In the lead-up to the midterm elections, Democrats are increasingly targeting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as a focal point in their campaign messaging, linking him to ongoing military engagements in the Middle East and domestic economic concerns. Hegseth, a prominent and publicly visible member of President Trump’s Cabinet, has drawn criticism for his outspoken support of the war with Iran, an issue that has become a significant point of voter discontent.
Democratic candidates in battleground districts are using Hegseth’s profile to highlight opposition to the conflict and to associate Republican opponents with policies viewed as unpopular. In Colorado, Manny Rutinel, a Democratic challenger in a competitive House race, circulated a social media video contrasting his workout routine with footage of a fatigued Hegseth exercising with troops, while blaming the defense secretary for high gas prices tied to the Iran war. Similarly, in California, City Council member Marni von Wilpert criticized Hegseth following his recent visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln, which returned from an extended deployment amid reports of poor morale and multiple suicide attempts. Von Wilpert called for an independent investigation into the ship's conditions and faulted Hegseth for providing what she called a "photo op" rather than answers.
Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader poised to become Speaker if his party gains control of the House, has repeatedly called for Hegseth’s resignation or dismissal. “One of the first things we’re going to do in the majority is run Pete Hegseth out of town,” Jeffries said during a recent rally. This rhetoric reflects a broader Democratic strategy to make war policy a central midterm campaign issue and to use Hegseth as a symbol of Republican leadership they hold responsible for prolonged military conflict and its consequences.
Hegseth’s approach to politics has been atypical for a defense secretary. As a former television host and veteran, he has actively campaigned for Republican candidates, including attending events in key swing districts. His political engagement, which some veterans have criticized as blurring the traditional separation between the military and partisan politics, has increased his visibility — and vulnerability — in the current electoral context.
Republicans maintain that attacks on Hegseth are unlikely to influence voters outside Washington. A spokesperson for the Republican National Committee described him as a decorated combat veteran whose leadership resonates with many Americans. White House officials also defended Hegseth’s tenure, highlighting his frequent participation in district events alongside GOP lawmakers. They assert the administration is focused on delivering results for the country, contrasting that with what they describe as baseless political targeting by Democrats.
Polling data suggests a significant portion of the electorate disapproves of Hegseth’s performance, with one recent survey showing 57 percent disapproval among registered voters, including 65 percent among independents. Nonetheless, campaign consultants report that he does not evoke strong reactions sufficient to dominate paid media campaigns, with most criticism confined to social media and campaign events.
The situation bears some resemblance to the 2006 midterms, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld became a symbol of dissatisfaction with the Iraq War. Though President George W. Bush initially defended Rumsfeld, he ultimately announced the secretary’s departure shortly after the election results.
As the midterms approach, it remains uncertain how much impact the focus on Hegseth will have on voter behavior or how it might affect the political fortunes of Republicans facing difficult races. Some GOP candidates have expressed concern about the challenge of defending their association with both the war and the defense secretary, especially in districts with significant military populations or strong anti-war sentiment. Meanwhile, Democrats, including several military veterans seeking office, continue to emphasize Hegseth’s leadership and the broader war policy as central campaign issues.