America's "Great" Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, A DSM-5 Psychological Analysis - Rhetoric to the Military Leaders
October 7, 2025โข1,014 words
This is the start or the unconscious signal to the world, America's two most powerful political men have severe mental health issues and personality disorders.
To start off, the following examples of Pete's address align closely with several diagnostic concepts for Narcissistic Personality Disorder Grandiosity from the DSM-5.
Examples of Grandiose and Narcissistic Themes from the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Address:
The goal to create the "strongest, most powerful, most lethal and most prepared military on the planet" and Pete's assertion that "Nobody can touch us." Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Criterion 2): "Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love."
Pete's declaration that "today is another liberation day, the liberation of America's warriors," positioning himself as a uniquely transformative leader. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Criterion 1): "Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)."
The ultimatum that leaders who disagree with him or the President should "do the honorable thing and resign." Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Criterion 5): "Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations)."
Pete's repeated assurances of protection: "I have your back, and the commander in chief has your back." Glossary Definition of Grandiosity: "Believing that one is superior to others and deserves special treatment; self-centeredness..."
Pete's overall tone of superiority and the framing of the new directives as the only "correct" way forward. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Criterion 1): "Has a grandiose sense of self-importance... expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)."
Pete's Aggressive and Hostile Language
Talk of violence is often taken for granted in military culture. After all, soldiers are trained to fight and win wars. However, the type of aggression used and the course it takes reveal a lot about the moral and psychological landscape a leader is attempting to create. Pete uses a lot of violent, practically theatrical, language in his speech. The blatant acronym FAFO (โFuck Around and Find Outโ) and phrases like โenemies will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of the War Departmentโ make it clear that the message is clear: challenge us, and you'll pay in blood. This is intimidating language. It celebrates force as a defining positive trait rather than just threatening it.
Pete's Antisocial Professional Identity
A professional identity centred on aggression is created by the assertion that service members "kill people and break things for a living" and "don't necessarily belong in polite society." The soldier is portrayed as someone whose violent nature distinguishes them from civilian norms rather than as a disciplined defender of society. It's an attempt to normalize violence as a mark of honour, elevating moral distance to a professional trait. Pete's tone is harsh even when talking about discipline. Sexual harassment and racism will be "ruthlessly enforced." The word "ruthlessly" conveys the idea that justice will be devoid of compassion and that discipline will be severe and uncompromising. The end effect is a rhetorical setting where fear, rather than deference or logic, is used to maintain control.
Pete's classic example of linguistic framing, reveals a deep lack of understanding of the social norms of language itself while attempting to transform a vice into a virtue. By rejecting empathy as "politically correct, overly sensitive, don't hurt anyone's feelings leadership," the "War Department" speech openly rejects empathy, a high-level cognitive and emotional ability necessary for complex human coordination. Rejecting the complexity of social exchange and labelling callousness as a necessary warrior's ethos is a calculated, almost cynical, move. In addition to simply changing the language, this redefining presentation aims to provide a moral justification for actions that would be deemed antisocial outside of this extremely limited, self-defining context, such as celebrating "discrimination" and possible future war crimes.
When the motivational rhetoric is removed, Pete's speech resembles the DSM-5's indicators for antagonism and a clinical lack of empathy.
Pete's Cognitive Rigidity of the Absolute Directive
When the rhetoric of Pete Hegseth's speech to the American military leadership is examined, it reveals a cognitive posture that, to be honest, does not allow for the complex, messy reality of the world. Pete's mind that seems to function solely on absolute standards, a worldview as stark and uncompromising as a black-and-white photograph, is what we witness, a classic case of cognitive rigidity. This is a serious intellectual weakness that impairs effective decision-making.
These disparate violent ideals are woven into Pete's address. Pete's soaring arrogance, the assumed entitlement, and the chilling lack of empathy that permeates his language all bear the heavy, unmistakable impression of narcissistic personality disorder. However, the rhetoric goes beyond egotism and into the hostile realm of antisocial personality disorder. Here, Pete's blatant, unrestrained acceptance of violence and the creation of a purposefully antagonistic persona are consistent with the fundamental idea of antagonism, which is a strange defiant, combative attitude toward his perceived world.
The Histrionic Personality Disorder is evident throughout Pete's presentation too. Pete's presentation is a work of theatre. He has a noticeable need to be the centre of attention, which meets the DSM-5 Histrionic Criterion. Furthermore, Pete's presentation is framed by exaggerated emotional expression, and self-dramatization. Pete's presentation is a dramatic, historical stage cue that is intended to position Pete and the President as the indispensable heroes at the pinnacle of a grand, global drama, but many would say a strange comedy. Pete's address is fundamentally a very powerful, if unnerving, work of psychological theatre designed to satisfy a deep need for heightened self-importance.