The allegations against Trump nominees Pete Hegseth, Matt Gaetz, Robert Kennedy, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon have spawned a voluminous literature on the possible death of #MeToo with a number of articles focusing on the military as an institution already struggling with institutional culture, trying to overhaul its criminal justice system to better address significant sexual harassment and sexual assault problems. I’d like to draw attention to two aspects of the allegations against Hegseth I haven’t yet seen addressed: how Senators are approaching testimonial credibility issues and the ongoing and pervasive risks to upstander interveners. Regardless of whether Hegseth withdraws, fails a confirmation vote, or ascends to the position, these two issues remain.
I. Background
The Trump team learned of #MeToo allegations against Secretary Defense nominee Pete Hegseth after Jane Doe’s friend sent a memo to the Trump team. News reports suggest the memo is similar to a now public police report. In that report, Jane Doe told police she saw Hegseth acting inappropriately to other women at a bar, including touching their legs. She texted her husband that he was giving off a “creeper vibe” and that she was “going to be here all night…. It’s awful.” A witness said that “Hegseth acted aggressively toward her,” she sent “distress signals to Jane Doe” and that she hoped that the presence of [Jane Doe] would deter him.” Jane Doe claims she confronted Hegseth about his behavior, a claim corroborated by a witness. She then says she remembers being in his hotel room where he took her phone, blocked the door, she said no repeatedly, and he sexually assaulted her. Hegseth, in contrast, contends Jane Doe initiated the sexual encounter, the sex was consensual, and that she showed early signs of regret, presumably as she was married and her spouse was also at the hotel.
The investigating police recommended the report be forwarded to the relevant district attorney for review. The district attorney concluded that “no charges were supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In response to press inquiries, Hegseth said “The matter was fully investigated and I was completely cleared.” Hegseth’s attorney has repeatedly claimed that the district attorney did not charge Hegseth as Jane Doe had “previously brought a false rape charge against someone else, thus undermining her credibility.” After a FOIA request, the relevant DA’s office responded that it had no evidence that Jane Doe had made other sexual assault complaints.
Hegseth did pay an undisclosed settlement in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. In the wake of the leaked allegations, Jane Doe has not publicly come forward. Trump has not withdrawn his support for Hegseth.
While the context specific implications of having an alleged sexual assaulter as the head of the military has rightfully drawn most of the commentary, the underlying allegations and the response to them also speak to some pervasive #MeToo issues. Below, I want to discuss testimonial injustice and credibility issues as well as risks for female upstanders and bystanders.
II. Testimonial Injustice
Miranda Fricker coined the term testimonial injustice—a very helpful term for understanding credibility issues that arise in #MeToo. In short, testimonial injustice occurs when listeners discount the testimony of individuals because of prejudice about those individuals’ identity. So, for instance, much has been written in the #MeToo setting about how jurors and the public writ large might discount female victims’ account because of biases rooted in misogyny. Kate Manne has persuasively written about how this implicit discrediting may be particularly likely when a woman’s testimony conflicts with a man’s testimony. The #MeToo movement sought to educate the public about the prevalence of this bias as well as other reasons why credibility of sexual assault accounts might be unfairly discounted. In turn, some worried that the shorthand articulation of this efforts “Believe women” pushed the pendulum too far in the other direction, precluding a full hearing of the accused’s testimony.
In the Hegseth nomination setting, we are seeing in real time the various stated Senatorial approaches to testimonial credibility. I say “stated” as I recognize that what Senators says publicly may differ from what they think or how they act behind closed doors. I think the stated positions do reveal something meaningful about what Senators believe are publicly acceptable approaches to testimonial and other credibility issues raised in #MeToo situations.
Some approach the issue as raising the need for further investigation and discussion without weighing in on the perceived credibility of either party. For instance, Senator Joni Ernst has said any allegations must be properly vetted and a discussion of them is warranted. Furthermore, she indicated that has not made up her mind on the nominee. Similarly, Senator Kevin Cramer told the press “I’m not going to prejudge [the accusations against Hegseth], but yeah, it’s a pretty concerning allegation.” Senator Josh Hawley has said conclusions ought not be drawn and candidates ought not be involuntarily withdrawn from consideration, saying “if you have a nominee who wants to, I would say let him. Let him testify, and let’s not make judgments and reach conclusions until they’ve had a chance to testify and address these concerns.”[1]
Yet even a commitment to the nomination process hasn’t stopped some senators from reaching what sounds like a strong opinion in favor of Hegseth’s believability and against Jane Doe’s credibility. For instance, Senator Markwayne Mullin has said that while he is open to Jane Doe appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he also said, “I believe his story. I believe where Pete’s at on this thing, and I’m going to be pushing to get him confirmed.” He continued “If you read [the police report], you can clearly see that it was two people flirting with each other.” He commented to other reporters that he “absolutely” believes Hegseth. Senator John Barrasso has said that he looks forward to a quick confirmation of Hegseth. For Senator Cynthia Lummis, Hegseth’s military service entitles him to testimonial deference. She referenced the allegations as a “side issue” and when asked whether she was concerned, commented “Again, they’re throwing disparaging remarks at someone who has earned a great deal of credibility. Are soldiers sometimes wild childs? Yeah, that can happen, but it is very clear that this guy is the guy who, at a time when Americans are losing confidence in their own military, in our ability to project strength around the world, that Pete Hegseth is the answer to that concern.” Meanwhile Senator Lindsey Graham extolled his consistency in relying on personal assessment of who is and is not a rapist, stating, “When Biden was accused of rape, I said, ‘That’s not Biden I know,’” Graham said, adding that lawmakers would not “try” Hegseth based on “press statements.”
Instead of the default “believe women” no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary that #MeToo backlashers warned about, we see some senators seeming to draw firm conclusions in favor of Pete Hegseth based on his personal testimony and his personhood even though that is at odds with the limited testimony of Jane Doe in a police report and a memo to the Trump campaign. Of course, highly consequential political decisions like nominees and Supreme Court Justices might be explained in terms of political preferences and shows of strength rather than deep seated beliefs about #MeToo. Similarly, it is possible that Pete Hegseth is deeply credible about the relevant events absent any testimonial injustice or unearned credibility bias when providing additional details about the relevant events. But I find it notable that the public defense of some senators for Hegseth is rooted in his credibility and believability despite contrary evidence that has not yet been fully vetted as well as recent revelations in the two recently unearthed whistleblower reports. The willingness to make these public statements suggests to me that the demands for politicians and others to approach #MeToo allegations without bias as to the credibility of allegers and accused is still far from being a reality for some.
III. The Dangers of Upstanding
One troubling aspect of the allegations against Hegseth that have not received enough attention is the implicit contention in Jane Doe’s account that by responding to other women’s needs as an upstander (a third party who acts on behalf of others), she placed herself in danger. She described herself as a “crotch blocker” to prevent Hegseth from assaulting other women. She contends that rather than take one of the other women from the bar back to his room, he took her instead.
While I am not in a position to speak to the truth of the allegations against Pete Hegseth, they resonate with a larger truth that along with victims, upstanders risk highly costly retaliation to themselves and those they care about. Jane Doe’s account reminded me of several other high profile #MeToo incidents. Gwenyth Paltrow actively feared physical harm from Harvey Weinstein as she helped Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor build their New York Times story. Christine Blasey Ford required 24/7 security, and her family had to repeatedly move in the wake of her accusations against then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez faced extensive threats and harassment after she spoke to the New Yorker regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s behavior. Anita Hill received death threats after her testimony against then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Chanel Miller may have been specifically targeted by Brock Turner because her sister and her friends blocked his advances.
Even Hegseth’s mother’s email seems to acknowledge the risk that women face in upstanding men who abuse women. She wrote “It’s time for someone (I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women.” Notably several of the whistleblowers who reported Hegseth for intoxication, sexism, and general lack of professionalism declined to be interviewed or refused to be identified by name for Jane Meyer’s New Yorker expose. While their reasons are not listed, one can imagine they were aware of the treatment of Christine Blasey Ford and others like her.
While many advocate upstander intervention as a way to prevent or foster accountability for #MeToo incidents, the Hegseth allegations remind us to be cautious about what I strongly suspect is highly gendered retaliatory responses. In other words, my intuition is that women face more risk of costly retaliation for upstanding. This is not to say that people in general or that women in particular ought not intervene. But advocacy for upstanding and upstander education (often common fare in university and other institutional settings) needs to highlight risks and develop safest practices. Direct confrontation can engender hostility and risk.
[1] Senator Hawley also said “Listen, he denies it; he says there’s been no wrongdoing.” This quote might plausibly be read as suggesting there are two sides that both need airing or as support for Hegseth’s believability.
