As Washington escalated its war against Tehran, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth emerged at the centre of a profound ideological shift within the US military establishment. Evangelical-led prayer sessions inside the Pentagon, repeated use of biblical references, framing the conflict as a sacred religious war, and the promotion of overtly crusader-style symbolism have drawn sharp criticism across the United States and internationally. For some observers, this marks a deviation from America’s secular framework. For others, it exposes the deeper religious roots of Western conflict in the region.
This report examines the structure of the militant Christian current associated with Hegseth, its ideological foundations, its influence within the Pentagon, and its intersection with Washington’s wars in the Middle East, alongside reactions from political and religious institutions.
The Rise of Christian Nationalism
Hegseth openly identifies as an evangelical Christian nationalist. This ideology, which seeks to embed conservative theological interpretation into American political, social, and cultural life, has gained significant traction over the past two decades.
Among white Protestant evangelicals, support for this worldview is particularly strong. Surveys indicate that a majority believe the United States should function as a Christian nation and preserve its religious identity at all costs.
Christian nationalism has increasingly functioned as a political vehicle, contributing to electoral outcomes. Support among evangelicals for Donald Trump rose sharply, reaching approximately 50 percent in the 2024 election cycle. Analysts describe this trend as the emergence of a political religion, shaping policies that disproportionately affect minority communities, migrants, and religious groups.
Historically, segments of this movement have supported extreme military actions. Accounts referenced in the report highlight backing for incendiary bombing campaigns during World War II, support for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and endorsement of detainee abuse during the post-9/11 “war on terror”.
This ideological current is tied to a broader pattern of exclusionary thinking, rooted in racial superiority and rigid interpretations of theology that justify violations against those defined as outsiders.
Doctrinal Influence and Extremist Networks
Hegseth is associated with a narrower ideological current rooted in Calvinist doctrine within evangelical Christianity. This tradition emphasises predestination, asserting that all events, including military outcomes, unfold according to divine will.
He is linked to a church network founded by pastor Doug Wilson, part of a broader evangelical reform movement that rejects separation between religion and politics. Wilson has advocated for the militarisation of the church, framing it as a force tasked with “saving the world”, and has described Jesus Christ as the ultimate warrior.
Wilson leads a tightly organised religious network with thousands of followers and has expanded his influence globally through church planting and religious education initiatives. His teachings, which include patriarchal authority, racial hierarchy, and strict disciplinary frameworks, have faced criticism even within conservative Christian circles.
At the core of this ideology is a call to impose a rigid religious order globally, framed by some critics as coercive and extremist.
Personal Controversies and Institutional Impact
Hegseth’s personal history has drawn scrutiny. Reports cite multiple marriages, allegations of misconduct, and accusations of favouritism within his department. Despite this, he continues to present himself as a figure guided by religious conviction.
Critics argue that his beliefs have influenced internal Pentagon policies. Complaints have emerged regarding discriminatory practices in military promotions, with claims that women and minority personnel are being sidelined in favour of white male candidates.
Diversity and inclusion initiatives have reportedly been scaled back, further intensifying criticism of his leadership approach.
Reshaping the Military’s Religious Structure
While religion has long had a presence within the US military through the chaplain corps, its role has traditionally been advisory and inclusive. Established in 1775, the corps evolved alongside the secularisation of governance, accommodating a wide range of beliefs and maintaining a framework of religious freedom.
Under Hegseth, this structure has reportedly been narrowed. The number of recognised religious symbols has been reduced, and chaplains have been repositioned from advisory roles to more directive, pastoral functions aligned with a singular ideological vision.
This shift has been framed as an attempt to reorient the military into what Hegseth describes as a “force for faith”, echoing political slogans adapted into religious messaging.
The Iran War as a Defining Moment
The confrontation with Iran has amplified Hegseth’s ideological posture. He has previously expressed admiration for the Crusades, describing them as foundational to Western civilisation, and has argued that the United States must adopt a posture of strength rather than apology in confronting Islamic movements.
His rhetoric has included references to apocalyptic narratives, portraying adversaries as religious extremists seeking to trigger a final global conflict. Critics argue that such framing introduces dangerous theological justification into military decision-making.
During a Pentagon address in March, Hegseth reportedly cited biblical passages describing total destruction of enemies, delivering what has been described as one of the most aggressive religiously framed speeches within the institution. Observers noted that such language appeared to contradict established rules of engagement and international legal norms.
Political Strategy and Public Response
Hegseth’s messaging has resonated with segments of the political right, particularly among evangelical communities. At the same time, public opposition to the war with Iran remains high, with polling indicating that nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose military escalation.
This disconnect has led to criticism that religious rhetoric is being used to mobilise support for policies that lack broader public backing.
Legal Challenges and Congressional Pressure
The integration of religious messaging into official military functions has triggered legal challenges. Advocacy groups have filed lawsuits seeking transparency regarding religious activities within federal departments, questioning whether such practices violate constitutional principles of church-state separation.
Members of Congress have also raised concerns. Dozens of lawmakers have called for investigations into allegations that military operations are being framed as part of religious prophecy, warning of the risks posed to both national security and democratic accountability.
Religious Backlash and Institutional Criticism
Opposition has also emerged from within Christian institutions. Catholic leadership has publicly rejected the use of religious justification for warfare, emphasising that faith should not be invoked to legitimise violence.
Senior church figures have described the use of Christ’s name in military campaigns as a serious ethical violation, arguing that war is driven by political interests rather than religious mandate.
Strategic Implications
Critics warn that the growing influence of militant religious ideology within the Pentagon could reshape the nature of US military engagement, moving it away from strategic calculation towards ideological confrontation.
The report concludes that this trajectory signals a broader transformation within the American system, raising concerns about the erosion of secular governance and the emergence of a more rigid, doctrine-driven approach to global conflict.
