Congressman Pat Ryan Confronts Secretary Hegseth: A Clash Over Military Neutrality and Partisan Influence

The U.S. military has long prided itself on being an apolitical institution, dedicated to defending the Constitution rather than any political party or leader. Yet in a charged congressional hearing this week, that principle came under intense scrutiny. Representative Pat Ryan (D-NY), himself a veteran, confronted Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over allegations that soldiers at Fort Bragg were pressured to align with political loyalties during a presidential visit, and that partisan merchandise was sold on base. The fiery exchange culminated in Ryan calling for Hegseth’s resignation, sparking national debate over whether America’s military neutrality is being eroded.

Setting the Stage: Gratitude and Ground Rules

When Congressman Ryan began speaking, his tone was measured, almost conciliatory. He reminded the chamber that everyone present—legislators, generals, and leaders—shared something greater than partisanship: service to country.

“We have all worn the uniform. We have all served in combat. We all love our country. We all revere our troops. I want to speak with you not as partisans, but as patriots,” Ryan said.

That opening framed the debate not as a partisan showdown, but as a moral question of loyalty—loyalty to the Constitution above any political figure. But the calm soon gave way to confrontation as Ryan zeroed in on reports from Fort Bragg.

The Fort Bragg Controversy

Two incidents at Fort Bragg drew congressional attention:

Alleged Loyalty Screening – Soldiers were reportedly told that if they held political views in opposition to the current administration, they should inform leadership and be replaced in the presidential event.

MAGA Merchandise Pop-Up – A vendor was spotted selling “Make America Great Again” merchandise on base, raising questions about whether partisan branding was allowed on military grounds.

For an institution that emphasizes political neutrality, both events raised alarm. One commander at Bragg reportedly told reporters: “This has been a bad week for the Army, for anyone who cares about us being a neutral institution. This was shameful.”

Ryan’s Cross-Examination of General Kaine

Ryan turned to General Kaine, a career officer with more than three decades of service. His questioning was crisp and deliberate:

“As a junior officer, were you ever required to make a pledge of political loyalty?” — “No, sir.”

“In your 30 years of service, were you ever told to swear partisan loyalty?” — “No, sir.”

“Should soldiers have to pledge political loyalty to participate in an event with the commander-in-chief?” — “No, sir.”

With each response, Ryan reinforced the military’s traditional stance: service members owe allegiance to the Constitution, not to a party or president. He praised Kaine for never wearing political merchandise or blurring those lines, calling him a model of apolitical leadership.

Turning Point: Secretary Hegseth on the Defensive

The tone shifted when Ryan pressed Secretary Hegseth. Citing the Department of Defense’s longstanding Directive 1344.10, which governs political activity among service members, Ryan asked if there had been any policy change under Hegseth’s leadership.

Instead of a direct answer, Hegseth pushed back:

“I totally reject your insinuation. Politics has never been considered for service members.”

But Ryan persisted. He asked whether Hegseth himself had ever worn a MAGA hat before troops. Hegseth admitted he owned many but could not recall wearing one officially. Then came the pivotal exchange:

Ryan: “Do you think it’s appropriate for the president of the United States to wear political merchandise, like a MAGA hat, at official events such as West Point’s commencement?”

Hegseth: “The commander-in-chief can wear whatever he wants. I would like to make America great again as well.”

To Ryan, that answer was unacceptable. He argued that when the highest military leader normalizes partisan branding, it erodes trust in the military’s neutrality.

The Call for Resignation

With only seconds left in his allotted time, Ryan delivered the bluntest line of the hearing:

“Mr. Secretary, I don’t say this lightly. I have to say this on the record. I think your tenure as Secretary of Defense has been shameful and weak, and you should resign.”

The room fell silent. What began as a discussion of Fort Bragg had escalated into a full-blown challenge to the Secretary’s legitimacy.

Why Military Neutrality Matters

The principle at the center of this clash is simple but foundational: the U.S. military must remain apolitical. Service members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not a party, president, or ideology.

DoD Directive 1344.10 explicitly prohibits active-duty personnel from engaging in partisan political activities. This is not mere protocol—it is a safeguard against the politicization of the armed forces, which in many other nations has led to coups, instability, or authoritarian rule.

Ryan’s alarm is rooted in history. American democracy depends on a military that does not become a political tool. When troops are asked to align their loyalties with a political figure—or when campaign merchandise appears on bases—that firewall is threatened.

The Broader Implications

The Fort Bragg incident is not just about one base or one presidential visit. It reflects a broader tension in American politics: the blurring of lines between governance and campaigning.

If soldiers are asked to self-identify by political allegiance, does that create divisions in the ranks?

If partisan symbols are normalized at military events, will troops feel pressured to conform politically?

If leaders defend such practices, what message does that send to the world about America’s democracy?

For Ryan, the answers are clear: military neutrality is non-negotiable. For Hegseth, the commander-in-chief’s choices outweigh concerns about symbolism.

Political Fallout

The confrontation quickly made headlines. Supporters of Ryan praised his defense of military integrity, framing it as an act of moral courage. Critics accused him of grandstanding and using the hearing as a stage for partisan attacks.

The larger question, however, is whether this exchange will lead to concrete reforms. Will the Department of Defense tighten enforcement of its directives? Will Congress pursue further investigations into the Fort Bragg incident? Or will the controversy fade, leaving the underlying issues unresolved?

Conclusion: A Test of Moral Courage

In calling for Hegseth’s resignation, Congressman Pat Ryan raised the stakes. His message was not only about one incident or one leader—it was about the very architecture of American democracy.

When service members pledge loyalty, it is to the Constitution, not to a slogan or hat. When the Secretary of Defense appears to excuse partisanship in the ranks, it risks undermining that oath. And when elected leaders stay silent in the face of such erosion, the danger compounds.

The hearing served as a reminder: America’s military strength does not come only from weapons or numbers, but from principles. Neutrality, impartiality, and loyalty to the rule of law are the guardrails that keep the republic intact.

As Ryan put it, this is “an incredibly difficult moment.” Whether leaders heed that warning will determine not just the integrity of the armed forces, but the resilience of American democracy itself.