Pete Hegseth, the fiery conservative commentator, veteran, and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, has built his public persona on the ideals of martial virtue, unyielding nationalism, and a disdain for multilateralism. His worldview, heavily shaped by his Christian faith and military service, evokes comparisons to the knights of the Crusades, particularly the Templar Order—men who saw themselves as warriors for a divine cause. Hegseth’s rhetoric and policies suggest that he, too, views himself as a kind of modern-day Templar, defending American exceptionalism in an era of global uncertainty. However, like the Templars of history and their contemporaries, such as Guy of Lusignan, his idealised vision of warfare and leadership may well be his undoing—and, potentially, the undoing of the United States on the global stage.
The Templar Ideal and Hegseth’s Vision
The Knights Templar were a medieval military order bound by religious devotion, a commitment to the Crusader cause, and an unyielding belief in the righteousness of their mission. They embodied a blend of martial prowess and spiritual fervour, seeing themselves as the protectors of Christendom. Pete Hegseth’s worldview mirrors this ethos in many ways. As a devout Christian and vocal proponent of “America first” policies, Hegseth frames his positions as moral imperatives. His calls for an aggressive, unrelenting approach to foreign policy and his support for Israel as a divinely sanctioned state align with the Templar belief in the sanctity of their cause.
Hegseth’s critique of NATO, the United Nations, and the Geneva Conventions reflects a disdain for multilateral constraints that he views as hindering American strength. Like the Templars, who often operated independently of the broader Crusader states, Hegseth’s vision for America is one of unilateral action and self-reliance. While this approach appeals to his base, it risks isolating the U.S. in an increasingly interconnected and multipolar world.
The Hubris of Righteousness
The Templars’ downfall came not from their martial weakness but from their inability to adapt to the changing political and cultural landscape of medieval Europe. Their unyielding belief in their divine mission often led them into conflicts that alienated allies and exacerbated internal divisions. Similarly, Hegseth’s unwavering conviction in the moral superiority of his policies raises concerns about his ability to navigate the complexities of modern geopolitics.
Hegseth’s disdain for institutions like NATO, which he has described as outdated and overly reliant on American power, could alienate key allies. His view that the United States should prioritise military strength over diplomatic engagement echoes the Templar tendency to favour force over negotiation—a strategy that ultimately left them vulnerable to coordinated opposition. In today’s world, where threats like China, Russia, and global terrorism require multilateral cooperation, Hegseth’s approach risks isolating the U.S. at a time when unity is most needed.
Lessons from Guy of Lusignan
Guy of Lusignan, a knight who rose to power in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, offers a cautionary historical parallel. Like Hegseth, Guy saw himself as a defender of Christendom, committed to the idea of divine right and moral clarity. However, his reign was marked by strategic missteps, including the disastrous decision to engage Saladin’s forces at the Battle of Hattin in 1187. This defeat led to the loss of Jerusalem and much of the Crusader kingdom.
Guy’s hubris—his refusal to heed the counsel of more seasoned leaders and his overreliance on brute force—mirrors the potential pitfalls of Hegseth’s ideology. Just as Guy’s impulsive actions weakened the Crusader states, Hegseth’s rejection of international norms and his calls for unrestrained military tactics could weaken America’s position in the world, both militarily and morally.
The Danger of Militarised Morality
Hegseth’s desire to embody the Templar ideal extends beyond his rhetoric. His policy proposals reflect a belief in the primacy of military solutions over diplomatic ones. He has advocated for disregarding the Geneva Conventions, arguing that they constrain U.S. forces and limit their ability to achieve decisive victories. This view aligns with the Templar ethos of holy war, where the end justifies the means.
However, such an approach carries significant risks. The Geneva Conventions exist not to handicap military forces but to uphold basic standards of humanity in warfare. Abandoning these principles could alienate allies, provoke retaliation, and tarnish America’s global reputation. Just as the Templars’ uncompromising tactics eventually drew the ire of both Muslim adversaries and Christian allies, Hegseth’s policies could lead to greater instability and conflict.
The Perils of Religious Zeal in Policy
Hegseth’s strong Christian faith and his alignment with evangelical beliefs about Israel further illustrate the risks of allowing religious ideology to shape policy. Like the Templars, who saw their mission as divinely ordained, Hegseth frames his support for Israel not just in strategic terms but as a moral obligation. This perspective, while appealing to his evangelical base, risks oversimplifying the complexities of Middle Eastern politics.
Unwavering support for Israel, framed as a religious imperative, could alienate other regional partners and undermine the U.S.’s ability to act as a mediator in conflicts. Moreover, it reflects a broader trend in Hegseth’s worldview: the tendency to see global issues in binary terms of good versus evil, rather than recognising the nuance and interdependence that define modern geopolitics.
The Templar’s Downfall: A Warning for Hegseth
The Templars’ ultimate demise was brought about by their inability to adapt. Their rigid structure, uncompromising ideals, and overextension made them vulnerable to political and military shifts. Hegseth’s policies, rooted in a similar rigidity, could lead the U.S. down a similar path. His dismissal of multilateral institutions and norms risks eroding the very foundations of the international order that has sustained U.S. leadership since World War II.
Furthermore, Hegseth’s focus on military dominance at the expense of diplomacy ignores the lessons of history. The Crusader states fell not solely because of military defeats but because they failed to build lasting alliances and integrate themselves into the broader political landscape of the region. Similarly, the U.S. cannot maintain its global influence through strength alone; it must also lead through diplomacy, cooperation, and adherence to international norms.
A Call for Reflection
Pete Hegseth’s vision for America as a modern-day crusader nation may resonate with those who long for a return to unchallenged American dominance. However, the historical parallels to the Templars and figures like Guy of Lusignan suggest that such a path is fraught with danger. The Templars, for all their bravery and conviction, fell because they refused to adapt to changing realities. Hegseth’s policies, marked by a similar rigidity and overreliance on military solutions, risk leading the U.S. into unnecessary conflicts, alienating allies, and undermining its global leadership.
If Pete Hegseth wishes to avoid the fate of the Templars and their contemporaries, he must recognise that strength alone is not enough. True leadership requires humility, adaptability, and a willingness to engage with the complexities of a world that no longer operates on binary terms. Without these qualities, his tenure as Secretary of Defense could become a cautionary tale, not of triumph, but of hubris and decline.
