To The New York Times, it is customary journalism to seek comments from individuals related to a story. However, for the mother of Pete Hegseth, who has been nominated as secretary of defense, this approach felt more like intimidation.
On Wednesday, Penelope Hegseth expressed her belief that the Times had made “threats” when they inquired about an email she sent to her son six years ago that criticized his treatment of women.
In a Fox News Channel interview, Penelope defended her son amid the confirmation struggles he faces due to a cascade of negative revelations regarding his personal life. She noted that she wanted to convey to President-elect Trump that her son “is not that man he was seven years ago.”
Penelope denounced the Times as “despicable” and criticized the fundamental principle of journalism that aims to provide individuals the opportunity to respond to potentially damaging claims about their actions.
The Times published a story on Saturday that included details from a personal email Penelope had sent to Pete in 2018 during his divorce from his second wife. In the message, she expressed her concerns over his character and urged him to seek help, stating, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for many years).”
Peneope, however, later clarified that the email was written in a moment of anger and she apologized two hours afterward, now rejecting its contents.
When approached by the Times for comments regarding their story, she revealed her initial reluctance to respond, perceiving the call as a threat. She recounted, “They say unless you make a statement, we will publish it as is, and I think that’s a despicable way to treat anyone.”
Peneope conveyed her belief that the newspaper’s operations prioritize profit over ethical standards, stating, “They don’t care who they hurt—families, children.”
In response to her allegations, a spokesperson for the Times firmly denied any claim of intimidation. The spokesman explained that the Times simply reached out for comment, which is standard practice in journalistic integrity.
Tom Rosenstiel, a journalism professor, contended that such outreach is not a threat but rather an effort to uphold fairness, illustrating that claiming brake lights as a threat for signaling a stop is an absurd interpretation.
Conversely, Tim Graham of the Media Research Center suggested that the call could certainly be perceived by many as intrusive or threatening, noting that the contents of the email were never intended for public disclosure.
The ethical concerns surrounding the publication of the email, which Penelope had quickly regretted sending, highlights another layer of complexity. Graham speculated whether the Times would have acted similarly if the nominee were affiliated with a Democratic president-elect, asserting that the publication appears intent on targeting Republican nominees.
In their original coverage, the Times mentioned acquiring the email through a person connected to the Hegseth family. Stadtlander defended their reporting as pertinent for public awareness concerning a nominee for leading a significant federal department.
Rosenstiel remarked that while such email exchanges are generally private matters, they hold public significance in this instance given Hegseth’s prominent role as a public figure, especially in a position that requires strong character due to its military implications.
Subsequently, the Times covered Penelope’s Fox interview, launching with her comments that her son was no longer the person he was back in 2018.
Questions arose regarding whether Hegseth would appear on Fox for an interview following speculation about his availability the previous night. However, a Fox representative clarified that no interview had been arranged, as the nominee was meeting with legislators on Capitol Hill.
Hegseth continues to contend with numerous adverse reports surfacing, including a 2017 police report involving a sexual assault allegation, which he claimed was consensual. Other reports have detailed concerns about financial practices, inappropriate behavior, and drinking habits from his tenure running a veterans’ organization.
