Is Hasan Piker Too Toxic For Democrats
PDS Published 03/30/2026
-
If you can count on anything remaining true year after year after year, it’s that the Conservative Political Action Conference is always so weird.
Yeah, there’s a lot to talk about there: we’ve got more MAGA civil war drama, more Iran war infighting, and even Hasan Piker in the mix.
But before we dive into all that, we’ve gotta talk about the other thing that happened over the weekend: what’s being called the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history. [B roll, 00:28 - 00:41]
With more than eight million people pouring onto the streets for over 3,300 “No Kings” protests across all 50 states on Saturday. [Same B roll]
At least according to the events’ organizers; right, local authorities in some cities put the number of people much lower, but either way it was massive. [B roll, 00:58 - 01:05, 01:14 - 01:25]
Right, the first two “No Kings” events in June and October of last year drew five million and seven million people, so this third one is the biggest yet. [Same B roll]
With folks dressed in costumes, waving signs and flags, banging drums, shouting through megaphones, dancing and singing. [Same B roll]
You even had Bruce Springsteen performing a protest song in Saint Paul. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 04:46 - 04:49]
Now as for the White House, it preemptively dismissed them as “Trump Derangement Therapy Sessions.” [B roll, 00:22]
But while the common cause bringing all these people together was some grievance with the Trump administration or another, their reasons for being there were more specific than “orange man bad.” [Same B roll”
There’s the war in Iran, the mass deportations, the flagging economy, and the attacks on democracy, to name a few. [B roll]
With uncle Bernie speaking to a crowd of tens of thousands in the twin cities. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 11:58 - 12:02; Clip, 16:21 - 16:54] Caption: “No more kings! … We not only say no to Trump’s authoritarianism. We say no to Mr Musk, no to Mr Bezos and Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Ellison and all the other multibillionaires. You cannot have it all. We will create an economy that works for all Americans, not just the one percent.”
Meanwhile, down in Dallas we saw what you might call the Yes Kings protest, also known as CPAC. [Image]
Which, yes, was a generally pro-Trump event despite this moment of apparent confusion from the crowd. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:06 - 00:15]
Now very notably Donald Trump himself was conspicuously absent from the event.
In fact, this was the first annual CPAC since 2016 that he didn’t attend.
Maybe because he’s too busy retruthing AI slop, or drooling over his ballroom, or watching Iran war footage like its an action movie.
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:07, 00:17 - 00:22, 00:24 - 00:26]
Which is an incredible contrast from CPAC 2024, because back then he blasted those who had “gorged themselves on the spoils of endless wars.” [B roll]
But times have changed, and so have the polls, with the latest from Reuters putting Trump’s approval rating at 36%, the lowest point since he returned to office for his second term. [Headline]
And the approval for the strikes on Iran were pretty much the same: just 35%.
So we saw that reflected in the speakers who took the stage at CPAC, with for example former Representative Matt Gates expressing reservations about the war. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 07:07 - 07:30]
But there was also plenty of pro-war sentiment too, with panel discussions titled things like “No Nukes for Jihad” and “MAGA vs. Mullah Madness.”
Plus you had Ted Cruz getting a big reaction from the crowd with his warmongering. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 24:43 - 24:53, 25:02 - 25:17] Caption: “If you want an object lesson on what a strong commander in chief looks like, take a look at the current resident of the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump. … Today we have a greater chance that in the next six months we will see a new government in Venezuela, in Cuba, and in Iran.”
Though I’ve gotta give the award for most pathetic bootlicker to RFK Jr for this unbelievable story he told.
According to him, he and Trump were having McDonald’s and diet coke onboard a plane during the campaign when the future president showed off his geopolitical expertise. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:52 - 01:15]
Now there was at least one person who came even remotely close to suggesting that Donald Trump’s maybe not a world historical genius, and that’s right-wing commentator Brandon Straka [Pronounce].
[Clip, 07:29 - 07:57] Caption: “If you call yourself a patriot, but you believe that it is your obligation to only praise and only worship your president, then you must not be a patriot of this country, because leader worship is how citizens behave in nations that aren’t free. … You can love your president, and you should. But it is your duty and your obligation as a free citizen of the United States of America to challenge and question your government every day, regardless of who the president of the United States is.”
But what most CPAC speakers from Straka to Matt Gates to Steve Bannon agreed on was that as the midterms approach, Republicans need a ceasefire in this MAGA civil war.
Saying that the likes of Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin need to put aside their differences, at least for now, and focus on the common threat of radical left Democrats.
But even there, not everyone was on board, with Josh Hammer arguing that Carlson, Kelly, Candace Owens and the like are simply too far gone to be given a space in the movement. [Lead B roll into clip]
-
Right, there is a big debate happening in the party right now, with some candidates trying to embrace him and his platform to reach young voters.
And others thinking he is too toxic to touch.
And that debate is getting pretty heated with the midterms just around the corner.
Over in Michigan’s Democratic Senate Primary race, one candidate, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (Abdool L Sigh-ed) , announced a college campus tour in next week that would include an appearance with Hasan.
But he was quickly then condemned by the Michigan ADL, who accused Hasan of amplifying violently antisemetic rhetoric.[]
And El-Sayed’s two democratic opponents also slammed him, too.
With Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow saying Hasan:
“says extremely offensive things in order to generate clicks and views and followers, which is not entirely different from somebody like Nick Fuentes.”
And then Rep. Haley Stevens also calling him “the exact opposite of someone I’d be campaigning with.”
And, if you’re wondering why Hasan is so controversial to these politicians, well, a lot of it has to do with his very vocal opposition to Israel and comments he has made about the ongoing war with Gaza.
Because many have accused his criticisms of Israel of turning into antisemitism.
Many point to Hasan previously referring to some Orthodox Jewish people in Israel as “inbred,” many also feel he downplayed sexual violence that happened on Oct. 7.[][]
“They serve in the military and get their untrained, inbred asses sent to southern lebanon.” (0:22-0:32)
“By the way, none of which justifies Israel’s actions. None of this justifies that palestinians have a right to dignity, to emancipation, to live fucking free lives. Free from this occupation, it doesn’t matter if fucking rapes happening on Oct 7, that doesnt change the dynamic for me even this much.” (1:45:02-1:45:20)
He has also faced heat for saying that “hamas is a thousand times better than” Israel, which he described as a “fascist settler colonial apartheid state.”[]
And he continually sees backlash for previously saying that “Americans deserved 9/11.”
“America deserved 9/11, dude.” (:19-:22)
Though he has since said that comment was inappropriate and he never meant the victims deserved to die
But these comments still come up any time a prominent Democrat appears alongside Hasan.
So, in the last week or so, we have seen Politico running headlines claiming that “some Democrats want to shut off Hasan Piker’s ‘megaphone’.”
The Wall Street Journal also ran an op-ed claiming some left-leaning politicians are getting “too cozy” with Hasan.
But Hasan spoke to a CNN correspondent over the weekend and defended himself, saying:
(0:22-0:39) [im not antisemitic, i speak out about antisemitism all the time, what i am is antizionist]
(1:00-1:08) [there are israel critics who are antisemetic but im not one of them]
(2:21-2:34) [im against all hate and fascism and wont compromise on that]
But still, that Michigan race is not the only one where Hasan has caused tensions.
He just interviewed Effie Phillips-Staley, who is running for a congressional seat in New York.
And she then faced a ton of backlash from Democratic groups in New York for appearing alongside him, again arguing that he promotes antisemitism and bigotry.
But Effie defended her choice to sit down with Hasan, saying that:[]
“By narrowing our tent and refusing to engage with platforms that reach young people, we are effectively surrendering a generation of voters to apathy or the far right.”
“While I don't align with every word Hasan Piker has ever said, we must recognize the massive value of a platform that engages millions of young people in the democratic process.”
“As Democrats, our job is to build bridges, not burn them.”
And other Democrats see the issue similarly.
Just over the weekend, you had Bernie Sanders being asked about Democrats swearing Hasan off, to which he said:
(0:20-0:43) (ive spoken to hasan, he is doing a good job in many ways, we need to communicate, ive been on joe rogan i disagree with him but last i heard, you can disagree with someone)
Representatives like Ro Khanna have also previously embraced Hasan’s platform, with Khanna recently telling Politico that Democrats need to build a wider coalition, and:
“That must include engaging with Israel critics like Hasan Piker as Pod Save hosts have done and many progressive candidates have done.”
“Of course, I disagree strongly with some of his statements and point that out. But cancelling people or shaming people like Hasan Piker, Shawn Ryan or Theo Vonn is not the answer.”
Some also noting that when it comes to Israel, polling last year found that 77% of Democrats and 51% of independents think Israel is committing genocide.[]
So that is a big chunk of people who see eye to eye with Hasan on that point, and many think Democrats should run away from such an incredibly common belief.
But to break this whole debate down, we actually reached out to Hasan himself and some of the politicians speaking out against him.
And while we are still waiting to see if we can get one of those politicians on the books, we did hear from Hasan today…
Go to HelloFresh now to get 10 free meals + a FREE Zwilling Knife (a $144.99 value) on your third box. Offer valid while supplies last. Free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only, varies by plan.
-
Stephen said you're the exact opposite of someone I'd be campaigning with, Slotkin said. You sound deeply anti-Semitic. What is your response to elected Democrats calling you a liability?
I have the same attitude that Bernie Sanders demonstrated after his rally yesterday. It's, I think there's,
there's a major split within, the corporate aside, the corporate flank in the Democratic Party, the, the the people that are constantly,
trying to appeal to this mythical moderate centrist voter. And, and that's been a demonstrable failure. And I think that the,
the party's base actually understands that it's a demonstrable failure. So they're demanding more, and these guys are they're losing their relevance,
their institutional irrelevance, like a lot of these think tanks, like Third Way and, certainly advocacy groups like, you know, eight pack ADL, so they're they're just kind of,
trying to create, pressure wherever they can.
And I think they're very boomer minded because they think like when I go and stand next to a politician that actually benefits me.
They don't realize that, like, politicians are coming to me because, I can fundraise for them in a way that, you really can't do unless,
in a way that you really can't do, because it's like all individual donors from all around the country. Right? This is not like, like a closed door,
private dinner, $50,000 a pop, like,
this is like real people that that appreciate what the candidate has to say and want to give $5 to, you know, $100.
And then also on top of that, I have a fairly active audience that that, makes up the doorknocker base as I like to call it,
like a lot of activists, advocates, labor union leaders and, you know, lower level local politicians and the like who, when they get excited about a candidate
they want to do, they want to do phone banking, like there is a real grassroots momentum, when when candidates associate with someone like myself.
And that's the reason why they do it. Because it's not.
It doesn't give me any, like, significant legitimacy when I appear next to a candidate, at least, it doesn't work that way on the internet. No one really cares, right?
And in the same way that, like, when I get favorable coverage from a legacy publisher, it's good for, you know, the managerial class to read those papers, but it doesn't actually yield.
A real massive amount of eyeballs and attention. And that that translates to, like, viewership and, an increase in, like,
people tuning in to my, to my broadcast as opposed to, like, Theo van.
So they're they're both the old guard and desperately trying to maintain that old guard mentality by like, trying to apply pressure to politicians that very clearly are more malleable, more persuadable.
You know, you get a couple lobbyist phone calls or big donors,
they give a phone call, and then you release a statement like the one that Slotkin did, which was so crazy. Like she openly admitted that she doesn't know who I am.
And then, very clearly was like reading a talking point that was given to her. But maybe she didn't even, like, fully understand the talking about, as you were saying,
the conflation between Jews and Israel is anti-Semitism is like very anti-Semitic. And it kind of seems like a sign does that quite a bit.
And it's like, no, actually I do the exact opposite of that. So it was that was like a funny angle. It wasn't even like, quote,
mining to be like, well, this quote seems crazy or whatever,
because like, they all do that usually there's like a couple of them flying around that, that the ADL disseminates.
But but she didn't even do that where she just, like, went off on a tangent on something totally irrelevant and, unironically, antagonistic to my worldview, something that I have, for years and years pushback against.
Well, especially as we get closer to the primaries, though, I mean, we are going to see these things coming out of like, just people, you endorsing people or you being with people.
People are trying to use, things that you've said and done. So we do have to talk about that while I have you on. Right. Because. Right.
You've been you've been accused of calling Orthodox Jews in bread, comparing Zionist neo-Nazis, dismissing reports of sexual violence on October 7th, saying, I believe the quote and once again, it could be a clip.
So we'll get to that.
It doesn't matter if rape happened on October 7th, it doesn't change the dynamic of me. And opposing that Hamas is a thousand times better than Israel, which of those things would you say you stand by?
Which of those things would you say you regret? And which of those things do you think are being misrepresented?
I think, the ones that are being misrepresented pretty egregiously are like the,
it doesn't matter of rapes happened on October 7th or not, because that was actually an argument that I was having fairly early on with the chatter. Who was denying sexual violence or the likelihood of sexual violence happening.
I was telling him that this actually doesn't change the dynamic of genocide. Like this doesn't justify genocide at all.
But that one has been, misrepresented pretty egregiously as far as the inbred comments goes.
There's like a massive compilation of, of this out there of me, like calling any kind of like ethno religious, racial supremacist and inbred because,
a lot of these ideologies do revolve around genetic purity. But, the, the idea that it's, like, directed at Orthodox Jews is ridiculous.
It was, it was specifically talking about, like, you know, settlers and, settlers destroying aid and, and things of that nature. But I do understand that,
it can come across as insensitive, but so I, I will, as I told Politico, I believe or two New York Times,
you know, I'll try to be a little bit more careful with my language there.
As far as the differences between Hamas and Israel, I mean, that's that that I do stand by.
I don't have an issue when people point to that to say, how could you say such a thing? Because my my counter always is. Okay, well, then argue against it.
Explain to me why.
Hamas is a larger danger to the world, or a larger danger to the Palestinians, or a larger danger to Israelis than Israel is, because Israel is committed a genocide?
I think that's, it comes across as like a statement that is, is out there because it's not one that you hear from,
any American, commentator at all, but it's still a reflection of reality. It's not even a defense of Hamas at that point.
It's just a, a yeah, it's a way to try to get people to understand, like the severity of what Israel has done and to also try to like,
make people, understand that that,
these are these are groups like passive resistance is not operating out of a place of like, anti-Semitism in the way that it's been presented.
It's operating out of a place of, having an emancipatory need. Right? It's 75 years of apartheid. It's a pretty brutal,
and pretty ruthless occupation that these people have been subjected to. You know, this is not an alien force. It's like outside of the Palestinians. I mean, they do have, internal dynamics.
They have, passengers. Certainly. Not all of them are fond of Hamas or anything, but it doesn't matter. Right.
Because like the the much larger problem here right now is the genocide that Israel's conducted in the apartheid that it continues to maintain.
And, the last thing I'll get to regarding anything in the past, because there there's a lot of stuff happening now I want to touch on. And I know that you're kind of limited on time.
It popped up during, everything with Mamdani, right? You said, in 2019, America deserved 911. You later called it inappropriate.
Do you still think that the the underlying argument was right and that just the phrasing was off? And if so, what is that? Yeah. Or have you moved off that position entirely?
No, no, no, that was, that was me talking about blowback, which, is a is a concept that has, academic consensus. Right?
And even in 2019, it had academic consensus. It's just that the way I,
the language that I use was, certainly, not the best, especially because it can be misinterpreted and still is being cynically misinterpreted to this day.
But I think at the end of the day, it's again, it's people leaning into, quote, mining and to, to be like, oh, this person is not arguing in good faith.
This is like an insincere person. It's a radical person. One thing I have noticed is that, as you probably also know,
I collaborate with politicians quite frequently Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rishi Talib, Dylan, Omar I have, had Tom Steyer on the stream.
Like I collaborate with politicians, especially in the primary season, but also in the off season as well. Greg Casar, someone who I was a big advocate to, to win,
the Congressional Progressive Caucus, leadership role. Right. Like, I understand the internal dynamics of the party. I talk to politicians all the time. I talk to analysts all the time.
And yet this issue only gets brought up when I'm, campaigning or when I'm, you know, when I'm working alongside Muslim candidates like the major, blow ups have only happened twice.
First with Saul Mamdani, where Andrew Cuomo was trying to associate me with, like, Islamic radical terrorism and then tie him back to that as well.
And now they're doing the exact same thing to Abdullah. I'll say it.
So I think it's in some ways a not so subtle, but certainly more subtle than like, Randy fine, way of, of, terror hitting a candidate.
Like to say, like this candidate is, is, platforming, a person who might be a dangerous radical, right.
But it's ridiculous. Especially because the issue that they're doing it on is Israel. And, this ties back to the boomer mentality that I was mentioning earlier,
which is Israel is a 9010 issue, especially in the Democratic Party, Democratic Party's voter base. Right.
So they are weirdly aligning themselves on the opposite side of an issue. That's the 9010 issue.
They're siding with the 10%. And I think I guess the point I'm trying to make is like,
no matter how much quote, mining they can engage in, or no matter how much they try to say, like, oh, I'm a radical person. I think most people, especially after the last two and a half years,
kind of understand that, this happens to anyone who's who puts themselves out there and says, you know, free Palestine,
says they're, on board with Palestinian emancipation. The Palestinians deserve statehood, dignity, sovereignty.
There's always a barrage of hatred down to the likes of Miss Rachel,
who is an immensely kind person, like an impossibly kind person who just simply says things like, I don't think children deserve to die, right.
So it's it's ironically, another thing that I talk about quite a bit as far as like the dilution of the term anti-Semitism, which is,
a severe crisis regardless.
But, this kind of dangerous conflation, this false conflation between Zionism and Judaism paired up with, like, this, this,
these barrage of the barrage of attacks against people who are advocating for Palestinian emancipation and consistently calling them anti-Semites, pairing people like myself up with,
with, morally repugnant worldviews like Nick Fuentes. I think that that is a spectacular failure in terms of combating anti-Semitism.
I think it actually leans into anti-Semitism and makes people no longer take anti-Semitism allegations seriously.
And it also legitimizes the likes of Nick Fuentes rather than De-legitimize as someone like myself. So I was going to ask you, right, because Mallory McMorrow,
she compared you to Nick Fuentes in that you are someone who says offensive things to generate clicks and attention. That's a paraphrase of what she said. What's your reaction to being compared to a white nationalist by a Democrat?
And do you think that comparison is being made in good faith or what? What do you make there? No, I don't think that comparison is being made in good faith.
I will to be as charitable as possible. I don't think Mallory McMorrow knows who I am.
I think she just got talking points and thinks that this is like a viable way to draw a line in the sand between herself and Abdullah Siad,
because they're both in like the the the anti-Zionist lane. They're competing for votes in anti-Zionist land where the votes are. But then all the donations are on the pro-Israel lane.
Right. And, Stephens is actually the pro-Israel candidate. She's the AP candidate in this race. So it's very clear, you know, her position is already established, right?
Everybody understands it. But I think this was, McMorrow looking at, the, the,
you know, the three way race that's taking place, it's within a margin of error and deciding maybe I can be the viable, you know, Israel curious candidate here and try to moderate and maybe get some and maybe get a PAC, off my back.
Which, you know, we'll see if it even happens, because these are the types of things we have to pay attention to now. It's really strange. It's not even about policies necessarily.
It's more so about, like, what kind of subsidiary corporations is a PAC going to set up that will not have the word Israel in it at all.
And how they're going to launch, unlimited amounts of money, because sometimes they are going to boost McMorrow.
And sometimes they might even boost up the less I add a little bit.
If they feel like, there is, there's a battle between McMorrow and Abdullah, I'll say, Ed, where like, Stevens can win out at the end.
So it's this, complex machinery that I think undermines the, the, the, principle of democracy.
But, you know, we'll be paying close attention to it. Do you think that might be connected? I mean, do you have AOC or Ocana or other prominent progressives, right. Appearing on your show, people like Bernie Sanders,
backing candidates on the campaign alongside you.
But when many of them are pressed on specific comments, whether it be about Jews and Israel, most of them won't address those comments directly.
Like, do you do you think that the elected officials who associate you with, with associate with you publicly but won't defend specific things you've said, like, does that stand out to you?
Do you think that's just playing the game? What what's your take there? I think I should never be the conversation. So I think it's totally appropriate for these politicians to be like, guys,
you know, there's going to be things that we disagree with and there are things that we disagree with,
not on the issue of quote unquote Jews, obviously, but like there there are going to be differences in opinions. It's healthy, it's normal.
It's understandable. Right. So I think they're just covering their bases by being like, it doesn't matter if we have disagreements. I'm going to talk to this person.
I think they're just trying to, signal it in a way that is, like, the most appealing to the broadest base.
I don't expect politicians to just, like, run around and defend every clip out of context. They're not, you know, they're not my fans, right?
These are these are people that I work with. These are people that I want, to to fight for an agenda. And they are fighting for energy. And this is why I support them.
And if they stop fighting for energy, and I will stop supporting them. But at the end of the day, this is an insincere conversation.
So I do appreciate any kind, of, any kind of defense because I understand,
or at least they understand that, this battle is for who gets to, retain control over the party.
Right. And I think they are just using me as an entry point. So when they're yelling at me and they're saying I'm radical,
they're actually, yelling at the base because I do have a lot of fans, but I also, am a megaphone for a lot of people who don't even know who I am.
Right. Like, these are people that I meet, on the streets when I go to these protests, these people that are totally outside of my demographics,
that are also expressing the same anger and discontent towards the Democratic Party's ineptitude, its feckless nature against the,
the, the, growth of fascism in this country. So they've arrived at my position without hearing my commentary at all. So I'm not this, like, singular being, that is,
you know, hypnotizing the base of support into demanding more radical things. I'm just a megaphone. I'm. I'm just one person. Right?
So for them to highlight me like this, I think boost my profile. It's rather flattering. So definitely annoying that I have to, like, deal with all these,
you know, clips out of context or just. I hate being misunderstood. I don't think anybody likes being misunderstood professionally.
But at the end of the day, I think a lot of politicians also recognize that this is more so an ideological battle that's taking place in the Democratic Party.
Are we going to have a left flank Democratic Party that represents the interests of, the working class, or are we going to have a Democratic party that continues along with this,
aesthetic posture against Trump if it that that, places the interests of corporations over the interest of people? And I think that's, that's the real battle here.
It's not me. Well, on the note of your fans, and this will be the last question for you. You know, there are millions of young people who watch you. They they align with your politics.
They feel deep, like completely locked out of the Democratic Party. If Democrats decide that you're radioactive, they cut ties. They keep pushing you.
What do you think happens to those voters? Where do they go? What do they do? I think we I mean, we just go back to square one, right?
I mean, that was like how it was in 2016.
I don't care if if a, if politicians in general are just like, oh, I don't want to be a long, I don't want to I don't want to appear alongside this person.
My commentary is not going to change. Right. Like this is not about my own personal feelings.
Will it signal to me in some ways that, like, they are running scared, which I do think is a big problem with even, some of our best candidates so far.
Sometimes I think they are too conciliatory to conceding to, these these groups that, apply a tremendous amount of pressure,
by way of both the media and through, you know, direct phone conversation that they have with candidates. Absolutely.
But at the end of the day, beyond that, it says nothing to me.
I always repeat to my audience as well, I will have disagreements with even someone like Zoran, who I admire, who I love,
who you know, I talk to, with, with regular frequency, but there's going to be, disagreements there, right?
But at the end of the day, it's just all about putting the policy in the bag, little bro. Just put the policy in the bag.
I don't care. We don't have to be friends. It's great. He's a wonderful guy, but we don't have to be friends. As long as you are fighting for the working class. I'll be there.
I'll defend you, when you are doing defensible things. And if you're doing indefensible things, I'll criticize you. That's fine. Thank you for the time, man.
Of course. Thank you for having me. And so, with all that, I'd love to know your thoughts, opinions, reactions. What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? Why?
And of course, looking forward, if we get a response from any of the politicians, I have said things on the record. I would love to get their comments and reactions as well. Right. And then from that, we've got two final things today.
Use code “PHIL10” for 10% OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
-
And then getting back to the news, everyone from rank and file Pentagon staff all the way up to Pope Leo XIV are speaking out against Pete Hegseth and his latest calls for violence in the name of Christianity.
Right, US military leadership has historically been very aware of the potential danger of invoking any one specific religion during wartime.
There are several examples of prominent people in history pointedly calling on spirituality rather than one religion or even trying to separate their public position from their personal religion as much as possible.
But Pete Hegseth has thrown all that to the wind - pushing Christianity on the Pentagon and the military in a way that some people are calling unconstitutional and even dangerous. []
With the big one being implementing unprecedented monthly worship sessions at the Pentagon during his tenure.
He’s also done some heavy remodeling to the chaplain corps - cutting down its religious affiliation codes from 200 different faiths down to 31 and switching the visible rank on a chaplain’s uniform to their religious insignia. []
Accusing previous administrations of injecting the corps with, “political correctness and secular humanism,“ and reducing them to “nothing more than therapists.” []
With a retired Army major general reporting dozens upon dozens of active-duty chaplains saying they’re being marginalized - they’re being cut out of communications, they can’t voice their concerns, and their work as advocates is being threatened. []
Hegseth has also scrapped the Army’s Spiritual Fitness guide because, he said, it was more focused on self-care than what he called “truth.” []
And all of that was brought to light thanks to his most recent prayer session - the first since the war in Iran began - making headlines.
[“Almighty God, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle, you who stirred the nations from the North against Babylon of old, making her land a desolation where none dwell, behold now the wicked who rise against your justice and the peace of the righteous.” 1:07-1:23]
[“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.” 2:00-2:16]
Now, as you can imagine, all of this isn’t sitting right with many, many people and has led to some major pushback.
With a senior Army civilian who has worked in the Pentagon for decades saying that Hegseth proselytizing like this is terrifying.
Because if American troops believe, quote, “God is on our side,” then, “what precludes us from doing anything we want to win? The strength of our military is our people, and their sense of belonging to their unit and their service.” []
With another member of a leadership team within the Pentagon saying this is a clear diversion from the historical rule of keeping religion out of the military as much as possible.
“The point was, it didn’t matter, and it shouldn’t have mattered, who you worship, or whether you worship at all. What mattered was doing the job and being mindful that you represent all Americans, no matter what they believe,”
“I don’t approve of cramming your religious faith down people’s throats, and when the top of the chain couches these operations in this hyper-Christian tone, it flies in the face of the freedom of religion that the Constitution enshrines and that our men and women in uniform sign up to defend.” []
And we’re even seeing criticism coming from devout Christians, as well - including, arguably, the most devout.
Right, during his Palm Sunday mass yesterday, Pope Leo shot down the idea that God justifies war at all- though notably not mentioning Hegseth directly. [B Roll 0:12-0:20]
Saying,
"Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them." []
And he went on to quote the Bible, saying,
“‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.’”
Of course, this is likely a reference to both the war in Iran and Russia’s ongoing campaign in Ukraine.
Which the Russian Orthodox Church has called a "holy war" against a Western world it considers has fallen into evil.
But the timing on it - especially the specific mention of rejecting the prayers of those waging war - is worth mentioning.
Now, the Pentagon has been quick to defend Hegseth here - with Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson saying their office is “proud to host these services” and will continue to do so.
Adding,
“Prayer services at the Pentagon are 100 percent voluntary and are not mandated whatsoever. It is not against the law to worship Christ voluntarily anywhere in the United States.
“The Secretary’s prayer services undoubtedly improve morale for those who choose to attend and are constitutionally protected. No special treatment or punishment is given as a result of one’s choice to attend these prayer services.” []
But you’ve got people pushing back against that argument as well - with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State suing the DoD for not turning over public records requests about these services. []
Arguing that they’re obviously a way for Hegseth to abuse his position and taxpayer funds to impose his preferred religion.
Writing,
“Even if these prayer services are presented as voluntary, there is pressure on federal employees to attend in order to appease their bosses - especially since these services occur amidst the Trump administration’s campaign to punish anyone who doesn’t comply with its Christian Nationalist agenda.” []
-
But while Hegseth is hard at work building theocracy in the US, and invoking religion to wage war in the Middle East, he has in the past slammed Iran for being led by “religious fanatics” hell-bent on America’s destruction.
Except now Donald Trump is claiming those same people are actually “very reasonable” and are going along with his administration’s demands—even though they continue to deny it, and even while he’s making bigger, more dangerous threats to target civilian infrastructure in the country.
Right, to start, it’s been more than a week since he threatened to obliterate Iran’s power plants if the Strait of Hormuz wasn’t opened within forty-eight hours.
He then delayed the deadline by five days—claiming “VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS” were underway.
Which he expected might lead to “A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.”
You then had the US sending a 15-point peace proposal to Iran through Pakistan, but Iran publicly rejected Trump's terms and countered with five conditions of its own.
And even as you had Trump repeatedly claiming Iran was “begging” to make a deal, he suggested they weren’t taking the process seriously—writing in one post:
“They better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty!”
And with that, you also had White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claiming that if a deal wasn’t reached the US would hit Iran “harder than they have ever been hit before”—saying:
“President Trump does not bluff and he is prepared to unleash hell.”
But then Trump postponing the deadline yet again—all the way to April 6th—writing:
“Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well.”
But, of course, American or Israeli airstrikes kept up over the weekend—including with a string of attacks on Iran’s critical infrastructure that have hit power plants, a water reservoir, and steel production.
With Iranian state media outlets reporting that US and Israeli strikes even hit several research and educational buildings at the Iran University of Science and Industry (BROLL)
Which a foreign ministry spokesperson claimed was “among many universities and research centers deliberately attacked” since the war began.
While the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned it may retaliate against American university campuses in the Middle East.
And with that, while American and Israeli officials have said strikes in Iran are aimed at military or “dual-use” targets, many have taken place in densely packed residential neighborhoods with high-rise apartment buildings—meaning spillover is unavoidable.
With tens of thousands of residential units across the country having been destroyed since the start of the war, according to the Red Crescent.
And with that, this weekend, you had the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reporting that 70 percent of recorded attacks over the previous twenty-four had taken place in Tehran—particularly in residential areas. []
With the organization reporting that more than 1,568 people, including at least 236 children, have been killed in Iran over the course of the war—out of more than 3,000 total deaths counting military and unclassified fatalities. []
On the flip side, Iranian strikes have also hit civilian targets.
An oil refinery in Israel was struck during an Iranian missile attack today, for example, sparking a fire (BROLL).
And yesterday a power and water desalination plant in Kuwait was attacked—killing a worker from India.
And also this weekend the US suffered what’s been described as one of the most serious breaches of American air defenses yet.
With an Iranian strike injuring roughly two dozen American service members on an air base in Saudi Arabia— most suffering traumatic brain injuries and two suffering injuries described as “serious.”
The strike also reportedly damaged a key aircraft used for monitoring enemy movements and coordinating operations—which may reportedly cost more than $700 million to replace, while affecting operations in the meantime.
With a retired air force colonel telling the Wall Street Journal:
“It’s a huge deal.”
“It hurts the U.S.’s ability to see what’s happening in the Gulf and maintain situational awareness.” []
In other big news, the Houthis entered the fight by launching a ballistic missile at Israel on Saturday.
And while Israel intercepted the missile a Houthi spokesperson claimed that the group’s attacks would continue “until the aggression ends against all the fronts of the resistance.” []
And meanwhile, what we’ve heard from Trump has just continued to be over the place.
Right, yesterday, you had him telling the Financial Times his “preference” would be to “take” Iranian oil resources—saying:
“To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘Why are you doing that?’ But they’re stupid people.’
But later, you had him happily telling Iran had agreed to let 20 more cargo ships of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in what he said was a “tribute” to the US and a “sign of respect.”
With this sounding similar to last week when Iran allowed around 10 ships to transit the strait and Trump described it as a “present” to the US.
But, of course, this is only a fraction of the ships that normally pass through—and it’s just proof of Iran's ability to control traffic through the waterway.
And, on that note, Iran has recently moved to formalize control over shipping through the Strait—with the country’s parliament considering legislation to impose tolls on ships passing through the waterway.
But Trump continued to insist that Iran has been giving in—suggesting it had agreed to "most" of the fifteen points it had been asking for.
But notably, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman recently commented again on the 15-point plan—calling it “excessive, unrealistic, and unreasonable.” []
And even while that guy represents the regime, Trump claimed that regime change has in fact already been accomplished in Iran because so many leaders have been killed:
“But we’ve had regime change. If you look, already, the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead.The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we're dealing with different people than anybody's dealt with before. It's a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change. And frankly, they've been very reasonable. (1:54-2:17)
And you had Trump doubling down on the idea of there being a “A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME” in power in Iran on social media this morning—saying "serious discussion” were underway and a deal would “probably be reached shortly.”
With him adding that if it isn’t:
“...we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched.’”
But despite Trump’s claim, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, in some ways the backbone of the regime, remains in power.
And the guy who’s reportedly leading indirect talks on Iran’s side is the speaker of parliament who’s been in that position since long before this war began, after previously serving as a commander in the Revolutionary Guard.
And you had him responding to Trump’s threats by saying his country was “waiting for the arrival of American troops on the ground to set them on fire and punish their regional partners forever.” []
WIth him making the threat after suggesting Trump’s claims about negotiations are just meant to provide cover for a US ground operation.
And with that, thousands of US troops reached the Middle East over the weekend—including several hundred special operations forces—and members of the 82nd Airborne are also on their way.
With Axios and the Wall Street Journal also reporting in recent days that the administration is considering deploying yet another 10,000 ground troops to the region.
And you had the Wall Street Journal reporting today that Trump is still open to the idea of an operation to extract nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium from Iran.
Which would not only be an extremely complex and dangerous operation but also potentially a lengthy one—taking days or even weeks to complete according to experts.
And that seems to be true for other options under consideration—including potential ground operations to seize Kharg Island, capture other key islands, or raid coastal areas near to find and destroy weapons that can target commercial and military shipping.
With one source telling the Washington post that the objectives under consideration would probably take “weeks, not months” to complete—and another putting the potential timeline at “a couple of months.” []
And with that, as these troops arrive, the Pentagon is already reportedly preparing for weeks of ground operations.
So that definitely remains a possibility, and in Lebanon, it’s already reality.
With it being Israeli troops that have invaded and continue to advance, with the defense minister saying recently Israel intended to “control” Lebanese territory all the way up to the Litani River, which amounts to nearly a tenth of the country’s land. []
And with that, yesterday, Netanyahu said he had ordered his forces to increase the territory they control in southern Lebanon—claiming Israel was “determined to fundamentally change the situation” on the Israeli-Lebanese border. []
And while that happens, airstrikes deeper inside the country have continued to wreak havoc.
One Israeli strike this weekend killed three Lebanese journalists.
They worked for a network owned by or seen as supportive of Hezbollah—and the Israeli military admitted to targeting one it accused of being an “intelligence operative” for Hezbollah.[]
Three UN peacekeepers have also been killed in Lebanon in separate attacks over the past couple of days.
And, overall, Israeli strikes and ground operations have killed more than 1,200 people in Lebanon, including children, women and medical personnel, according to the Lebanese health ministry.
WIth the Israeli military also reporting today that it had destroyed more than 100 high-rise buildings it said were used by Hezbollah in the Beirut area since launching strikes there earlier this month []
And with how many have lost their homes, it’s just one example of how, even if this all ended right now, the effects will be felt for a long time to come.
