BS BULLETIN
- The New York Times says Jennifer Hegseth has become Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “most influential adviser” and “de facto producer” at the Pentagon.
- She has reportedly attended sensitive meetings, helped vet staff and appeared in a Signal group where details about planned Yemen strikes were shared.
- But Jennifer now also has an official, unpaid White House role, chairing President Trump’s new Military Spouse Commission.
The New York Times has apparently made a startling discovery: Pete Hegseth listens to his wife.
Stop the presses. Alert the democracy desk.
Somewhere in Manhattan, an editor is probably wondering whether this constitutes an undisclosed shadow government. But you have to wonder about the timing. Just days after the mere suggestion of “Pete for President” sent certain corners of the political and media world reaching for the smelling salts, suddenly the Times is examining the terrifying possibility that Hegseth might actually value the opinion of the woman he married. Maybe those Pete-for-President rumors jolted them a little harder than we thought. After all, nothing says “potential threat to the republic” quite like a conservative Republican with a happy marriage who takes his wife’s advice.
And apparently Jennifer Hegseth isn’t merely the Defense Secretary’s spouse. According to a lengthy Times examination published Wednesday, she has become one of the most influential people surrounding her husband at the Pentagon — helping prepare him for public appearances, participating in interviews of potential staffers, sitting in on meetings with journalists and brainstorming ideas for Defense Department videos. Former Pentagon correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller begins the piece with an attention-grabber:
“There has never been a Pentagon spouse quite like Jennifer Hegseth.”
Now, some of this is Washington pearl-clutching of the first order. Political spouses have advised their husbands and wives since roughly five minutes after politics was invented. Nancy Reagan had enormous influence with Ronald Reagan. Hillary Clinton wasn’t exactly home alphabetizing the spice rack during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Jill Biden sat in meetings, participated in political strategy and was one of Joe Biden’s closest confidantes.
Presidents, senators, governors and Cabinet officials talk to their spouses. Alert the Republic.
But the Times reporting also contains allegations that deserve to be separated from the “wife advises husband” silliness because they involve something much more serious: access to sensitive national-security information.
The Times describes Jennifer Hegseth as her husband’s “most influential adviser” and “de facto producer at the Pentagon.” That relationship isn’t difficult to understand. Jennifer was previously Pete Hegseth’s producer at Fox News, meaning the two had already developed a professional partnership long before he arrived at the Pentagon.
According to the Times, she now helps prepare him for appearances, sits in meetings with reporters, interviews potential staff members and contributes ideas for Pentagon videos. Again, none of that by itself constitutes a national-security crisis.
If Pete Hegseth wants his wife’s opinion about an interview or wants her advice about whether somebody would make a good communications aide, I’m reasonably confident NATO will survive.
The more consequential issue is which meetings she’s attending and what information she’s hearing.
Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Jennifer attended meetings with foreign military counterparts where sensitive matters were discussed, despite not being a Defense Department employee. One was a March 2025 Pentagon meeting between Hegseth and British Defense Secretary John Healey, held immediately after the United States temporarily halted intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The Times now adds another detail.
According to the report, British officials indicated during that meeting that they had personnel inside Ukraine whose lives could be endangered without American intelligence providing early warning of incoming Russian missile attacks.
That is considerably different from sitting in while somebody discusses Pete’s next television hit. And if Jennifer Hegseth lacked the appropriate security clearance or official need to know, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask why she was there.
Then there’s Signal. This is where Hegseth’s critics have considerably firmer ground beneath their feet.
In April 2025, Reuters confirmed that Hegseth shared details about planned U.S. attacks against Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen in a second Signal chat that included Jennifer Hegseth, his brother and his personal attorney. The information reportedly included the timing of strikes. The chat had originally been created during Hegseth’s confirmation process for administrative discussions, according to reporting at the time. ABC News reported that the information included flight schedules for F/A-18s participating in the pending operation. President Trump stood behind Hegseth when the controversy erupted.
Still, there’s no need for conservatives to pretend this is a best-practices seminar. Sensitive operational information and family Signal chats should not be anywhere near one another. That was true when the story broke. It’s true now.
Critics say this simply isn’t normal. Former Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot — who served in the Trump administration before becoming a very public Hegseth critic — gave the Times one of its sharpest quotes:
“It’s bonkers that a defense secretary would involve his wife in his sensitive official duties.”
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons made the same argument in considerably more theatrical fashion last year:
“This is not normal.”
Coons joked that Hegseth can’t simply tell his wife, “Here, honey, hold my beer, and hold my classified information.”
Cute line. But underneath the partisan flourish is a legitimate principle: security clearances and need-to-know rules aren’t marital benefits. Being married to the Defense Secretary doesn’t automatically make somebody part of the national-security chain of command.
But Jennifer Hegseth now DOES have an official role. Earlier this month, President Trump established the President’s Military Spouse Commission and selected Jennifer Hegseth to chair it.
The commission is tasked with recommending improvements in areas including housing, employment, health care, childcare and education for military families. Jennifer’s position is unpaid.
Trump said when establishing the commission:
“America cannot have the strongest military in the world without the love and devotion of our remarkable military spouses.”
The Air & Space Forces Association welcomed the initiative, calling such a presidential advisory panel a useful way to address issues affecting military spouses and families. Stars and Stripes reported that the commission includes spouses of senior defense and military leaders and has already opened a process allowing military families to submit comments about the problems they face.
So Jennifer Hegseth is no longer merely “the secretary’s wife hanging around Washington.” She now has a defined public-service responsibility involving military families. That certainly doesn’t entitle her to classified operational information. But it does matter when describing her current presence around the administration.
The bigger Times argument is about Pete. And that’s really what this article is about. Jennifer Hegseth may be the headline character, but Pete Hegseth is the target.
The Times portrays a Defense Secretary unusually dependent on his wife as adviser, communications coach, confidante and stabilizing force. The article suggests her involvement has become so extensive that current and former officials question Hegseth’s management style and judgment. That’s the political payload.
The Pentagon’s answer is essentially that Jennifer is an accomplished professional and trusted adviser whose closeness to her husband shouldn’t itself be treated as scandalous.
A Defense Secretary relying heavily upon his wife isn’t a scandal. A Defense Secretary allowing anyone without authorization into genuinely sensitive national-security discussions would be.
Those are two entirely different stories. The press shouldn’t conflate them. And Hegseth shouldn’t give them an excuse to.
MY QUICK TAKE
I have to admit, the headline practically writes itself: BREAKING: MAN LISTENS TO WIFE. WASHINGTON STUNNED.
Twenty current and former officials were apparently required to establish that Pete Hegseth’s closest adviser is the woman he lives with.
Next week’s investigation: “Sources: Hegseth Also Consults Wife Before Ordering Takeout.”
But here’s where I’m not joining the automatic partisan defense squad.
If Jennifer is telling Pete, Honey, that television answer stinks, terrific. If she’s telling him, Don’t hire that guy; he’s a snake, she may be providing the most valuable service in Washington. If she’s helping military families through an official commission? God bless her. Military spouses deserve an advocate because they sacrifice enormously while receiving approximately one-millionth the attention Washington gives to itself.
But if anybody without the proper clearance is sitting in meetings where genuinely sensitive military intelligence is being discussed?
No.
We’re conservatives. We’re allowed to have standards even when somebody on our team is involved.
And Signal chats containing operational details?
Also no.
You don’t need a Ph.D. in counterintelligence to understand the rule: Fighter-jet schedules do not belong in the family group chat.
But I also recognize the Washington press game when I see it. If Hillary Clinton advised Bill, she was a trailblazing policy partner. If Jill Biden advised Joe, she was his devoted confidante. If Jennifer Hegseth advises Pete, apparently we’ve discovered the Pentagon’s Lady Macbeth.
So let’s apply one standard.
Judge Jennifer Hegseth’s involvement by what information she had access to and whether she was authorized to have it — not by the apparently terrifying revelation that a husband trusts his wife’s judgment. Because if listening to your wife is grounds for removal from office, gentlemen, Washington is about to experience the largest government shutdown in American history.
