Conservative columnist and former presidential speechwriter Peggy Noonan sharply criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent address to America’s top military leaders. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Noonan described the speech as an “unprecedented extravaganza” that diminished the stature of the military and left the country looking weak.
Noonan, who served as a speechwriter in the George H.W. Bush administration, argued that the event was unnecessary and poorly conceived. Her commentary came two days after Hegseth gathered senior military leaders to deliver remarks focused on dismantling diversity programs and introducing a height requirement for military service. According to Noonan, this was a message that did not justify such a high-profile display.
“She argued that Hegseth’s announcement could have been sent in an email or video rather than delivered in a spectacle that elevated him while reducing the dignity of his office.” In her piece, Noonan offered a vivid description of Hegseth’s performance on stage.
“He paced the stage like a strutting, gelled bantam, like an amped-up actor with rehearsed gestures and expressions and voice shifts,” she wrote. Her critique extended beyond the speech itself to what she sees as troubling developments inside the Pentagon under Hegseth’s leadership.
She pointed to reports suggesting that new rules may soon require journalists covering the Defense Department to have their work approved before publication. “There are recent reports that the Pentagon is putting forward new rules requiring journalists to have their work approved before publication. Where that stands is unclear, but it’s nuts,” Noonan wrote.
“It makes America look like what our foes say we are, a place of make-believe freedom in which even the press is controlled by the government. Which really would be an urgent matter.” The comments have drawn attention because Noonan is well known in conservative circles, and her criticism underscores divisions on how the military should balance its image with the leadership’s priorities.
By framing the address as a theatrical production rather than a substantive policy move, she highlighted concerns that Hegseth’s approach risks undercutting the credibility of both the Defense Department and the broader government.
Hegseth’s decision to spotlight changes to diversity programs and impose physical requirements reflects his push to reshape the culture of the armed forces. Supporters argue this aligns with a vision of discipline and standards, but critics like Noonan suggest that the method of presentation matters as much as the message itself.
For now, the debate illustrates how choices made at the top can influence both domestic perception and how America is viewed abroad. Noonan’s critique places additional pressure on Hegseth to justify not only his policies but also the way he delivers them.