Following a slew of allegations about excessive drinking, financial mismanagement and mistreatment of women, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, returned to Capitol Hill on Thursday to try to secure the support of senators who will decide whether to confirm him.
His visit followed Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a U.S. Army veteran and sexual assault survivor, revealing on Fox News Thursday morning that she has not yet decided whether to support Hegseth.
Hegseth has denied any wrongdoing amid the flurry of allegations, including a woman’s accusation that he raped her in a Monterey, California, hotel room in 2017. (That accusation is detailed in a 2017 report by the Monterey Police Department that has been made publicly available in recent weeks.) Hegseth says the incident was consensual, though he paid the woman an undisclosed amount as part of a settlement agreement. Monterey County District Attorney Jeannine Pacioni has said her office declined to file charges at the time because “no charges were supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
While Ernst remains committed to a “very thorough vetting process,” others have drawn their own line in the sand as to what information should — and should not — be considered.
To discount serious allegations simply because the sources were granted anonymity is misguided.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for one, told Fox News‘ Sean Hannity on Wednesday: “The allegations against Pete are anonymous sources. I’m not going to make any decisions based on an anonymous source. If you’re not willing to raise your hand under oath and make the accusation, it doesn’t count. I’ve heard everything about all of these people. None of it counts. No rumors, no innuendo.”
When Hannity responded that Graham, a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, participated in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Graham smiled. “I’ve seen this movie before,” he said, appearing to ignore the extensive, voluntary public testimony during the Kavanaugh hearings from Christine Blasey Ford, who accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school in the 1980s. (Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the allegation.)
Graham doubled down on that position later Thursday, posting a clip of his Fox News conversation with a caption that ended with: “Anonymous sources don’t count.”
And his position has been echoed by Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who decried the unwillingness of anonymous sources to appear on cable news and answer questions. (Pressed as to whether Hegseth should release the Jane Doe who accused him of rape in 2017 from their nondisclosure agreement, Scott replied, “Absolutely not.”)
At least one of the anonymous people featured in reporting about Hegseth isn’t anonymous to Hegseth.
As Scott noted, Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election; his choices for his various Cabinet positions are bound to include people with whom Democrats disagree on a host of policy issues or even value judgments, which should not in and of themselves be disqualifying.
But to discount serious allegations simply because the sources were granted anonymity is misguided.
For one, while the sources of anonymous allegations are not named publicly, their identities are known to the journalists reporting them. Journalists also work to verify and/or corroborate the information such sources provide. As legendary journalist Bob Woodward noted in “Fear,” his first book focused on Trump’s first term, he uses anonymous sources “to get the real truth” and remains fully confident in his reporting because “[t]he sources are not anonymous to me. … I know exactly who they are.”
And, of course, at least one of the anonymous people featured in reporting about Hegseth isn’t anonymous to Hegseth: The Jane Doe who has accused him of rape and with whom he signed an agreement; Hegseth and his lawyer are well aware of her identity. (To be clear, there’s no indication Jane Doe herself has been a source in media reports about her accusation.)
Yet Graham might be purposefully eliding those facts because it allows him and other conservatives to continue their campaign against the “mainstream media” or “fake news” for its purported bias against Trump and/or Republicans writ large.
More significantly, Graham’s outright dismissal of anonymous sources presents a problem larger than how Hegseth’s planned formal nomination next month should be evaluated by senators, who have a constitutional obligation to “advise and consent.” Anonymity — be it through media sources or within our justice system — is as central to holding power to account as is a free press.
Consider, for example, the role of anonymity in federal criminal investigations and prosecutions. In a 2015 report on the use of “confidential informants” by federal law enforcement agencies, the Government Accountability Office revealed that, in 2013 alone, those agencies used more than 16,000 such informants, many of whom have their own criminal histories, in investigating criminal activities or organizations.
Anonymity for victims can be especially important in criminal investigations of sexual assault and other violent crimes. In its ongoing criminal case against music mogul Sean “P. Diddy” Combs, for instance, federal prosecutors have relied on an as-yet unknown number of anonymous victims of Combs’ alleged physical and/or sexual abuse (Combs has pleaded not guilty in the federal indictment that has charged him with sex trafficking and racketeering, among other charges).
Combs is currently seeking an order that would force prosecutors to disclose their names. But, to date, prosecutors have vigorously opposed Combs’ motion, noting in a recent brief that courts “routinely deny” defense demands to identify victims because of the demonstrated risks to “witness safety, the potential for witness intimidation or subornation of perjury.” And that information is denied to criminal defendants, who have clear constitutional rights to process and to confront their accusers.
Unlike Combs, Hegseth has never been charged with a crime, much less a multiyear racketeering conspiracy involving sex trafficking. He is under scrutiny because the president-elect wants to entrust him with one of the nation’s most critical Cabinet posts, not punish or deter him through a prison sentence.
Still, his allies seem to believe anonymous sources are worth less in the Senate confirmation process than in a criminal prosecution. Yes, the use of “unnamed, unaccountable sources” has contributed to what The Associated Press acknowledged, even seven years ago, is a “fall in the trust in the media.”
But given our historical experience in revealing “genuine insight into the uses and abuses of power” through anonymous sources, I’d like to remind Graham: They count. A lot.
