Pete Hegseth's Acceptance to West Point Is a Story

When bureaucrats mislead you, expose them.

When is a news story not a news story? Perhaps when it is disproven prior to publication. Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, lashed out at ProPublica earlier this week after the investigative journalism organization started asking questions about whether Hegseth had ever been accepted to the United States Military Academy in West Point.

The outlet ultimately decided not to publish the story.

Here's what happened. On Wednesday, Hegseth posted on X that ProPublica—which he described as a "Left Wing hack group"—was planning to publish a bombshell report contradicting Hegseth's account that he had been accepted to West Point in 1999.

We understand that ProPublica (the Left Wing hack group) is planning to publish a knowingly false report that I was not accepted to West Point in 1999.

Here's my letter of acceptance signed by West Point Superintendent, Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army. pic.twitter.com/UOhOVZSfhJ

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) December 11, 2024

Hegseth set the record straight by publishing his letter of acceptance, signed by West Point's superintendent, Lieutenant General Daniel Christman of the U.S. Army.

But that article never materialized.

ProPublica's editor Jesse Eisinger thus defended his organization's behavior.

"We asked West Pt public affairs, which told us twice on the record that he hadn't even applied there," explained Eisinger. "We reached out. Hegseth's spox gave us his acceptance letter. We didn't publish a story. That's journalism."

Eisinger is correct. ProPublica's report did his job: He checked and double-checked a story. The mistake was made by West Point's communications department, which twice contended—falsely—that Hegseth had never applied to the military academy.

In a tweet thread, Eisinger explained what happened. First, his reporter contacted the West Point public affairs office to inquire about Hegseth's claim that he was accepted there. The reporter was told by West Point, in no uncertain terms, that Hegseth had never even applied there.

After being presented with unequivocal evidence to the contrary, West Point backpedaled.

"A review of our records indicates Mr. Peter Hegseth was offered admission to West Point in 1999 but did not attend," said the school in a statement.

At this point, ProPublica killed the story.

"This is how journalism is supposed to work," Eisinger said.

The organization does indeed deserve praise for its dogged reporting. Ultimately, ProPublica didn't fall for the lie, and they didn't repeat it. Great.

But here's my question: Why not publish the story anyway? To be clear, the story is not that Hegseth lied about getting into West Point—the story is that West Point lied (or was at least mistaken) about Hegseth not getting into West Point.

If ProPublica published that story, then the outlet could have taken a real victory lap: They tracked down the truth of a rumor about Hegseth's record and found out it wasn't true, despite a prestigious educational institution actively misleading them. Isn't that a story? Or is the story only important if it's damaging to Hegseth?

Politico's Josh Gerstein seems to think so. Replying to criticism from conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt, Gerstein wrote on X: "Are you really saying we should do a story every time what a government spokesperson tells us turns out not to be right? I mean, it would take up perhaps half my time."

The answer to this question would appear obvious: Emphatically, yes.

If bureaucratic mouthpieces were held responsible by the media for spreading mistruths with greater regularity, perhaps they would feel more incentivized to tell the truth.

 

This Week on Free Media

I am joined by Reason funnyman Andrew Heaton to discuss leftists swooning over Luigi Mangione, Trump's advice for TV journalist Kristen Welker, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki attacking former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), and Morning Joe's reaction to the Daniel Penny verdict.

 

Worth Watching

Wicked was pretty good! I say that as a fan of the source material—the book series by Gregory Maguire, not the Broadway musical. The books are much darker than either the musical or the film; Maguire's Oz is fraught with peril, intrigue, and ultimately war. The subsequent adaptation, unfortunately, spent very little time on world building, and instead focuses on the personal journeys of the two main characters, Elphaba (the titular witch) and Glinda. The Wicked film is much the same, but it's a fun viewing experience, nonetheless.