Pete Hegseth

Pete Hegseth’s Call to Dismiss the Geneva Conventions: What It Means for U.S. Military Policy and International Law

By POCKETCOMPUTER.NET – October 1 2025

Introduction

Since his appointment as U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth has positioned himself as a hard‑line advocate for a “warrior ethos” that prioritizes decisive, unrestrained combat capability. Central to his public messaging is a provocative claim: the United States should no longer feel bound by the Geneva Conventions or other international statutes that regulate the conduct of war. This stance has ignited fierce debate among policymakers, legal scholars, human‑rights advocates, and the broader public.

Below we unpack the origins of Hegseth’s position, examine the arguments he advances, explore the reactions it has provoked, and assess the potential ramifications for U.S. military practice and America’s standing in the global order.

1. The Core Claim

In a series of speeches and written pieces—including a chapter in his 2024 book The War on Warriors—Hegseth contends that the Geneva Conventions “serve as a bureaucratic cage that hampers our ability to win wars on our own terms.” He argues that:

Operational Flexibility: Adhering to the conventions imposes procedural constraints that can slow decision‑making on the battlefield.
Reciprocity Problem: If adversaries disregard the conventions, U.S. forces are placed at a strategic disadvantage.
Moral Narrative: By rejecting the conventions, the United States can “focus solely on victory rather than appeasing international tribunals.”

He repeatedly frames this viewpoint as a pragmatic response to what he describes as “liberal ideas” that have eroded combat effectiveness.

2. Contextual Background

2.1 The Geneva Conventions

Adopted in 1949 and subsequently expanded, the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols set out fundamental protections for wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians. They constitute customary international law, binding on all signatory states—including the United States.

2.2 Recent Military Reforms

Since taking office, Hegseth has overseen a wave of policy changes aimed at reshaping the “warrior ethos”:

Elimination of several Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices.
Reinstatement of pre‑2015 combat standards, emphasizing “gender‑neutral” physical requirements.
A high‑profile gathering of senior generals at Marine Corps Base Quantico, where he delivered a speech urging the department to “prepare for war” and “unleash” its lethal capacity.

These reforms are presented as part of a broader effort to “restore” a perceived traditional military culture.

3. Reactions from Key Stakeholders

Actor	Position	Rationale
Legal Scholars	Critical	The Geneva Conventions are jus cogens—peremptory norms of international law. Ignoring them would expose U.S. personnel to war‑crime investigations and undermine the rule of law.
Human‑Rights NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch)	Alarmed	They warn that discarding the conventions could lead to increased civilian casualties, unlawful detention practices, and erosion of accountability mechanisms.
Congressional Leaders (Bipartisan)	Mixed	Some hawkish members echo Hegseth’s emphasis on combat readiness, while others stress the strategic cost of alienating allies and damaging America’s moral authority.
International Allies (NATO, EU partners)	Concerned	Allies rely on shared adherence to the conventions as a cornerstone of collective security. A U.S. departure could strain alliance cohesion.
Military Officers (Senior Rank)	Varied	While some senior commanders appreciate the call for “uncompromising” force, many express unease about the legal exposure and potential impact on troop morale.

4. Legal Implications

Domestic Law: The U.S. has incorporated the Geneva Conventions into federal law (e.g., the War Crimes Act). A formal policy shift would require either legislative amendment or an executive reinterpretation—both fraught with constitutional challenges.
International Accountability: The International Criminal Court (ICC) and ad hoc tribunals retain jurisdiction over alleged violations of the conventions. Even absent ratification of the ICC Rome Statute, the U.S. could face universal jurisdiction claims in foreign courts.
Rules of Engagement (ROE): Existing ROE are built upon the conventions. Overhauling them without clear legal guidance could create confusion on the ground, increasing the risk of unlawful actions.

5. Strategic Consequences

Alliance Dynamics: The United States’ credibility within NATO and other coalitions rests partly on its commitment to shared legal norms. A perceived abandonment could weaken joint operations and intelligence sharing.
Adversary Perception: While Hegseth argues that rivals would be “forced to play by our rules,” many non‑state actors and authoritarian regimes already operate outside the conventions. Removing U.S. restraint may simply level the playing field without delivering a decisive advantage.
Domestic Public Opinion: Polls consistently show strong American support for humanitarian protections in war. A policy shift could provoke public backlash and affect recruitment.

6. Possible Paths Forward

Clarify the Scope: Hegseth could specify whether he seeks a complete repeal of the conventions or a limited reinterpretation for particular combat scenarios.
Legislative Oversight: Congress could hold hearings to evaluate the practical and ethical implications, ensuring any change aligns with constitutional checks and balances.
Incremental Adjustments: Rather than a wholesale dismissal, the Department of Defense might refine ROE to address specific operational concerns while preserving core humanitarian protections.
International Dialogue: Engaging allies in a review of the conventions could foster updated protocols that reflect modern warfare realities without abandoning the underlying principles.

7. Conclusion

Pete Hegseth’s assertion that the United States should ignore the Geneva Conventions reflects a broader tension between military expediency and legal‑moral accountability. While his call resonates with segments of the defense establishment seeking greater operational freedom, it collides with entrenched international law, longstanding alliance expectations, and domestic values that prioritize humane conduct in conflict.

Any movement toward discarding the conventions would demand careful legal scrutiny, robust congressional oversight, and transparent dialogue with both allies and the American public. The stakes are high: the decision will shape not only how future wars are fought but also how the United States is perceived on the world stage.

For further reading, consult the full text of the Geneva Conventions (1949), the War Crimes Act of 1996, and recent analyses from the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy program.

Pocket Computer Networks