Hegseth’s ‘Invasion’ Remarks Raise European Hackles*
The U.S. defense secretary claims Europe is being overrun by migrants. In doing so, he fails to see where the real threat to Western civilization lies.
Pete Hegseth is strongly fixated on all things militaristic, which explains why he prefers to be called the secretary of war instead of secretary of defense. He often wades into a situation with even tougher rhetoric than his commander in chief, Donald Trump. And because Hegseth feels so at home in his bellicose vernacular, he also resorts to combative metaphors in the most inappropriate contexts. This weekend, he remembered the Allied landings on the Normandy beaches in northwest France of some 82 years ago, but in doing that, he looked to today’s Mediterranean shores, which, he said, were being stormed by “dangerous ideologies.” When was Europe going to resist this “invasion”? he asked.
The fact that Trump and his lieutenants view Europe as the target of a migrant invasion is nothing new. According to the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy, it’s the reason Europe risks the “prospect of civilizational erasure.” Hegseth's remarks were disproportionate and distasteful for two further reasons. First, the facts of the situation do not bear out his criticism — there has been a sharp decline in the number of refugees coming to Europe. Contrary to the rules of the visa-free Schengen area, many EU member states, including Germany, have reintroduced internal border controls. Moreover, the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which is intended to further seal off the continent from irregular migration, takes effect this week.
Second, Hegseth draws a flawed comparison between the beaches of 1944 and 2026. In his view, the men landing on the beaches in 1944 were good individuals coming to fight tyranny, whereas today’s arrivals are bad people. Hegseth’s mistaken thinking fails to recognize where the only threat of an invasion (in the sense of a violent military incursion) lurks, namely in Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperialist Russia. It ought to be Hegseth’s role to strengthen NATO against this threat. His remarks achieved this inasmuch as he cautioned Western nations against indulging in “comfortable complacency.” On the other hand, Trump continues to cast doubt on his readiness to defend American allies. After all, if Putin were to mount an attack on NATO territory, he wouldn’t have to land on any foreign shores; his troops could simply take the cross-country route.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language through a paid subscription.
Pete Hegseth is strongly fixated on all things militaristic, which explains why he prefers to be called the secretary of war instead of secretary of defense. He often wades into a situation with even tougher rhetoric than his commander in chief, Donald Trump. And because Hegseth feels so at home in his bellicose vernacular, he also resorts to combative metaphors in the most inappropriate contexts. This weekend, he remembered the Allied landings on the Normandy beaches in northwest France of some 82 years ago, but in doing that, he looked to today’s Mediterranean shores, which, he said, were being stormed by “dangerous ideologies.” When was Europe going to resist this “invasion”? he asked.
The fact that Trump and his lieutenants view Europe as the target of a migrant invasion is nothing new. According to the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy, it’s the reason Europe risks the “prospect of civilizational erasure.” Hegseth's remarks were disproportionate and distasteful for two further reasons. First, the facts of the situation do not bear out his criticism — there has been a sharp decline in the number of refugees coming to Europe. Contrary to the rules of the visa-free Schengen area, many EU member states, including Germany, have reintroduced internal border controls. Moreover, the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which is intended to further seal off the continent from irregular migration, takes effect this week.
Second, Hegseth draws a flawed comparison between the beaches of 1944 and 2026. In his view, the men landing on the beaches in 1944 were good individuals coming to fight tyranny, whereas today’s arrivals are bad people. Hegseth’s mistaken thinking fails to recognize where the only threat of an invasion (in the sense of a violent military incursion) lurks, namely in Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperialist Russia. It ought to be Hegseth’s role to strengthen NATO against this threat. His remarks achieved this inasmuch as he cautioned Western nations against indulging in “comfortable complacency.” On the other hand, Trump continues to cast doubt on his readiness to defend American allies. After all, if Putin were to mount an attack on NATO territory, he wouldn’t have to land on any foreign shores; his troops could simply take the cross-country route.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language through a paid subscription.
Previous article![]( "US World Cup Shenanigans Exposes FIFA’s Double Standards")
