Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth narrowly earned enough Republican support to clear a key Senate hurdle and is now all but assured confirmation.
A procedural test vote Thursday on Mr. Hegseth’s nomination succeeded by a vote of 51-49. Two Republicans, Sens. Susan M. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted with all Democrats in opposition.
Mr. Hegseth is now poised to join President Trump’s Cabinet after weathering blistering attacks about being a drunk, abusing women and mismanaging veterans organizations.
The Senate must hold 30 hours of further debate on Mr. Hegseth’s nomination before a final confirmation vote unless all 100 senators agree to give back some of that time. Democrats have signaled that they do not plan to do so, meaning Mr. Hegseth will not be confirmed until Friday night.
The Friday vote will make Mr. Hegseth the third Trump nominee to earn Senate approval during his first week in office. The Senate confirmed Marco Rubio as secretary of state on Monday in a unanimous vote and John Ratcliffe as CIA director on Thursday in a 74-25 vote.
Democrats agreed to fast-track a vote on Mr. Rubio’s confirmation but not for Mr. Ratcliffe or Mr. Hegseth. They are not expected to agree to a quick confirmation vote for Homeland Security Secretary nominee Kristi Noem, who is next up after Mr. Hegseth is confirmed.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said an extra day or two of thorough examination is worth it for nominees to high-level positions of power.
“Our idea is to let the whole truth come out,” Mr. Schumer said. “If they try to rush them through, we don’t want that to happen.”
The Senate will stay through the weekend to process Ms. Noem’s nomination and work other nights and weekends if necessary to confirm Mr. Trump’s Cabinet-level nominees, said Majority Whip John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican.
“We’re going to continue to keep up a pace of voting until [Democrats] realize they need to be cooperative,” he said.
Mr. Trump said Thursday he would “take a look at” using recess appointments to push through his nominees if Democrats continue to slow down the formation of his Cabinet. He accused them of “trying to delay government, as they always do.”
The president ultimately deferred to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, South Dakota Republican, who he said is “doing a fantastic job.”
Mr. Thune has remained noncommittal about using recess appointments, which are constitutional but have significant hurdles for the Senate and the nominees.
Mr. Barrasso said he doesn’t think recess appointments will be necessary if Republicans keep moving through confirmation votes, even if it means working nights and weekends.
“We have planned here in the schedule to not be on recess for a long time,” he said of the 10 straight weeks of session the Senate built into its early 2025 calendar to process Mr. Trump’s nominees. “We’re going to get these confirmed, with the Senate voting on each one of them.”
Senate Democrats say they will make decisions on a case-by-case basis but are concerned about several of Mr. Trump’s nominees.
“We’re giving each of these nominations the scrutiny they deserve,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
Sen. Christopher Murphy, a fellow Connecticut Democrat, objected to Republicans’ effort to confirm Mr. Ratcliffe on Tuesday. He said he wanted to ensure his colleagues had an opportunity to review Mr. Ratcliffe’s record. The new CIA director worked briefly as director of national intelligence during Mr. Trump’s first term.
“These nominees sometimes get judged in comparison to other Trump nominees. So next to [current DNI nominee] Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe looks positively mainstream,” Mr. Murphy said. “But he politicized intelligence blatantly during his short time on the job as DNI.”
Mr. Murphy said most of Mr. Trump’s nominees are “deeply unqualified and deeply troubled.”
“When that’s the case, no, we should not fast-track their nomination so that the public and the Senate doesn’t have a chance to fully vet them,” he said.
Republicans counter that the extra days it takes to process the nominees are not unearthing new information. In the case of Mr. Ratcliffe, most Democrats did not use the debate time to make their case against him.
Mr. Hegseth, an Army combat veteran and former Fox News host, is another nominee who Democrats felt deserved greater scrutiny to lead the Defense Department, which has more than 3 million military and civilian employees and a nearly $850 billion annual budget.
Mr. Schumer said Mr. Hegseth is among Mr. Trump’s worst nominees and that “erratic” is the kindest word he could use to describe him.
“And when people are having this behavior, usually high-pressure jobs make them more, not less, erratic,” he said. “Is Pete Hegseth really the best that Republicans have to offer?”
Democrats seized on accusations that Mr. Hegseth engaged in sexual assault, excessive drinking, spousal abuse and financial mismanagement of two veterans organizations. Mr. Hegseth denied the allegations and was able to convince most Republicans that they were just political smears.
Ms. Murkowski said the allegations did nothing to quiet her concerns about Mr. Hegseth, including inappropriate behavior he acknowledged, such as infidelity.
“These behaviors starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of service members,” she said. “Men and women in uniform are held accountable for such actions, and they deserve leaders who uphold these same standards.”
Ms. Murkowski said character is the defining trait that Mr. Hegseth lacked, but she also expressed reservations about his policy positions.
“Although he has recently revised his statements on women in combat since being nominated, I remain concerned about the message that confirming Mr. Hegseth sends to women currently serving and those aspiring to join,” she said.
Ms. Collins said she was not convinced that Mr. Hegseth’s position against women serving in combat roles had changed, despite her conversations with him on the subject. She also said he did not commit to following U.S. laws regarding rules of engagement and torture.
“I am concerned that he does not have the experience and perspective necessary to succeed in the job,” Ms. Collins said.
Mr. Ratcliffe, a former House member, earned support from all Senate Republicans but drew opposition from just over half of the Democratic caucus.
Opponents said Mr. Ratcliffe politicized intelligence to appease Mr. Trump when he was DNI and they fear he will do the same as CIA director.
Several Democrats cited Mr. Ratcliffe’s declassification of a CIA memo from 2016 outlining Russian claims that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate at the time, approved a plan to tie Mr. Trump to Russia’s hack of the Democratic National Committee.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, said Mr. Ratcliffe released the memo “even though the intelligence community didn’t know whether it was accurate or the extent to which it was fabricated or exaggerated by Russian intelligence.”
“Needless to say, this was a major break from standard practice, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given the timing,” he said. The memo was released in late September 2020 as Mr. Trump ran for a second term.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Ratcliffe said the CIA would step up its collection of human intelligence and recruit top talent to steal foreign secrets.
CIA officers under his watch would go everywhere worldwide, produce analysis without political or personal bias, and conduct covert action that “no one else can do,” he said.
Mr. Ratcliffe said one of the CIA’s missions will be to prevent foreign adversaries from winning the technological race by collecting intelligence that can undercut enemies’ supply chains. He cited China as a particular threat.
“If China gets to quantum computing before we do, that causes a real problem,” he said. “We’ve got to win the war, the race on technology, stay ahead of the technology curve.”
• Mallory Wilson and Ryan Lovelace contributed to this report.
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.