Donnie and Pete’s Shameful Pep Talk: Mandatory Indoctrination or Morale Hazard? The Theater of Trump and Hegseth’s Military Sermons

It was a mandatory attendance spectacle of forced submission. It’s one thing to brief the brass on emerging threats. (the sort of briefings which Trump frequently either doesn’t attend or sleeps through).  It’s another to subject them to a flagrantly politicized tent revival disguised as “leadership development.”

When Generals and Admirals—men and women who’ve commanded fleets, divisions, and nuclear assets—are required to sit through ideological monologues from draft dodger Don, and  lush/misogynist Pete we’ve crossed the line from professional development, mutuality of mission purpose and National security into mere performative loyalty. This isn’t about national security. It’s about political narrative control. This is theater of the absurd, aimed at Maga dolts who pleasure themselves to old copies of “Sgt. Rock of Easy Company.” (for those of you much younger than I, this was a popular Post WWII comic book, which survived until 1988)

This was a classic example of the chain of command meets the ratings machine, most likely spawned by burgeoning negative public reaction to the illegal deployment to US military forces to US cities and Trump’s slavish worship of “ratings” (his) and concern over their recent retrograde direction.

Even more sickening, Pete Hegseth, whose military credentials include a stint in the National Guard and a long tenure on morning television, now lectures the Joint Chiefs on patriotism. Trump, whose grasp of military strategy is rivaled only by his grasp of spelling, delivers rambling stump speeches to an audience trained to salute, not swoon.

Yes, Pete Hegseth’s relationship with alcohol has been a source of controversy and scrutiny throughout his post-military career—especially during his time leading veterans’ advocacy groups and working in media. He has openly acknowledged that after returning from deployments, he often coped with trauma by drinking yet, despite these admissions, he insists he never had a “drinking problem.”  Still, multiple former Fox News employees claimed they saw him intoxicated at work.  He was reportedly forced out of two nonprofits—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—due to intoxicated behavior, mismanagement, and other misconduct. A whistleblower report described him as “totally sloshed” at public events, sometimes needing to be carried away.

While he characterizes it as a common veteran coping mechanism, his drinking history has raised serious concerns about judgment, professionalism, and leadership. Yet, here he is, carping about facial hair and chromosomes.

As an aside and based on personal experience, I served with female sailors and officers and never saw an issue of any sort.

There have been no documented or credible examples showing that the inclusion of women, even on submarines, has caused a decrease in readiness or performance. In fact, the available evidence and official commentary suggest the opposite: that integration has been successful and beneficial. Despite Hegseths whining and implication, here’s what the record shows. I’m using the submarine force because it is the ultimate daily close contact, professional stress situation other than combat, and I have 26 years of experience in the area:

Historical Context & Integration: Women began optional assignment to on U.S. Navy submarines in 2011, following a policy change by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2010. This integration was phased, starting with female officers on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, then expanding to fast-attack submarines and enlisted ranks. No Navy reports or peer-reviewed studies have linked female presence on submarines to degraded operational performance. In fact, the Navy has emphasized that readiness and professionalism are gender independent. Female submariners are held to the same standards and have earned warfare qualifications (“dolphins”) just like their male counterparts.

Admiral John Richardson, a former Chief of Naval Operations, has stated that inclusive teams “achieve maximum possible performance” and “maintain high standards”. This is the sort of thing Hegseth, a flaming misogynist, even described as such by his own mother, detests. Anecdotal accounts from female submariners, including my recent conversations with a friend’s niece, herself a submarine qualified (USS Florida) intelligence expert, highlight mutual respect, strong crew cohesion, and the absence of gender-based limitations on performance. As might be expected, early discussions of such integration faced some initial resistance and heightened concern, but the result has not translated into measurable declines in readiness. If anything, such scrutiny underscores the need for fair evaluation rather than assumptions.

The U.S. military has long prided itself on remaining above the partisan fray. It’s why officers don’t campaign in uniform, why political rallies are off-limits on base, and why the oath is to the Constitution—not to any individual. But when attendance at these events becomes mandatory, the message is clear: neutrality is no longer enough. Visibility is loyalty. Applause is allegiance. This isn’t just a morale hazard. It’s a constitutional one.

It's not as if we haven’t seen this type of shitshow before.  In banana republics, strongmen parade before the military to affirm their dominance. In autocracies, generals are props in the theater of power. The U.S. has always stood apart—until now.

Even MacArthur, with all his ego, never demanded the Army sit through his political musings. Patton may have slapped a soldier, but he didn’t slap the Constitution. What we’re witnessing is not leadership—it’s political liturgy. If things remain as they are supposed to be, and the military is to remain the last bastion of nonpartisan service, its leaders must resist becoming simply stoic stagehands in a political pageant. That means pushing back on mandatory attendance. That means refusing to conflate patriotism with partisanship. That means remembering that the oath is not to a man, but to an idea, because when the generals are forced to clap, the republic begins to crack.

The irony in this situation is flagrant: a man who dodged the draft now commands the attention of those who’ve faced live fire. A true “fake media“ pundit, who once called diversity “a cancer” now lectures a force that thrives on cohesion and inclusion. As a veteran who knows better, it turns my stomach.