Bulwark Takes - Hegseth Threatens to Cut Scouts’ Funding Over “Woke” Policies | Command Post

Episode Date: February 5, 2026

In this edition of Command Post, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) joins Ben Parker to break down the surprising clash between the Department of Defense and Scouting America (formerly Boy Scouts). Secretary Hegseth is threatening to cut support for Scouting America over DEI policies and integrated troops, but is this really what the Pentagon should be focusing on? Hertling explains why the Scouts’ values like honor, service, and leadership align with military priorities, and why Hegseth’s fight seems out of touch.We also also viewer questions questions about Iranian drone threats to U.S. carriers, Canadian-American military cooperation & NORAD, and maintaining global alliances despite political turbulence.Have a question that you'd like us to consider for a future episode of Command Post? Send an email to [e-mail]. Please include your name, how to say it and where you're located.

Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bullwork. And hi, I'm Mark Hurtling. This is your Command Post edition of Bullwork Takes. I'm a retired lieutenant general, and we talk all things military during the next couple of minutes of this session. Yeah, normally we do stick pretty close to military topics.

But today, we're going to be talking about something a little bit different, something I know is very near and dear to your heart, which is what used to be called the Boy Scouts, is now Scouting America. We're talking just so people are aware on the afternoon of February 4th. And it does have a military angle because right now the Defense Department is getting into a big argument with scouting America. So let's just set the stage and say what's going on. Yeah, the Department of War is starting a little bit of kerfuffle with a organization that I'm proud to say I was a part of for many years. And we'll talk about that.

but, you know, they've been threatening to cut off the scouting USA's support for something that's known as the national jamboree. And it's because Secretary Hegseth and his spokesperson, Sean Parnell, has said that they're not, the scouts writ large, are not applying to the Trump administration's view of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. This is fascinating. and it will not surprise people to hear that you have written previously about some of the Trump administrations and Secretary Higgst's remarks and policies about what kinds of people

serve in the military, what kinds of people he wants to see in the military. And it's honestly hard to believe that seeing the kind of inclusion that formerly Boy Scouts now Scouting America has had is going to make them cut off. Department of Defense's funding for the National Jamboree or the support for the National Jamboree. You mentioned Sean Parnell, the spokesman for the Department of Defense. He had the social media post all about this. What is it that he said? Yeah, I watched these two guys pretty closely, Ben, and I'll read the post itself. It said, quote, from day one at the war department, we have made it very clear. No more DEI at DOW, diversity, equity, inclusion at the Department

of war. I'll translate. Zero tolerance is what Parnell said. And it goes on to say that we've been reviewing that relationship with Scouting America and that he then says, quote, scouting America's leadership has made decisions that run counter to the values of this administration and the Department of War, including an embrace of DEI and other social justice, gender fluid ideological stances. Just an amazing statement. We're going to get into it. But you mentioned that you have been involved in the Scouts. So why don't you give people a little background on your history there? Because honestly, it's kind of impressive. And once again, we have a prop. I'm proud to say that as a boy and a young man, I participated in both Cub Scouts and

Boy Scouts for many years. And I reached the rank, proudly, of Eagle Scout. I was also a Boy Scout camp consular for a summer at a camp in Missouri for an entire summer when I was 16. I'm sure that being an Eagle Scout and some of my other scouting accomplishments helped me get into West Point because it is one of the things they consider as an extracurricular, a major extracurricular activity. So other than being a two-sport Division I athlete, I was also a member of something they call at West Point, the Scout Masters consul, where cadets come together. form a little club, and they actually hold a major campery at West Point for about two or three thousand scouts from the New England area during the spring. So much like the national jamboree,

which Secretary Hegseth and Sean Parnell are saying they're going to take funding away from unless they abide by Trump's rule of DEI and wholeness, we had the same thing at West Point. But then finally, I'd like to say this is where the prop comes in, and that's this prop, this plaque that I got in 2012 making me a distinguished Eagle Scout, and it was awarded by the Transatlantic Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which is something where you have Boy Scouts in Europe, in Germany. When I was commanding there, we did some things. They did some projects, which helped the alliance relationships. And it was a fascinating recognition. So, yeah, I know a little bit about the Boy Scouts, and we can talk more if you'd like about geeky history of the Boy Scouts writ large.

Yeah, I definitely would because that is, you've hit there on a couple of the ways in which the scouts are related to the military. One is that it's sort of a soft recruitment pipeline. It's the kind of thing that the military looks for when they're recruiting soldiers and officers. And the other thing is that, yeah, because it's sort of a recruitment pipeline, the DOD does support some of the scouting activities. But there's a deeper historical background you were telling me about yesterday, too. Yeah, it's a great story. There was a guy by the name of Lord Baden Powell, who was actually the creator of scouting. He was a retired British Army officer. He served in the Boer Wars and then late 1800s. And while he was serving with fellow British citizens, young men, he was concerned about their physical fitness, their discipline, and their character.

So in 1907, after the Boer War, she created the Boy Scouts in England to help build self-reliance, character, leadership, outdoor skills, service to others. And during World War I, these men, these young men, who were part of this early scouting organization in England, were used as messengers and coast watchers and civil defense people during World War I. And it seemed that this was a pretty good organization to prepare young men for the demands of serving their country. Well, it spread after World War I and other countries like the United States took it up as a service organization to build character and physical fitness and outdoor skills. And it flourished for the first hundred years of its existence. And what we're seeing now, I think, and why Secretary Hegseth and Sean Parnell are so upset about it,

By the way, neither of those individuals had ever been a scout, so they don't know a whole lot about the organization. That's a little bit of a fun fact. But what you see from a military perspective is we see it as a potential recruiting tool. You know, the character development, the leadership skills, the outdoor adventures, the field craft, all things that make a good soldier are things that scouts build upon during their organization. In late 2025, there was some experimentation saying, hey, instead of making them in two different troops, which are Boy Scout units, what they're called, let's commingle them because they're learning the same type of skills,

the same type of things, and the adult leadership could better serve both boys and girls in these troops. So it was as recently as last year that some of what are now called family troops, because they're both boys and girls started to appear. And I think this is what may have incurred the wrath of our Secretary of War, not that he doesn't have anything else to do. We were talking about this and you said that you could still list the Boy Scout values. And the DOD said that they felt that the Scouts weren't living up to the values of the Department

and of the Trump administration. So what are those values that the Scouts? that the scouts promote? Yeah, in every scout meeting, and I'm really getting geeky now, because I can remember this 50 years past, we would open every single meeting with the scout oath. On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. So the oath of scouting then emphasizes honor and personal responsibility. responsibility, service to others, citizenship, moral character, and physical mental and ethical

development. What in Dodd's name could the Secretary of Defense find wrong with any of those qualities? Well, honest, I have my personal opinions on which ones of those he cares about more than others. But just for a little bit of contrast, in his first term, Donald Trump spoke to, was it the National Jamboree? It was a big meeting of Boy Scouts. It was the National Jamberie. Yeah. Yeah, he gave a speech to a bunch of, you know, teenage boys at that point. Before we play the clip, I'm sure it focused on all those things in the scout oath, like moral character, service to others, citizenship.

But I remember that, but I can't quite remember what it said. So it would be a good idea to play that clip. But do you remember that incredible night with the maps? And the Republicans are red and the Democrats are blue. And that map was so red, it was unbelievable, and they didn't know what to say. And, you know, we have a tremendous disadvantage in the electoral college. Popular vote is much easier. You know, I'm going to comment, I'm going to comment on the cheers in the background

because I've actually been to a national jamborees, and I'll tell you that a group of 10,000 Boy Scouts will cheer for anybody on stage because that's what they do. I don't know. It's fascinating. Yeah, I think it's important that we point out that what he said is factually false. This was not long, he had the speech not long after he had won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote because Republicans had an advantage in the Electoral College. He said it exactly backwards, which is just proof of why it's so important to learn to read a map because he clearly could not read that map on election night. Or perhaps go back, going back to the scout oath of having honor and personal responsibility, moral character, and ethical development. Yeah.

No, so I think it's important at this point that we get into some of the real issues that are underlying this. The fact that the, that Scouting America has now integrated boys and girls together, the fact that they're being more inclusive to young people who identify as neither boys nor girls. you've written a lot about, you know, DEI and things like that in the military. And I don't know. Can I just hear your thoughts? Because the fact that this is getting up and this is a B in his bonnet and in excess bonnet is just sort of I don't know what to make of it. Well, two things. What I'll tell you, Ben, in my spare time, I work, teach, I'm a professor at a business college.

And when you take a look at DEI research, it shows. that DEI is one of the contributors to better organizations, number one. And what I'll tell you, four decades in the military, that was our major requirement to build diversity in the force to make many people come together from all over the country when you're building a unit and make them into one. But the diversity is important. The equity and inclusion, the equal rights for everyone in the force, black, white, Native American, men, women. The equality is critically important and the inclusion of everyone into the accomplishment of the mission.

So it, to me, from both a scout and a military, someone with a military background, it seems ridiculous that we should say our military shouldn't desire that diversity within our force and equity among our serving members. The other thing that's important in terms of combining these two organizations, Back, you know, when Lord Baden Powell was doing his things, this was an all-boys organization and all men served in the military. Well, 20% of our military force today are women. And I've served with them.

They are phenomenal. So you want them to feel a part of who they are and build those kind of schools with scouting, which scouting kind of implies. So I'm trying to figure out when we have so many other things that the Department of Defense or as they call it, the Department of War should be focused on. We're looking at something like support for the Boy Scouts at a campery or a jamboree that they've been doing for years. So we're really concerned today about the expanding threats to our security, the state of the military force today, the key elements of the National Defense strategy, which the Department

of Defense basically published last Friday, all of which have all of which have all. lot of assumptions, but not many plans for execution. And yet we're picking a fight with the Boy Scouts. I just don't get that. Yeah, this seems to be a pattern with Pete Hexeth. I mean, he's got, I think, one of the hardest jobs in the world, right? I mean, the things that come across the Secretary of Defense's desk every day, you wrote about this actually early in the Trump administration, all the things the Secretary of Defense has to do. He has to be an expert at the budget. He has to be an expert politician. He has to be a diplomat. He has to be a manager. He has to be a wartime leader sometimes. It just, you know, every day he's dealing with things that will change the lives of

millions of people that will, you know, move around billions of dollars that can have impacts for decades to come. And instead of dealing with things like, what are we going to do about China or, you know, like what's going on in Venezuela, he was part of that group that President Trump said, oh, well, they'll deal with it, you know, pointing to a bunch of people behind him. He's worried about, like, are the chaplains in the military going woke? And he's worried about the scouts. And this major policy document, the national defense strategy, that's supposed to guide the entire United States military through the section administration, they just kind of like quietly drop on a Friday night on the internet. They're not briefing Congress about it in a big

way. They're not doing a major rollout. No big speeches. Why is this guy spending his time on this? Well, again, going back to the national event strategy, you would think that there would be a real focus on how we're going to execute it. And there are some things within that document like rebuilding the infrastructure base, the defense base. That's going to be a hard push. And they're also claiming that the allies that they name, who we've been supporting for years, as they claim, suddenly we'll do all of our bidding because they're going to buy our equipment and do whatever we asked them to do to fight threats around the world. So yeah, it is confusing to me. And even the fact that we're spending this time talking about it may be a

little bit of a waste, but I think it's important. Well, then let's bring that to a close and let's take some of our listener questions. I've got a few here queued up. This is great because last week we asked listeners to either mail in or phone in some questions. We had an email that they could respond to, and we were able to receive all sorts of questions, and that's one of the main purposes we started command post, was just to try and enlighten people a little bit more with some understanding of the military and how it interacts with the government. So what do we got? Yeah, we've got a few really good ones. First one, and I think this one is just ripped from the headlines from a loyal listener, RJ. I saw the news about the U.S. shooting down an Iranian drone that flew over an

aircraft carrier? Is that a big deal? It is important, but it's something that happens more often than most Americans think, just like Russian aircraft going over NATO territory or are being intercepted. Yeah, Iran is going to screw with our ships and with any element in the either Arab Sea or the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. And they're going to do these kind of things. But the U.S. Navy is terrific. They will counter them as they did today. But it just also goes to prove that any military member that's deployed is always in harm's way, potentially, unless they're well trained and have a good mission set to rely on. The one, the carrier strike group that's in the med or the Arab, the Gulf right now is doing some fine work in terms of protecting shipping. That's what they're there for.

Okay. We got two questions from Canadian listeners. So we're going to sort of combine these, both related to politics kind of spilling over into the professional military relationships we have with our allies. One asked a little bit about how close Canadian-American military cooperation is in general. Because we talk a lot about, you know, Mark Carney said this and Trump said that. But at the deeper level, the working level inside the military, what is that relationship like? And the other question was specifically about NORAD. And what might happen if the Canadians decide to cancel their order of American F-35 fighter jets and by the Swedish Gripin jets instead?

Well, I'll talk about the relationship first, Ben. You know, when I was a division commander in the First Army Division, I actually had a deputy who was a Canadian. There are a couple of divisions in the U.S. Army right now that have Canadians as their deputy commanders, usually one-star general. We work very closely with them primarily on peacekeeping operations like in Kosovo today. The relationships hasn't changed between the military personnel. They have garnered trust over the decades of alliance building. And especially when we go to NORAD or now our Northcom, I mean, that's the headquarters. When you go into the North American Air Defense Command, the ones that potentially intercept

radars tracks of missiles coming over the pole. They're intermingled. I mean, that's a mixed joint organization. And they're very well allied in terms of what they do, not only with day-to-day activities, but also standing operating procedures, standard operating procedures that they use sitting next to each other at desks. So in terms of military relationships, even with some of the tension that's going on and the and the involvement of trust in a negative way to the U.S. government, as we're seeing reported, you're going to see the military folks stick together. Because we've stayed with other countries who have had interruptions in their political beings.

I mean, I can talk about Italy for a while back when I was there in the late 1990s and the Italian government was having some bad shape. Greece, when they had their financial crisis. but the military stayed together. Getting to your second question about NORAD specifically and the F-35s, there is a deal on the table right now for the Canada to purchase 88, as I understand it, F-35's an advanced fighter. There has been talk about switching that buy, which is in the billions of dollars,

to instead of purchasing U.S. equipment, purchasing Swedish Gripens, which is another very good aircraft. I don't think that's going to happen. There may be a reduction in the number of F-35s, the Canadian by. But, you know, you have to take other things into consideration, like the training aspect of this, what the pilots know. You can't have a mixed force of different types of aircraft for a relatively small Air Force because it just, you know,

it takes a lot out of the pilots to learn how to fly different aircraft as they're transitioning to one or another. There's an individual right now who's suggesting that the Canadians may reduce their buy from 85 to 66, I don't know where that number comes from, and reinforce with some sales from other European nations. But I think that's a long way off, because this is a long-term buying action. But it is, if I can say one more thing, it's an indicator of what the European forces, which we're seeing across the board, are doing in terms of.

of breaking away from the U.S. acquisition and defense industry, because right now there's issues of trust. Can we trust them to give them the right equipment? Can we trust them to give them the best equipment? Are they going to knock down some things out of the equipment that we need? Those are all the things. And can we just trust the delivery in terms of a business model as opposed to a defense model? All those things are certainly coming into the picture right now. Yeah, it's kind of a good news, bad news situation. The good news is that when you use the same equipment, when you operate together, train together for so long, there's sort of a natural, mutual understanding that builds up over time.

So the good news is that you can have a bad patch in a relationship and those sort of longer-term ties, like having a family member, right? There are certain things you just have in common. Those longer-term ties can persist. The bad news is when you see Canada start to think, well, maybe we shouldn't be buying American equipment, that means that maybe they're changing who those long-term ties are with. Maybe we want to have longer-term ties with Europe, with Sweden, than we do with the United States. And if we're not using the same stuff there, if we're not using the same airplanes, the same ammunition, the same anything,

then it's going to mean we're naturally leaning towards someone else. Here's our last question from Soren in Denmark, who writes that he served alongside Americans in an excellent atmosphere of mutual understanding and shared values. when he was in the Danish armed forces. And he asked, how are U.S. military leaders and flag officers across various commands and theaters abroad, maintaining and cultivating sound, professional relationships with their allied counterparts,

especially at a time when the U.S. government stance appears less consistent. Yeah, it's a great question. I think I mentioned to you a couple months ago that I was in Sweden and the Baltic States last summer and talked at the Swedish Defense College. And this was an issue that kept coming up, actually in terms of relationships.

And the feeling I got was we're having trouble with some of the things your government is doing, but we're still conducting exercises, training events, conferences, our war colleges that are sharing information in terms of evolution and warfare based on things that are going on in Ukraine. And I think, you know, when you're talking about a professional military force in a democratic society, no matter what nation they're from, there's an immediate companionship and collaboration. I don't think that's going to change. The only thing that may change is if some of our military is withdrawn from these foreign

locations. And, you know, there was an old expression we always used to say in Europe is, you know, if we reduce the force, just be wary that you don't, you may deploy equipment, you may deploy soldiers, but you don't deploy trust. That's built over time, over a lot of dinners together, over exercises. So when you start pulling back, it's the deployment of trust that really suffers in all of this. That's the thing we've got to maintain and we've got to keep the kind of relationship going with all the countries who are our allies when we will eventually recover from all of this. Yeah, let's hope. Those are great questions. Keep them coming. We should do

this more on future episodes. All right. Well, I think that's the end of today's session. And this was fun talking about the Boy Scouts and talking about Swedish gripping fighters in the same conversation. But we'll keep doing this every Thursday. We will publish a new command post and talk about things of the day of interest to national security. We also hope to be bringing in some guest panelists as well from within the military or the national security environment to talk specific topics as the days go by. And if you have questions, Ben, do you have the email address?

Because I don't. I don't think I do. Yes, the email is command post at the bulwark.com. That's command post at the bulwark. Send us your questions. And thanks for everybody for listening. Ben, it's always a pleasure to be with you on an afternoon. Don't forget to like the video, subscribe to the channel. Let us know in the comments on Substack, YouTube, Spotify, wherever you're listening. And if you really like what we're doing, you can read more of General Heart ideas at the bulwark.com and you can become a bulwark plus a subscriber.