1. Introduction
    

“...at the War Department, first and foremost, we must restore a ruthless, dispassionate, and common-sense application of standards. I don't want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in a combat unit with females who can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men…”

​

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas… We became the woke department. But not anymore…”

​

“Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of the War Department…” 

​

- Pete Hegseth, US Department of Defense (War) Transcript, Sept. 30, 2025 [1]
 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, or in his own preferred words, Secretary of War, addressed the general and flag officers at Quantico, Virginia, about eight months ago using the preceding quotes, among many others. In the months since that address, Hegseth has fired approximately 24 military personnel over what he has framed as “wokeness,” publicly employed Christian nationalist rhetoric regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran, and proposed an FY-27 defense budget of $1.5 trillion, to name only a few examples [2]. This paper begins from the premise that Secretary Hegseth does not speak about the US military or the national security apparatus in a traditionally diplomatic, professional, or bureaucratic way. On the contrary, he employs a specific rhetoric that I define in terms of the shared concept of toxic masculinity, as articulated by the Keck Gender and Security research fellows. 

​

America should care deeply about the rhetoric used by its Secretary of Defense because rhetoric helps establish the norms of military identity, professionalism, belonging, mission, and the actions and language that become tolerated within the institution and, by extension, within the nation more broadly. As one of the most influential institutions in the US, the military plays a major role in shaping both domestic and international perceptions of the country. When the rhetoric used to describe that institution narrows who belongs, who is idealized, and who is perceived as a threat, it does more than offend; it actively structures boundaries of legitimate national identity.  

​

This paper is organized under the umbrella discussion of toxic masculinity. I argue that Secretary Hegseth deploys a rhetoric of militarized toxic masculinity through a performance of Christian nationalism in order to construct an ideal US service member as hyper-masculine, heteronormative, and culturally conservative. This rhetoric marginalizes women, queer troops, and troops of color, while also disciplining men through a narrow and suffocating model of masculinity. In doing so, it reshapes military belonging, redefines professionalism, and alters the symbolic image of the US armed forces by advancing a limited, exclusionary narrative of who belongs. This paper proceeds as follows. First, I establish a theoretical framework for toxic masculinity by drawing on the shared definition and framework proposed by the Keck Gender and Security fellows, paying particular attention to how Secretary Hegseth channels toxic masculinity alongside Christian nationalist ideology. Next, I examine Secretary Hegseth’s background and his current positionality as the figure leading the US military and national security apparatus. I then analyze Hegseth’s rhetoric during the ongoing conflict in Iran, where his use of Christian nationalist language most clearly reveals the broader ideology at work. Finally, I conclude by considering the implications of Hegseth’s toxic masculine approach for the US military, for domestic and international understandings of American power, and for IR and security studies more generally.        

​

     2. Theoretical Framework
 

The theoretical framework used in this paper to analyze and unpack Secretary Hegseth’s behavior is one of toxic masculinity. In this framework, toxic masculinity is “the application of masculine traits and behaviors that are damaging to an individual and the people around them. Typical toxic masculine associations include being domineering, acting with infallibility, inflexibility, and a tendency towards aggression” [3]. This definition is precise, direct, and well-suited to Secretary Hegseth’s rhetorical behavior, which repeatedly harnesses domination, rigidity, infallibility, and aggression as virtues. At the same time, it is important not to reduce toxic masculinity to the behavior of one man in isolation [4]. Instead, this paper situates toxic masculinity within a broader framework of gendered power by placing it in conversation with militarized masculinity, hegemonic masculinity, and Christian nationalism.

 

The US military is a gendered institution rooted in patriarchal masculine values, and under Secretary Hegseth, it is increasingly framed through systems of aggression, hierarchy, and physical and emotional toughness. The traits mentioned above are not automatically toxic, as discipline, endurance, and the physical and emotional capacity to push beyond one’s limits are necessary elements of military service. However, these traits become toxic when they are masculinized and elevated as morally superior, unquestionable metrics of service, leadership, and belonging. Here, masculinity in the military exhibits Cynthia Enloe’s concept of “militarized masculinity,” which converts strength, toughness, and discipline into standards of worth and legitimacy, making some bodies and identities appear naturally suited for service while rendering others naturally unqualified [5]. Caver and Lyddon argue that “the everyday masculinities generally pass without much use of a gender lens. They are simply how men are, because that is how sports are, how militaries are, how businesses are, how politics is” [6]. Their point is that militarism serves as an exemplary masculine reservoir of male-dominated power, which helps explain why Secretary Hegseth repeatedly frames the military through hyper-masculine rhetoric rather than through diplomacy, pluralism, and institutional professionalism [7]. Ultimately, Secretary Hegseth’s rhetoric should be read as a performance of Enloe’s militarized masculinity, casting toughness as legitimate and softness as an institutional failure.  

 

Additionally, toxic masculinity in this paper must also be understood through the lens of Raewyn Connell’s “hegemonic masculinity” [8]. Connell defines hegemonic masculinity as the dominant and legitimized form of masculinity in a given social order, one that becomes associated with authority and power while subordinating women and other nonconforming masculinities [9].  Furthermore, Caver and Lyddon emphasize that hegemonic masculinity “is no adjective applicable to ‘masculinity’: it is an outcome of the ordering process through which masculinity operates to legitimize the gender-order hierarchy” [10]. In other words, hegemonic masculinity describes the “ideal man” and the process through which certain forms of masculinity become normalized and rewarded. Daddow and Hertner similarly argue that toxic masculinity depends on heteronormativity and works through hierarchies that privilege traditional masculine identities over women, queer people, and other nonconforming masculinities [11]. This framework is especially important for analyzing Secretary Hegseth because, while his rhetoric explicitly excludes women, queer troops, and troops of color, it also disciplines men by imposing a narrow model of the “real soldier” as one who adheres to a specific subset of aggressive, domineering, and culturally conservative traits. Thus, Secretary Hegseth’s rhetoric should be understood as an attempt to make one narrow masculine hegemony within the US military itself. 

​

This paper argues that Secretary Hegseth performs toxic masculinity through a Christian nationalist means. The Christian nationalism I refer to signifies “an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of American civil life with a particular type of Christian identity and culture… This includes symbolic boundaries that conceptually blur and conflate religious identity (Christian, preferably Protestant) with race (white), nativity (born in the United States), citizenship (American), and political ideology (social and fiscal conservative)” [12]. Given this, Christian nationalism works through “insider and outsider” boundary categories by treating some people as rightful members of the nation and others as outcasts or threats [13]. This strategy parallels hegemonic masculinity's rhetorical deployment of toxic and militarized masculinity, all of which depend upon constructing legitimacy through exclusion and hierarchy. Secretary Hegseth uses Christian nationalism as a moral and political vessel through which toxic masculinity is justified and normalized. It sanctifies aggression, hierarchy, and exclusion by giving them a divine and providential character, making this form of masculinity appear necessary and righteous for the work of the US military and national security apparatus. With these frameworks established, I can now analyze Secretary Hegseth as a political actor who uses Christian nationalism to perform and authorize a toxic militarized masculinity, one that shapes who counts as a legitimate soldier and which identities are pushed to the margins. 

​

        3. Case Study: Secretary Hegseth and the 2026 Conflict in Iran       
 

A closer look into Secretary Hegseth’s background explains how he arrived in office as a far-right figure who has brought a preexisting ideological project into the Pentagon. Secretary Hegseth is a National Guard reservist who was intermittently deployed in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan for 11 years [14]. Afterward, he worked in the financial sector, ran for the Senate in Minnesota, and eventually became an activist supporting conservative candidates [15]. He later joined FOX as a political commentator and loyal supporter and proponent of President Trump[16]. He rejoined the National Guard in 2019, but was removed by President Biden due to “extremist” and “threatening” tattoos [17]. According the the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, “the tattoos include one of a Jerusalem Cross, the words ‘Deus Vult,’ Latin for ‘God Wills It,’ as well as a ‘Chrism’ [18]. Additionally, “while several of these symbols are common in church settings, the Jerusalem Cross and ‘Deus Vult’ are also commonly found in Christian Nationalist circles, as they signify support for Christian ‘crusades’ against perceived enemies of faith” [19]. Hegseth frequently deploys this crusader-like rhetoric in order to provide momentum and purpose to his “fight,” while also advertising blatantly racist and Islamaphobic sentiments. In his 2020 book The American Crusade–the title of which reveals much of the ideological project at work–he writes, “our present moment is much like the 11th Century. We don’t want to fight, but, like our fellow Christians one thousand years ago, we must… Arm yourself –metaphorically, intellectually, physically. Our fight is not with guns. Yet” [20]. Rhetoric like this deploys an attitude of othering that encourages Americans to arm themselves and fight against cultures, religions, and peoples that do not adhere to the Christian, white, conservative, and masculine archetype advertised as “true American” by Christian nationalists.

​​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secretary Hegseth’s Jerusalem Cross tattoo [21]

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Secretary Hegseth’s “God wills it” tattoo [22]​​

​

In addition to the way Hegseth physically presents himself through morally and ideologically significant tattoos and religious affiliations, he also rhetorically constructs the “ideal” US soldier in a hyper-masculine and culturally conservative way, labeling what is permissible and what is not with regard to the intersection of identity and service membership. Contrary to what Hegseth wrote in his book 6 years ago, his stance is currently about “maximum lethality, not tepid legality” and “violent effect, not politically correct” [23]. In his own framing, the military has been weakened by “wokeness” and diversity and must be restored through lethality and a narrow understanding of the “warrior mentality” [24]. To further contextualize Hegseth’s goals as Secretary of Defense, the following quotes are provided by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. 

 

           1) On the purging of top generals and administrators within the US military and DoD: 

 

“Any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI woke shit, it’s got to go.”

 

–Hegseth on the Shawn Ryan Show, Nov. 7, 2024 [25]

​

           2) On women in the military:

​

“It hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated… We’ve all served with women, and they’re great… but our institutions don’t have to incentivize that in places where, traditionally–not traditionally, over human history–men in those positions are more capable”

 

–Hegseth on the Shawn Ryan Show, Nov. 7, 2024 [26]

​

          3) On DEI initiatives and inclusion: 

​

“The push for military diversity has moved beyond the traditional goals of equality of opportunity and into the realm of racially, sexually, and politically based outcomes. We have resegregated ourselves, one box check and one PowerPoint presentation at a time”

 

–The War on Warriors, June 2024 [27]

​

Examined together, these statements display that Secretary Hegseth is redefining military effectiveness through a narrow, gendered, and ideological framework in which aggression and homogeneity become signs of legitimacy, while diversity and inclusion are framed as institutional weakness. 

​

Hegseth’s construction of the ideal soldier operates through exclusion, as identities that do not conform to his imagined image of military effectiveness are more easily framed as distractions and threats. Drawing on Marco’s paper, Secretary Hegseth’s comments about women can be analyzed “in the current conceptions of a patriarchal gender hierarchy, [where] women sit below men, [and] toxic masculine behavior manifests in domineering attitudes towards women, as power can be readily asserted over them in a rigid, hierarchical system” [28]. Thus, under a toxic masculine framework, the US military, which Secretary Hegseth wishes to preserve as a traditionally masculine place, is threatened by women entering and excelling in that space. Additionally, drawing on Marco’s paper once again, “homosexuality sits within a flexible spectrum, rather than a clear binary. Toxic masculine behavior opposes this kind of flexibility, seeking power through rigidity” [29]. This approach would also frame queer troops as a threat to the masculine rigidity of Secretary Hegseth’s ideal US military. Drawing on Marco’s paper once more, “toxic masculine individuals seek power over others,” and thus, dismantling DEI frameworks to provide space and voice to marginalized troops strips them of institutional power and returns it to that of the hegemon [30]. In this way, Secretary Hegseth excludes women, queer troops, and troops of color, while also disciplining traditionally masculine identities by imposing a narrow model of the “ideal soldier” as one who adheres to a particular subset of domineering, infallible, inflexible, and aggressive traits.

          

Adding to these opinions about including and protecting diverse bodies in the military, Secretary Hegseth has also waged a war on beards and other aspects of physical appearance. For example, in an Aug. 2020 memo, Secretary Hegseth wrote, “the grooming standard set by the US military is to be clean-shaven and neat in presentation for a proper military appearance” [31]. Authorization for service members with existing medical shaving restrictions will expire within the year, and those who rely on legal religious accommodations will be ineligible to deploy, effectively ending their careers [32]. In this instance, Alex Wagner from The Atlantic writes, “rather than continue to identify ways to improve adherence to grooming standards, Hegseth seeks to diminish and marginalize those who sought accommodations” [33]. Secretary Hegseth’s fixation on physical attributes that are stereotypically hyper-masculine and adhere to one specific identity narrows the US military into performing a certain image of “warrior ethos” and toxic masculine appearance. Wagner concludes his article about Secretary Hegseth’s “beard obsession” by stating that “the science and experience of our NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, already prove that beards don’t compromise mission effectiveness,” but a leader like Secretary Hegseth prioritizes image, appearance, and performance of a certain ideal in ways that diverge US military policy from “evidence, fairness, and the diverse composition of the nation” [34]. This makes clear that Secretary Hegseth’s project includes visually and culturally restoring the US military to a particular masculine ideological order.

    

To examine Secretary Hegseth’s use of toxic masculine rhetoric, the ongoing conflict in Iran provides the clearest case through which to analyze it, as it is the strongest example of the fusion of militarized masculinity and Christian nationalism. On Feb. 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched joint strikes across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, other high-level military and intelligence personnel, as well as 175 civilians, who were killed in a strike on a girls’ elementary school in Southern Iran [35]. According to US officials, the strike on the school was a targeting mistake. After silence from both the President and Secretary of Defense, the President came forward and claimed that the strike was done by Iran, critiquing Iran’s inaccuracy with their munitions [36]. As for the Secretary of Defense, he took the stance of further investigation into the deadly strike [37]. In addition to this horrific incident, the use of Christian nationalist language to justify the violence of the strikes on Iran poses a deeply concerning reality. Secretary Hegseth frames the war through divine sanction, as his rhetoric absorbs violence into providence and treats tragedy as an event enclosed within God’s sovereign will. Brooks Potteiger, Secretary Hegseth’s spiritual advisor, who speaks at the monthly Pentagon worship services, furthers this use of language by saying, “if our Lord is sovereign even over the sparrow’s fallings, you can be assured that he is sovereign over everything else that falls in this world, including Tomahawk and Minuteman missiles” [38]. This statement frames military violence as part of God’s will, rather than something that requires moral accountability. If it happened, then God intended for it to happen that way. This is infallibility at play.

 

On Mar. 25, 2026, at the first Pentagon prayer service since the beginning of the war, Secretary Hegseth prayed for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy” [39]. This quote is an explicit representation of toxic masculinity performed through Christian nationalist language by sanctifying aggression, treating mercy as weakness, and framing domination as righteous. While invoking “God’s almighty providence” and condemning “stupid rules of engagement,” Secretary Hegseth also utilizes racially and civilizationally charged language to dehumanize the Iranian people and further justify the violence exhibited against them [40]. Katherine Stewart additionally notes that “Hegseth also has displayed on his left bicep what appeared to be a word in Arabic script, ‘kafir,’ which is usually translated as ‘infidel’ or ‘unbeliever,’ seemingly to mock Muslims and define himself in opposition to them,” which adds another element to his performance of Christian nationalism and toxic masculinity [41]. This ongoing use of rhetoric and performance makes violence feel not only necessary but also redemptive and righteous, revealing a clear display of toxic masculinity delivered through mechanisms of Christian nationalism. In the words of Stewart, “religious rhetoric helps present the war as part of that struggle. Among Trump’s base, many adhere to an idea of religion that, properly understood, is one of domination–the crushing foes of iron will, a celebration of hyper-masculine violence” [42].

 

        IV. Conclusion: Broader Implications

​

Throughout this paper, I have analyzed Secretary Hegseth’s use of toxic masculinity through inflammatory rhetoric and Christian nationalist imagery that shape his understanding of legitimacy, belonging, and purpose within the US military. Using the shared definition authored by the Keck Gender and Security fellows, this paper has demonstrated that toxic masculinity operates through domineering behavior, infallibility, inflexibility, and aggression, all four of which are clearly visible in Secretary Hegseth’s rhetoric about the US military and its engagement in Iran. Secretary Hegseth frames strength, discipline, and readiness through a hyper-masculine, heteronormative lens that casts some service members as naturally legitimate and others as signs of institutional decline. In this way, his rhetoric shapes military belonging by narrowing whose bodies are viable defenders of US national interests and whose are not. 

​

The case of Iran makes these motivations explicit because Secretary Hegseth’s rhetoric extends beyond internal military culture to the moral [and religious] justification of war itself. By framing the Iran conflict through Christian nationalist and militarized masculine language, Secretary Hegseth reshapes the symbolic image of the US military as overtly ideological in both domestic and international perception. Domestically, this rhetoric risks making the military appear less like a national institution that serves a diverse public and more like the armed guardian of a specific political and religious agenda, ultimately rallying more people behind its overly masculine positionality. Internationally, it makes the US forces appear more religiously inflected and exclusionary, which is especially dangerous in conflicts involving largely Muslim populations. 

​

For International Relations and security studies, this case makes clear that gender and religion are not peripheral issues in security politics, but central to how institutions define legitimacy, readiness, and tactical methodology. The field must take this case seriously because the symbolic, ideological, and identity-based dimensions of military power are part of how security itself is imagined, justified, and enacted. Ultimately, Secretary Hegseth is a revealing case of how gender hierarchy, intentional othering, and Christian nationalism can be weaponized through one of the most powerful institutions in the US. Additionally, it is important to remember that Secretary Hegseth does not operate in a vacuum; he is part of a broader network of political leaders and ideological influences that reflect a larger culture of toxic masculinity, revealing that these ideas are not embodied in one man alone, but are sustained through an entire system of male power [43]. That convergence has consequences for those serving in the military, for how the US understands the legitimacy of its troops, and for how the international community perceives American moral authority, professionalism, and mission.      

 

Notes

[1] “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Addresses General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia.” U.S. Department of War, September 30, 2025. 

[2] Tait, Robert. “‘This Is Just Disarray’: Alarm inside Pentagon after Hegseth Staff Purges.” The Guardian, May 3, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/03/pentagon-pete-hegseth-us-military.

[3] See Marco’s paper

[4] Daddow, O., & Hertner, I. (2021). Interpreting toxic masculinity in political parties: A framework for analysis. Party Politics, 27(4), 743-754.

[5] Allebest, Amy, and Lisa DiGiovanni. “Episode 15: Militarized Masculinities.” Breaking Down Patriarchy, December 30, 2024. 

[6] Carver, Terrell, and Laura Lyddon. Masculinities, gender and international relations. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022.

[7] Ibid

[8] . “Hegemonic Masculinity.” In Encyclopedia of Gender and Society,  edited by O'Brien, Jodi, 412-13. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009. 

[9] Ibid

[10] Carver, Terrell, and Laura Lyddon. Masculinities, gender and international relations.

[11] Daddow, O., & Hertner, I. (2021). Interpreting toxic masculinity in political parties: A framework for analysis.

[12] Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (New York, 2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Mar. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190057886.001.0001, accessed 14 Apr. 2026.

[13] “What Happens When Religious Fundamentalists Come to Power? (Part Two).” On Point with Meghna Chakrabarti, April 7, 2026. 

[14] Jaffe, Greg. “How Hegseth Came to See Moral Purpose in War as Weakness.” The New York Times, 

[15] “Pete Hegseth: An Anti-Muslim, Christian Nationalist ‘Crusader’ in the Pentagon?” Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, March 27, 2025. https://globalextremism.org/post/pete-hegseth/.

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid

[20] Ibid

[21] @petehegseth on Instagram

[22] Ibid

[23] Jaffe, Greg. “How Hegseth Came to See Moral Purpose in War as Weakness.” 

[24] Bowman, Tom. “Defense Secretary Hegseth Intervened to Stop Promotions of Black and Female Officers.” NPR, March 27, 2026. 

[25] “Pete Hegseth: An Anti-Muslim, Christian Nationalist ‘Crusader’ in the Pentagon?” Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, March 27, 2025. 

[26] Ibid

[27] Ibid

[28] Marco’s paper

[29] Ibid

[30] Ibid

[31] Lopez, C. Todd. “At War Department, Shaving Waivers out, Clean-Shaven Faces In.” U.S. Department of War, September 19, 2025. 

[32] Wagner, Alex. “The Origin of Hegseth’s Anti-Beard Obsession.” The Atlantic, December 8, 2025. 

[33] Ibid

[34] Ibid

[35] Ahn, Ashley, and Lynsey Chutel. “Iran War Timeline: Key Moments and Attacks in U.S. and Israel’s Campaign .” The New York Times, May 2, 2026. 

[36] Mancini, Ryan. “Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth Accuse Iran, Not U.S., of School Bombing.” The Hill, March 7, 2026. 

[37] Ibid

[38] Wong, Julia Carrie. “Pete Hegseth’s Holy War: The Militant Christian Theology Animating the US Attack on Iran.” The Guardian, April 10, 2026. 

[39] Ibid

[40] Ibid

[41] Stewart, Katherine. “Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Crusading Secretary of War.” Prospect Magazine, April 15, 2026. 

[42] Ibid

[43] Daddow, O., & Hertner, I. (2021). Interpreting toxic masculinity in political parties: A framework for analysis. Party Politics, 27(4), 743-754.

 

Bibliography

Ahn, Ashley, and Lynsey Chutel. “Iran War Timeline: Key Moments and Attacks in U.S. and Israel’s Campaign .” The New York Times, May 2, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/article/iran-war-trump-us-oil-hormuz-key-dates-events.html.

Allebest, Amy, and Lisa DiGiovanni. “Episode 15: Militarized Masculinities.” Breaking Down Patriarchy, December 30, 2024. https://breakingdownpatriarchy.com/episode-15-militarized-masculinities-with-dr-lisa-digiovanni/

Bowman, Tom. “Defense Secretary Hegseth Intervened to Stop Promotions of Black and Female Officers.” NPR, March 27, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/27/nx-s1-5763863/hegseth-soldiers-promotions.

Carver, Terrell, and Laura Lyddon. Masculinities, gender, and international relations. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022.

Daddow, O., & Hertner, I. (2021). Interpreting toxic masculinity in political parties: A framework for analysis. Party Politics, 27(4), 743-754.

“Hegemonic Masculinity.” In Encyclopedia of Gender and Society,  edited by O'Brien, Jodi, 412-13. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412964517.n206.

Jaffe, Greg. “How Hegseth Came to See Moral Purpose in War as Weakness.” The New York Times, March 12, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/hegseth-iran-war.html.

Lopez, C. Todd. “At War Department, Shaving Waivers out, Clean-Shaven Faces In.” U.S. Department of War, September 19, 2025. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4309929/at-war-department-shaving-waivers-out-clean-shaven-faces-in/.

Mancini, Ryan. “Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth Accuse Iran, Not U.S., of School Bombing.” The Hill, March 7, 2026. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5773382-trump-accuses-iran-school-bombing/.

“Pete Hegseth: An Anti-Muslim, Christian Nationalist ‘Crusader’ in the Pentagon?” Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, March 27, 2025. https://globalextremism.org/post/pete-hegseth/.

“Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Addresses General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia.” U.S. Department of War, September 30, 2025. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/. 

Stewart, Katherine. “Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Crusading Secretary of War.” Prospect Magazine, April 15, 2026. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/war/73017/pete-hegseth-trumps-crusading-secretary-of-war.

Tait, Robert. “‘This Is Just Disarray’: Alarm inside Pentagon after Hegseth Staff Purges.” The Guardian, May 3, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/03/pentagon-pete-hegseth-us-military.

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (New York, 2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Mar. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190057886.001.0001, accessed 14 Apr. 2026.

Wagner, Alex. “The Origin of Hegseth’s Anti-Beard Obsession.” The Atlantic, December 8, 2025. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/12/pete-hegseth-military-beard-shaving/685149/.

Wong, Julia Carrie. “Pete Hegseth’s Holy War: The Militant Christian Theology Animating the US Attack on Iran.” The Guardian, April 10, 2026. 

“What Happens When Religious Fundamentalists Come to Power? (Part Two).” On Point with Meghna Chakrabarti, April 7, 2026. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2026/04/07/religious-fundamentalists-christian-extremism-trump.

​