The recent ramblings by the newly-styled United States ‘Secretary of War’ Pete Hegseth before hundreds of senior US military leaders, was viewed globally as a clear departure from the way the United States has been engaging with its military juggernaut in recent past. Many observers found Hegseth’s posturing and lecturing a political spectacle and a desperate action of a man whose military credentials has been questionable, trying to appease the collective egos of the Trump administration. The address was more about an odd take on what the US military’s character should be like.  

Such mass addresses of US military leadership are rare, and the stiff upper-lip silence from the many rows of decorated veteran generals and admirals, both men and women, were emblematic of some of the favourable qualities the US military is known for. Of course, there have been US administrations who used rhetoric when addressing the military before. Nevertheless, in the United States, politicisation of the armed forces is highly resisted and is not the norm. Such displays of rhetoric, especially from an administration that cannot stomach satire or criticism – and pressured the withdrawal of skits such as talk shows by comedian Jimmy Kimmel – has many concerned about the geopolitical impact of how the new US administration is trying to ‘gear’ its military. For the US’ ‘allies and partner’s’ the rhetoric from Washington will likely give rise to more anxieties. But then again, the world knew that a second Trump administration would be another roller coaster ride.

While the US Secretary of War’s ramblings have largely been dismissed by many, hidden amongst his words were some indications about what the current US administration views are key defence strategies. First among these nuggets, was the fact that unlike before, the US Department of Defence – or War, was now totally focused on preparing for war, and was not least bothered with anything which did not aid in that cause. As such, it seems the US military, at least for the foreseeable future, will not be bothered with community-empowerment issues. If the issue does not aid the preparation of war and the kinetic superiority the US plans to develop, Hegseth’s team would not bother with it. The worrying factor here is that the rhetoric may also undermine the very rules-based order the US and EU have collectively been pontifying about to the global South for decades. And if one was to go by the US course of actions over the last year, it is clear that ‘might is right’ is back as the motto in Washington.

Another strategic idea which seems to be gaining traction with the US Secretary of War and is emblematic of how President Trump has employed the US military, is a shift in foreign policy focus – to that of unilateral military action in place of legacy multilateralism and dialogue. The push to beef up the military, instil tougher ‘discipline’ models, and the rhetoric of the need to be prepared for war, points to such. It seems that the US is now clearly focused on utilising the military as the state power tool from their Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic (DIME) toolkit. Trump’s use of fast, unilateral surgical strikes with serious firepower, like in his sanctioned strikes on Iran, and the move to modernise and improve the US military, including the nuclear arsenal, is messaging about future intent. But, many, including previous US regimes, have tried to play the fast surgical military action to bring them to the table routine, and failed, with protracted conflicts as a result which led to generational impacts. Further, the Trump administration’s purge/restructuring of its intelligence community will impact US and global security for years to come. History has shown that if a state focuses more on ‘loyalty to those in power’, over operational and strategic efficiency and flexibility when it comes to intelligence, such administrations and the nation will pay dearly for it.

For democracies, especially those who idealised the United States model, the most concerning aspect of Pete Hegseth’s speech to the US armed forces would be the assertions about what’s happening inside the US and the Trump administration’s desire to control it. It seems that the US War Office and the Presidency is calling on its military to use their own cities as training grounds by retaking them. This is dangerous rhetoric. The Trump administration’s push back against democratic checks and balances, democratic institutions and against the Judiciary is well-known. By dragging the US military into such domestic ‘operations’ the US is signalling a dangerous path to fight the so-called ‘enemy within’. The United States’ face is changing, and will add to the instability smaller nations will have to face in the coming years.