Merit When It's Convenient

The Anti-DEI Crusade Meets Pete Hegseth

On Sunday morning, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz accidentally texted a journalist about imminent military strike plans. “1415: Strike Drones on Target” and “THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP,” they wrote to The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. Hours later, asked about this catastrophic security breach, Waltz offered the laughable excuse that it was a contact mixup—a claim so absurd that even Fox News host Laura Ingraham visibly struggled to suppress her disbelief.

Before the election, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board warned that if Trump won, “Institutions won't collapse overnight. They are run by thousands of career civil servants who will carry on.” They assured us that “predictions of apocalypse if he wins are as absurd now as they were in 2016.” They specifically dismissed concerns about his cabinet, assuring readers that “He's likely to appoint more experienced hands to his Cabinet.”

The conservative intellectual establishment has spent years waging a relentless campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. In countless articles and editorials, they've warned that DEI threatens the advancement of science, that it replaces merit with identity politics, that it undermines the meritocratic standards that made American institutions great. They've positioned themselves as the defenders of meritocracy—champions of the radical proposition that the most qualified person should get the job.

How these same voices respond to the current security fiasco is almost beside the point. Whether they express selective outrage now doesn't erase their pre-election assurances or their years of claiming that merit must be the sole determinant of who holds power. The test of principles isn't how you apply them when it's convenient, but whether you hold to them when they conflict with your other interests.

But the true moral weight of this catastrophe falls squarely on the shoulders of Senate Republicans—men and women who knew exactly what they were doing when they confirmed Hegseth and others like him. These weren't uninformed voters swayed by propaganda. These weren't media figures with no real power. These were United States Senators, with access to classified briefings, with decades of experience in national security matters, with constitutional obligations to provide advice and consent on presidential appointments.

They knew. They all knew.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And Republican senators knowingly confirmed a completely unqualified television host to lead the most powerful military in human history.

The contradiction is so glaring it would be comical if it weren't so dangerous. The core argument against DEI initiatives has always been straightforward: institutions should hire based on merit alone, without regard for demographic considerations. That positions should be filled by the most qualified candidates, period. That excellence must never be sacrificed on the altar of representation. Whatever one thinks of these arguments—and reasonable people can disagree about them—they at least claim to be rooted in a principle: that qualifications should be the primary determinant in hiring decisions.

Yet here we are, watching that principle abandoned entirely when it became politically inconvenient.

Pete Hegseth, our Secretary of Defense, was a Fox News host and former reserve officer who never served in a high-level Pentagon position, never managed a large military organization, never developed strategic defense policy, and never navigated the complex bureaucracy he now leads. Previous Defense Secretaries—appointed by presidents of both parties—typically brought decades of relevant experience: Lloyd Austin (retired four-star general, former CENTCOM commander), Mark Esper (Secretary of the Army, defense industry executive), Jim Mattis (retired four-star general, former CENTCOM commander), Ash Carter (decades of Pentagon experience including Deputy Secretary), Chuck Hagel (defense policy expert, senior Senate experience), Leon Panetta (CIA Director, White House Chief of Staff), Robert Gates (CIA Director, decades of national security experience).

The historical pattern is clear: regardless of party, Defense Secretaries have traditionally brought substantial relevant experience to the role—until now. What changed? Not the importance of the position. Not the complexity of global threats. What changed was who was doing the hiring and who was being hired. Suddenly, for those who claimed to champion meritocracy, merit became entirely optional.

Hegseth, of course, is merely the most concerning example of a broader pattern. Kash Patel, nominated to lead the FBI despite having no federal law enforcement experience (and a history of conspiracy theories), exemplifies the same phenomenon. The nomination of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General—despite having no prosecutorial experience and being under investigation himself—further illustrated this disregard for qualifications. Though Gaetz ultimately withdrew his nomination amid personal scandal, the fact that he was nominated at all—and that Republican senators signaled their willingness to confirm him—speaks volumes about the wholesale abandonment of meritocratic principles. The list of manifestly unqualified nominees goes on, each one a repudiation of the standards that were supposedly sacrosanct.

The Senate confirmation of Hegseth represents a particularly stark case of this contradiction. Many of the same senators who have railed against DEI as a threat to meritocracy voted to confirm a man whose resume would be considered shockingly thin for a mid-level Pentagon position, let alone Secretary of Defense. They did so with full knowledge of his lack of qualifications. There were no surprises, no hidden information, no post-confirmation revelations. They knew exactly who they were confirming and chose to do so anyway.

Let's be brutally clear: Senate Republicans aren't victims here. They aren't mere bystanders. They are active, willing participants in the degradation of America's national security apparatus. These are supposedly serious people—men and women who have spent decades proclaiming their commitment to a strong America, to military readiness, to professional excellence in government. Many have military backgrounds themselves. They understand chain of command, operational security, the life-and-death consequences of competence in military leadership.

And yet, when presented with a nominee manifestly unqualified to lead the Department of Defense, they voted to confirm him anyway. Not out of ignorance. Not out of misunderstanding. But out of pure, naked political calculation. They chose party loyalty over national security. They chose tribal allegiance over constitutional duty. They chose the short-term political benefits of staying in Trump's good graces over the long-term security interests of the United States.

The philosophical contradiction here is profound. If you genuinely believe that positions should be filled based on merit—that the most qualified person should get the job—then this belief shouldn't evaporate the moment your political team is doing the hiring. If your commitment to meritocracy is principled rather than opportunistic, it should apply regardless of whether the candidate shares your politics. Yet we've witnessed a wholesale abandonment of this principle by the very people who positioned themselves as its champions.

This contradiction reveals something essential about the anti-DEI crusade: it was never actually about protecting merit. It was about protecting certain forms of power and privilege while attacking efforts to make institutions more representative of the public they serve. If the concern were truly about qualifications, the same senators who condemned DEI would be leading the opposition to confirming manifestly unqualified nominees. Their silence—or worse, their support—speaks volumes.

Consider the concrete consequences already visible: A National Security Advisor who accidentally texts classified military plans to a journalist. A Defense Secretary who lacks the experience to guide the world's most powerful military through complex global challenges. An administration putting loyalty above competence in positions where competence is quite literally a matter of life and death.

These aren't abstract concerns about procedural fairness or institutional standards. These are immediate, tangible dangers created by abandoning the very meritocratic principles that were supposedly non-negotiable. The Waltz text debacle isn't just embarrassing—it's dangerous. It reveals a level of basic incompetence that adversaries will undoubtedly note and potentially exploit. It demonstrates that the people with their fingers on the metaphorical button have less operational security discipline than the average teenager with a group chat.

The aftermath of this security breach has been equally revealing. When Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked whether the Department of Justice would investigate the improper handling of classified information—something Republicans spent years insisting was a grave crime when Hillary Clinton was involved—she pivoted immediately to Clinton's emails and “documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.” She then insisted that the information shared by Waltz and Hegseth “was not classified” despite multiple defense officials confirming otherwise.

This is what the collapse of meritocracy looks like in practice: incompetence followed by deflection followed by denial. Not accountability, not learning, not the standards of excellence that were supposedly sacrosanct—just the naked protection of power regardless of performance.

What's perhaps most revealing is how Republican senators have responded to these developments. Rather than expressing alarm at the national security implications, they've largely pivoted to defending the administration or attacking its critics. The same senators who spent years pontificating about the dangers of compromise in national security matters—who built entire careers on presenting themselves as hard-nosed defenders of American power—have fallen conspicuously silent now that their own votes have enabled catastrophic security breaches.

This is the collapse of a productive tension that democratic societies need to maintain—the tension between political loyalty and basic competence. A healthy political system requires both. But when loyalty entirely eclipses competence, when qualifications become completely optional as long as the candidate has the right political credentials, the system begins to fail in predictable and dangerous ways.

The Republican senators who voted to confirm Hegseth knew exactly what they were doing. They knew his qualifications (or lack thereof). They understood the historical standards for the position. They recognized the importance of having qualified leadership at the Pentagon. And they confirmed him anyway. Their moral culpability in this disaster is absolute. Their betrayal of their constitutional responsibilities is complete. Their hypocrisy on matters of merit and qualification is now undeniable.

Remember this the next time they express concern about any initiative supposedly “lowering standards” or “replacing merit with identity.” Remember this when they claim to be defending excellence against the forces of ideological conformity. Remember this when they position themselves as the guardians of meritocracy against those who would sacrifice it on the altar of representation. Remember this when they present themselves as serious stewards of national security.

Their actions have revealed what they truly value, and it isn't merit. It isn't excellence. It isn't the best person for the job. It isn't national security. It's power—raw, unaccountable power exercised through loyal agents regardless of their fitness for office.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And those who abandoned meritocratic standards the moment they became inconvenient have forfeited any credibility in defending those standards against others. The Republican senators who enabled this debacle have shown us who they are. We should never forget it.