During a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing, Pete Hegseth, a former National Guard officer and President Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, was questioned about his Jerusalem Cross tattoo, which some critics had labeled as an extremist symbol. Hegseth, who was appearing before the committee to discuss his qualifications for the defense post, was caught off guard when Senator Kevin Cramer asked him to address the controversy surrounding the tattoo.
The Jerusalem Cross, which Hegseth proudly wears, features a large cross in the center with four smaller crosses in each of the four corners. Hegseth was quick to clarify that the Jerusalem Cross is “a historic Christian symbol” that has been used for centuries, notably in connection with the Crusades and the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem. He was adamant in rejecting claims that it is associated with extremism, explaining that the symbol itself holds deep religious and historical significance and is not a sign of hate.
Hegseth also pointed out that the same Jerusalem Cross was prominently displayed at the funeral of President Jimmy Carter and at the National Cathedral, further stressing its widespread recognition as a symbol of faith rather than extremism. Despite this clarification, the tattoo continued to be a point of contention during the hearing.
Hegseth’s Jerusalem Cross tattoo, along with other tattoos he has, including one on his bicep that reads “Deus Vult” (meaning “God wills it”), have drawn attention due to their controversial historical connotations. The phrase “Deus Vult” is famously associated with the Crusaders, leading some critics to interpret the tattoo as having ties to aggressive or nationalist Christian ideologies.
In addition to addressing the tattoo controversy, Hegseth discussed the impact that the focus on extremism in the military has had on the Armed Forces. He reflected on an incident where his orders to serve during the inauguration of President Joe Biden were unexpectedly revoked, suggesting that his tattoo was a factor in the decision. “I had orders to come to Washington, D.C., to guard that inauguration, and at the last minute, those orders were revoked,” Hegseth recalled. He further questioned the implications of such actions, asking, “If that’s happening to me, how many other patriots, how many people of conscience, have been subjected to similar treatment?”
Hegseth’s supporters have defended the tattoos as personal expressions of his faith, asserting that they should not be used to define him or his views. The controversy, however, raised larger questions during the hearing about the role of extremism in the military, with Hegseth arguing that the increased focus on this issue has led to the politicization of the Armed Forces. “Things like focusing on extremism have created a climate inside our ranks that feels political, when it’s never been political before,” he stated, emphasizing his belief that the military should remain non-partisan and focused on readiness and national security.
The discussion about Hegseth’s tattoos serves as a reflection of broader debates surrounding symbolism, extremism, and the intersection of faith and politics, particularly in the context of public service and military leadership. While the Jerusalem Cross may hold personal meaning for Hegseth, its reception among others continues to spark dialogue about the potential implications of personal symbols in positions of power.
Related topics: