💥 ‘Be a Man and Answer the Question!’: Slotkin Erupts at Hegseth Over Military Deployment and ‘Shoot at Legs’ Order

Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin Accuses Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of Tainting the Military and Lying About Unlawful Orders, Demanding a Straight Answer on Protester Arrests

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A routine Senate hearing devolved into a fiery confrontation after Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin sharply snapped at Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accusing him of avoiding direct answers about the controversial deployment of U.S. troops against protesters and challenging his commitment to an “apolitical military.“

The most dramatic moment came when Slotkin, frustrated by Hegseth’s evasions, directly commanded him to “Be a man” and list the military’s orders regarding the detention of U.S. citizens.

The Fundamental Conflict: An Apolitical Military

Slotkin, who had expressed grave concerns during Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, reiterated her fear that he was at the helm to use the military in ways that “contradict the Constitution” and “taint” the ideal of an apolitical military.

She shifted the conversation from the “theoretical” to the non-theoretical, citing the deployment of 4,700 active-duty troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of the Governor—an action she noted was the first time since 1965 that Guard troops had been deployed without a Governor’s permission.

Slotkin emphasized the severity of using the military as a first resort, not a last resort, in domestic affairs, stating: “If you love your country and you want an apolitical military, then it should be the last resort, not the first resort in our country to use them.“

.

.

.

The ‘Yes or No’ Showdown

The central issue quickly became whether Hegseth had authorized the uniform military (not law enforcement) to detain or arrest protesters in Los Angeles.

Slotkin repeatedly demanded a simple “yes or no” answer, but Hegseth refused to provide one, initially dismissing the question as “amusing speculation” and claiming the troops’ orders were “public.“

The confrontation escalated dramatically when Slotkin shouted:

“And what is the order then? List it out for us. Be a man. List it out. Did you authorize them to detain or arrest? That is a fundamental issue of democracy. I’m I’m not trying to be a snot here. I’m just trying to get the actual Did you authorize them to do that?”

Under pressure, Hegseth finally provided a nuanced (and arguably contradictory) answer, stating that while there was “no arresting going on,” the troops could, “if necessary, in their own self-defense, they could temporarily detain and hand over to ICE.” Slotkin immediately dismissed this as a political game, pointing out that military forces were not authorized to arrest U.S. personnel.

The ‘Shoot at Legs’ Order and the Predecessor’s Guts

Slotkin then brought up a devastating historical precedent, referencing the testimony of Hegseth’s predecessor, Secretary Esper, who wrote in his book that he was given an order by the former President to “shoot at their legs” when dealing with unarmed protesters.

When Slotkin asked Hegseth if he had given the order “to be able to shoot at unarmed protesters in any way,” Hegseth laughed and challenged her source: “based on what evidence would you have that an order like that has ever been given?”

Slotkin’s response was a full-scale assault on Hegseth’s character and courage:

“He had more guts and balls than you because he said, ‘I’m not going to send in the uniform military to do something that I know in my gut isn’t right.’ He was asked to shoot at their legs. He wrote that in his book. That’s not hearsay. So your poo pooing of this, it just shows you don’t understand who we are as a country.”

Slotkin’s final, emotional plea was directed at the integrity of the Armed Forces: “I love the military. I served alongside my whole life. So I’m worried about you tainting it. Have you given the order that they can use lethal force against honor? I want the answer to be no. Please tell me it’s no.” Hegseth dodged the question again, dismissing the book as unreliable reading material.

The confrontation confirmed Slotkin’s original fear: that under Hegseth’s command, the line between an apolitical military and a tool for domestic political action has been dangerously blurred.