Another line of criticism focuses on Hegseth’s personal life. To be sure, Hegseth wouldn’t meet the qualifications to serve as an elder or pastor in a church, and he has admitted to poor decisions in the past. But this raises a broader cultural question: When did Americans stop celebrating redemption stories? Today, Hegseth is happily married, active in his church, and a devoted father who embraces classical homeschooling. He served his country in combat and earned the respect and loyalty of those who worked with him in both military and civilian life.

Redemption is a deeply American ideal, but it often seems selectively applied. I recall reading about convicted bank robber Shon Hopwood, who, after release, earned a law degree and went on to teach at the Georgetown University Law Center—a story presented as an inspiring tale of growth and perseverance. But do the same people who applauded that story extend the same grace to Hegseth, a man who has overcome personal failings to achieve admirable success? If we value growth and change, shouldn’t we apply this principle consistently?

Evaluating someone’s past for predictions of future behavior is fair, but the recent past matters just as much as the distant past. //

Ultimately, the debate over Hegseth’s nomination reflects deeper societal tensions: between forgiveness and accountability, between ideological loyalty and open-mindedness, and between traditional and unconventional leadership. Whether or not one believes Hegseth to be the right person to serve as the next secretary of defense, this debate forces us to confront how we choose leaders and what values we prioritize in doing so.

As for me in this moment, I echo what Abraham Lincoln said of Ulysses S. Grant. “I can’t spare this man, he fights!” The bureaucrats had their turn. We would do well to have a warrior like Pete Hegseth leading the military as soon as possible.