language. He answered in frameworks, in distinctions, in context, but not in absolutes. And that is the contradiction that defines this entire hearing. A man asking to lead the most powerful military on earth while resisting the kind of clarity that position demands.

[00:18:23]Because leadership at that level is not about flexibility. It's about boundaries. Boundaries that hold under pressure. Boundaries that don't shift depending on the audience. Boundaries that soldiers can rely on when everything else collapses. So what does this really mean? It means this hearing was never just about Pete Hegsth's past statements. It was about whether those statements still exist, just rephrased.

[00:18:50]It means this was never about partisan disagreement. It was about whether the rules of war are fixed or negotiable, and more importantly, whether the law applies equally even when it becomes inconvenient.

[00:19:06]Because if the answer to that question is unclear, then the system itself becomes unclear. And when the system becomes unclear, accountability disappears first, then trust, then restraint. So here is the final question, the one that never gets a clean answer, but defines everything that came before it. If the United States says it follows the law, but leaves open the possibility of stepping outside it when necessary, is that still the rule of law? Or is that something else entirely?

[00:19:45]Because once that distinction is blurred, it doesn't just change how wars are fought. It changes what the United States represents. And that's not a theoretical risk. That's a decision. A decision being tested in real time under oath in front of the world. If you believe moments like this matter, if you believe clarity, accountability, and truth inside these rooms actually shape what happens outside them. Then make it visible. Like the video. Comment with what you think Pete Hegth really believes. Share this with someone who thinks these hearings don't matter. and subscribe.