They Told Him No, But He Just Keeps Pushing – How Far Will Hegseth Go?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has come under scrutiny for seeking $137,000 in taxpayer money for repairs to a military home, including nearly $50,000 for what has been labeled an “emergency” paint job. This request has raised eyebrows among lawmakers, especially as many service members continue to endure poor housing conditions.

While it’s not unheard of for a defense secretary to reside in military housing, most opt for private residences. Lawmakers are particularly concerned about the cost, given that enlisted troops and their families have long reported unsafe living conditions, including mold, lead paint, and other hazards.

Democratic Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut sent a letter to Hegseth on Friday, demanding answers. “We know that many service members and their families currently live in unacceptable housing conditions including houses with mold, lead paint, and other hazards,” the letter stated. “What commitment will you make to provide service members with a similarly high quality of housing for themselves and their families?”

As key members of congressional committees overseeing military construction and appropriations, DeLauro and Wasserman Schultz have questioned the necessity of the requested repairs. Under federal law, Congress must be notified if the cost of repairs for general and flag officer housing exceeds $35,000. Last month, lawmakers received such a notice detailing a $137,297 maintenance bill for an unoccupied military home, which included the $49,900 emergency paint job.

Almost a week later, it was revealed that Hegseth would be moving into the property. The Pentagon has yet to respond to media inquiries about the decision or why such costly updates are necessary.

The situation highlights a stark contrast between high-ranking officials’ housing conditions and those faced by enlisted personnel. Reports over the years have detailed service members struggling with severe housing issues such as mold, pests, and structural hazards. A 2023 Government Accountability Office study found that many barracks were plagued by problems like overflowing sewage, bed bugs, and even squatters.

This is not the first time a defense secretary has lived in military housing. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates resided in a Navy compound in Washington, D.C., and paid over $6,500 per month in rent. At the time, concerns were raised because Gates was charged significantly more than other officers in similar housing, who only paid the equivalent of their basic housing allowance.

Most recent defense secretaries have chosen private residences. Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin, for instance, lived in a luxurious home in Great Falls, Virginia, valued at nearly $3 million.

When Gates lived in military housing, Congress enacted a rule requiring any future defense secretary living on base to pay rent equal to 105% of what a four-star general with dependents would pay in the same area. The idea was that housing the defense secretary on a secure military base would be more cost-effective than securing a private home. The law specifies that the rent should cover maintenance and repairs.

In their letter, Wasserman Schultz and DeLauro have demanded clarification on whether Hegseth will be paying rent and how much. They also want to know why an “emergency” paint job is necessary and whether other housing options were considered that might require fewer costly renovations. The lawmakers have requested a response by February 21.

The request for taxpayer-funded upgrades is reminiscent of past controversies within the Trump administration, where officials faced scrutiny over housing and office expenses. Scott Pruitt, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, resigned following allegations that he received special rental deals from an energy lobbyist. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also criticized for seeking to live in military housing, a request that raised legal and ethical concerns. Meanwhile, Ben Carson, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, faced backlash over alleged misuse of funds for expensive office furniture, though he was later cleared of any wrongdoing.

As questions continue to mount, all eyes are on the Pentagon’s response. With service members struggling in deteriorating housing, many are wondering whether taxpayer money should be spent on making a top official’s home more comfortable while troops live in subpar conditions.