Greg Kelly is escalating his criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying plainly that he does not believe Hegseth is qualified for the job.
Kelly made the remarks during a conversation with Dan Abrams on a SiriusXM radio program, in a segment first highlighted by Mediaite. Abrams opened by pointing out Kelly’s own military background, noting that he flew Harrier attack jets as a U.S. Marine Corps officer, served nine years on active duty, spent more than a decade in the reserves, and ultimately reached the rank of lieutenant colonel. Given that experience, Abrams asked why Kelly has been so outspoken in his criticism of Hegseth.
Kelly didn’t back down. He said his criticism is rooted in principle and that he stands by the tone and substance of what he’s posted publicly, particularly on social media.
“I’m doing it from a place of principle,” Kelly said. “And I’m doing it in a way—Twitter, you know, that’s how we speak—and I am proud of it. I don’t take anything back.”
Over the past several weeks, Kelly has repeatedly gone after Hegseth online, at times using harsh language and calling into question both his judgment and his qualifications. Asked about that pattern, Kelly said there’s a reason his comments resonate.
“There’s always truth in my tweets,” he said. “And that’s what makes them powerful.”
He then sharpened his critique even further.
“Hegseth is immature,” Kelly said. “He doesn’t belong in the job.”
At the same time, Kelly acknowledged that the situation isn’t entirely one-sided. While he clearly believes Hegseth falls short, he also said there are aspects of Hegseth’s background that some might see as an advantage—particularly his lack of traditional Washington experience.
“There is something to be said for a Hegseth-like person in that job,” Kelly explained. “Somebody who hasn’t worked in the swamp, somebody who hasn’t been part of the so-called deep state. I do think those concerns are real for a lot of people.”
That tension—between inexperience and independence—has been part of the broader debate surrounding Hegseth since his appointment, and Kelly’s comments reflect that divide.
Abrams then pressed Kelly on the key question: should Trump fire him?
Kelly was careful. While he didn’t hesitate to repeat that he believes Hegseth is unqualified, he stopped short of calling directly for his removal.
“It’s not my position to fire him or keep him in office,” Kelly said, noting that the decision ultimately belongs to the president.
He also pointed to the broader context in which that decision would be made, including the ongoing war and the political stakes involved.
“We’re in the middle of a war,” Kelly said. “We’re also in the middle of a very competitive political environment. The president has to factor everything in.”
Even as he maintained his criticism, Kelly left room for the possibility that Trump may see value in keeping Hegseth in place—whether for strategic, political, or internal reasons.
“If there is some merit in having Pete stay, there very well might be,” he said. “I don’t see it, but I’m not privy to everything.”
Kelly also contrasted Hegseth with more traditional defense secretaries, suggesting that figures like James Mattis or Leon Panetta came with institutional baggage that Hegseth does not carry.
“He’s not as burdened by the system,” Kelly said, adding that this kind of flexibility can, in some cases, be an asset.
Still, he returned to his central point: despite any potential advantages, he remains unconvinced that Hegseth is the right person to lead the Pentagon.
In the end, Kelly framed the issue as one of opinion versus authority. He’s made his position clear—and repeatedly—but emphasized that the final call rests with Trump.
“We all have the right to sound off,” he said. “But it’s the president’s decision, and he has to make it based on more than just what Greg Kelly thinks.”
About the Author
