Pete Hegseth Tells Katie Miller to Her Face That He Hates Her Husband

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doesn’t think he’s the most problematic member of Donald Trump’s Cabinet.

Hegseth said Tuesday that he wouldn’t trust deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller to babysit his kids, when asked about it on a podcast hosted by Miller’s wife.

“Who would you trust to babysit your kids?” Katie Miller asked. “This can only be another member of the Cabinet.”

“I mean, not your husband or Marco,” Hegseth said, to laughs. “I would trust the vice president. I mean, I’ve known Sean Duffy for years. I would trust him.”

Hegseth was seated beside his own wife, Jennifer Rauchet, who interjected that Duffy “would just call one of his kids.”

“I would trust Brooke Rollins or Pam. Tulsi’s incredible,” Hegseth added, referring to the agriculture secretary, the U.S. attorney general, and the director of national intelligence.

Hegseth then extended his playful lack of faith, saying that he believed Miller would be most likely to need help in an emergency.

“Who is the most likely to call you after hours in an emergency?” asked Katie Miller.

“Stephen Miller,” Hegseth responded, without missing a beat.

“One hundred percent,” added Rauchet.

“Stephen, you know it’s true. You know it’s true,” poked Hegseth, looking directly at the camera. “There’s others on the list, but he’s on top of the mountaintop.”

“It is true,” Katie Miller relented.

Hegseth, meanwhile, is under fire from practically every element of government for a wide array of scandals that range from reports of alcoholism to Nazi accusations and allegations that he has violated international human rights law in the Caribbean.

Hegseth’s careless, monthslong killing spree against small boats in international waters has claimed the lives of at least 83 people, and has pushed congressional Republicans to consider whether Hegseth should be stripped of his position altogether.

GOP-led panels in the House and Senate dialed up their scrutiny of the Pentagon this week, demanding a full account of a double tap that took place on September 2, mercilessly killing survivors of a U.S. drone strike.

The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees are both demanding audio and video of the incident. “We’re going to conduct oversight, and we’re going to try to get to the facts,” vowed Senator Roger Wicker Monday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is planning to court-martial Democratic Senator and military veteran Mark Kelly for saying—nearly verbatim—the same thing he himself said about soldiers not having to follow “unlawful orders” almost a decade ago. 

On Tuesday, Kelly posted a clip of the defense secretary giving a speech in 2016, when he was still an anchor for Fox News. 

“I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,” Hegseth said. 

Hegseth’s statement is nearly identical to the one Kelly and five other Democratic members of Congress and military and intelligence veterans made in a video last month, in which they stated that “this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” and that “our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

This very measured video led the president to call for the “seditious six” to be hanged, and Hegseth to threaten to court-martial Kelly. 

“The video made by the ‘Seditious Six’ was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline,’” Hegseth wrote on X last month. “Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ—and he knows that. As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions....  Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.” 

The hypocrisy here is obvious. Of course Hegseth has a clip of him agreeing exactly with what Kelly and the other members of Congress expressed because refusing to carry out unlawful orders from the president is a very rational and widely accepted concept. Hegseth’s issue is that the president is his boss, and he wants nothing more than to be the best lackey he can be. 

“I think he’s correct, and it’s exactly what we said,” Kelly told CNN on Tuesday. “But when we said it, Pete Hegseth now … says what we said was false and reckless. And I think it begs the question—what has changed? And it’s pretty obvious. What has changed is we have an unqualified secretary of defense who only cares about sucking up to this president, and loyalty to this president. That’s the difference.” 

A prominent cardiologist is calling bullshit on President Donald Trump’s MRI story.

Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, who served as a cardiologist for the late Vice President Dick Cheney, dismissed the White House’s outrageous explanation for the 79-year-old Trump’s repeated visits to the doctor.

A recent memo from Dr. Sean Barbabella, physician to the president, disclosed that Trump had received a chest and abdominal scan as a “preventative” measure for men in his age group.

“There’s no chance that this was just sort of routine preventative care. First of all, it’s not part of routine preventative care,” Reiner explained. “There aren’t patients who come to see me or any of my colleagues who we say, ‘Let’s just scan your whole body!’”

Reiner noted there was a lot of information missing from the doctor’s memo. “The president’s doctor didn’t even disclose what kind of scan. The president said MRI, all that the president’s physician said was advanced imaging. Did he have an MRI? Did he have a CT? Did he have both?” Reiner said.

“And what he didn‘t say is whether the president had a scan of his brain. He didn’t say he didn’t, he just included some data from the chest and abdominal scans. So it’s not plausible or really credible to believe that they just decided to do some preventative screening for a third time this year.”

Trump’s October visit to Walter Reed came six months after his annual physical exam. For days afterward, the White House refused to explain the reason for his second visit. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed it was his “routine yearly checkup,” but clearly that wasn’t true. Meanwhile, anyone with eyes can see signs that the president has diminishing mental faculties. It appeared that he could barely stay awake throughout a lengthy Cabinet meeting Tuesday, and when he spoke, he was incoherent and confused.

Trump has repeatedly claimed he had no idea why he got an MRI scan or what part of the body the doctors were even looking at. Still, he claimed his results were “absolutely perfect.” Barbabella’s memo detailing Trump’s October visit to Walter Reed said that the president “remains in excellent overall health.”

The Trump administration is halting immigration applications for people from 19 countries that were already subject to travel bans or restrictions.

Applications linked to those countries, including for green cards and citizenship, will be paused, according to a memo from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS. The countries in question are the same ones subject to travel bans and restrictions thanks to an executive order from President Trump in June.

The order banned citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from traveling to the U.S. It also placed restrictions on travel for citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

At the time, people from all of those countries who were already legally in the U.S. didn’t face any restrictions. The new measure, however, pauses all immigration and citizenship applications, including green cards, and can only be lifted at the discretion of USCIS’s Director Joseph Edlow, according to the memo. A similar plan was already in the works last month, but it seems last week’s alleged shooting of National Guard troops by an Afghan national spurred it into action.

“In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview, and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 is necessary,” the USCIS memo said, referencing immigration decisions made during the Biden administration.

The new order is discriminatory and punishes those who have successfully gone through the correct legal process. It amounts to not only punishing every new Afghan immigrant for the alleged actions of one, but also targets people from 18 other countries for seemingly arbitrary reasons. It seems very much like a racist attempt to overhaul U.S. immigration policy.

Senator Lindsey Graham is making an enemy out of the pope.

Pope Leo XIV called out Donald Trump on Tuesday for his aggressive attempts to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro out of power. And Graham was having none of it.

The South Carolina lawmaker pushed the pope to stay on the “right side of history” in a lengthy post on social media Tuesday, claiming that a “credible threat” of “military force” is the only way to enact change in Venezuela.

“Without a credible threat of the use of military force, nothing changes in Venezuela. When it comes to Maduro, the time for talking is closing. The time for action to end this reign of terror in Venezuela is upon us,” Graham wrote.

“I would urge the Holy Father to be on the right side of history when it comes to ending Maduro’s reign of terror on the Venezuelan people, the United States and others throughout the region.

“The use of military force to evict Maduro will only be required if Maduro insists on remaining as the illegitimate leader of a narcoterrorist state,” the Baptist continued. “He has stolen elections, collaborates with terrorist groups like Hezbollah, sits atop a notorious drug cartel and has flooded our country with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

“As President Trump said, when it comes to Maduro, we can do it the easy way or the hard way. I would urge the Holy Father to spend his time and energy persuading Maduro to take the easy way out—for all,” Graham wrote.

Since early September, the United States has destroyed at least 20 small boats traversing the Caribbean Sea that Trump administration officials deemed—without an investigation or interdiction—were smuggling drugs. At least 83 people have been killed in the attacks.

The attacks have been condemned by U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and foreign human advocates alike, including the U.N. human rights chief, who said in October that the strikes “violate international human rights law.”

While chalking the seemingly needless violence up to counter-narco-terrorism efforts, Donald Trump has simultaneously leveraged the aggression to try to shove Maduro out of power, something that he tried and failed to do in 2019.

Pope Leo recommended less violent options that the U.S. could take in the boiling feud. The first American leader of the Catholic Church told reporters Tuesday that it would be “better” to “find another way” to apply pressure, such as hosting a dialogue with Maduro or imposing economic sanctions on the South American nation, “if that is what they want to do in the United States.”

Even MAGA media outlet Newsmax is calling Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September 2 boat bombings a war crime.

“It gives me no pleasure to say what I’m about to say, because I worked with Pete Hegseth for seven or eight years at Fox News,” Judge Andrew Napolitano said on air Tuesday. “This is an act of a war crime. Ordering survivors—who the law requires be rescued—instead to be murdered.”

Napolitano continued.

“There’s absolutely no legal basis for it. Everybody along the line who did it, from the secretary of defense to the admiral to the people who actually pulled the trigger, should be prosecuted for a war crime for killing these two people.”

Newsmax is tailor-made for a far-right audience, is the preferred network of President Trump, and has been virtually unwavering in its support for him. This kind of critique, especially coming from Hegseth’s former co-worker, speaks to just how poorly planned the explanation for this potential war crime was, and how widely panned the decisions have been from both the left and the right.

Republican Senator Rand Paul offered some scathing criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s efforts to push responsibility for the September 2 boat bombings away from himself and President Trump and onto Admiral Frank Bradley.

“In this sense, it looks to me like they’re trying to pin the blame on somebody else and not them,” Paul told reporters Tuesday evening. “There’s a very distinct statement [that] was said on Sunday—Secretary Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news, it didn’t happen. And then the next day from the podium at the White House, they’re saying it did happen.

“So either he was lying to us on Sunday, or he’s incompetent and didn’t know it had happened,” he continued. “Do we think there’s any chance that on Sunday the secretary of the defense did not know there’d been a second strike?”

The growing Republican criticism comes as Hegseth and the Trump administration zero in on their version of events for whether the boat bombing actually happened (it did), and who in particular gave the order for a second strike to kill the two survivors seen clinging to the wreckage after the first bombing. At Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, Hegseth claimed that he didn’t know there were survivors after the first strike, adding that the “fog of war” would have made it difficult to determine if anyone had survived. He passed responsibility for the decision entirely on to Bradley.

The administration’s explanation for committing what very well may be a war crime has been so botched and sloppy that it made Paul remember he’s a libertarian. And on his question of Hegseth’s incompetence or stupidity, the answer seems to be both.

Even though a Republican won in Tuesday’s special election in Tennessee, the GOP is worried that their margin of victory was way too close.

Mark Van Epps won Tennessee’s 7th district congressional seat by about nine percentage points over Democrat Aftyn Behn, a big shift from Donald Trump’s 22-point victory in the 2024 presidential election. That swing could mean major losses for the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections.

As one House Republican told Politico, “Tonight is a sign that 2026 is going to be a bitch of an election cycle.”

“Republicans can survive if we play team and the Trump administration officials play smart. Neither is certain,” the anonymous representative said.

Behn made considerable ground in a deep-red district that hasn’t had a Democratic representative in over 40 years, and millions of dollars were spent for Republicans to hold onto what is normally a safe seat. This was not lost on national Republicans, who remember Democrats’ massive victories last month in New Jersey and Virginia.

“I’m glad we won. But the GOP should not ignore the Virginia, New Jersey, and Tennessee elections,” said Representative Don Bacon, a Republican representing a swing district in Nebraska who is retiring next year. “We must reach swing voters. America wants some normalcy.”

The narrow victory came as House Speaker Mike Johnson paid a visit to the state and President Trump addressed a rally via speakerphone. Even then, “it was too close,” a Republican House leadership aide told Politico.

“It was dangerous. We could have lost this district because the people who showed up, many of them are the ones that are motivated by how much they dislike President Trump,” agreed Senator Ted Cruz on Fox News Tuesday night.

“In a year, it’s going to be a turnout election, and the left will show up. Hate is a powerful motivator.”

Republican Matt Van Epps narrowly beat Democrat Aftyn Behn in a special election Tuesday night to represent Tennessee 7th congressional district.

Van Epps was leading Behn 53.5 percent to 45.5 percent, with 75 percent of votes counted, when NBC News declared Van Epps’s victory.

The district has not had a Democratic representative since 1983, but Van Epps’s win came after polls showed the two neck-and-neck heading into Tuesday. Democrats had hoped to continue their strong electoral fortunes from last month, when they flipped some of the most Republican districts across the country and won the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia.

Behn outperformed Kamala Harris’s 2024 margin in the district, nearly closing the 20-point gap between her and Donald Trump. But the Trump-endorsed Van Epps, a former commissioner of the Tennessee Department of General Services and Army helicopter pilot, ultimately defeated Behn, a Tennessee state representative and former community organizer.

The latest poll from last week showed Van Epps narrowly leading Behn 48 percent to 46 percent, with 2 percent voting elsewhere and 5 percent undecided. Fearful conservatives dropped millions on the race, with right-wing super PACs alone spending $3.3 million against Behn as of last week, a huge expenditure for a normally safe seat in an off year.

The tightness of the race caused alarm among Republicans nationally, with House Speaker Mike Johnson traveling to Tennessee to campaign for Van Epps, even calling President Trump on speakerphone to address a rally.

“We have to win this seat. We’ve gotten you the largest tax cuts in history, and the new bill—the Great Big Beautiful Bill—kicks in, as you know, on January 1. It hasn’t even kicked in yet,” Trump said. “Number one, [Behn] hates Christianity, number two, she hates country music. How the hell can you elect a person like that? … It’s a big vote, and it’s gonna show something. It’s gonna show that the Republican Party is stronger than it’s ever been.”

In the end, Trump’s plea didn’t hurt Van Epps in conservative Tennessee despite the president’s approval rating being underwater. While the GOP has maintained its narrow majority in the House, Van Epps’s close victory will not inspire much confidence for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterm elections.