Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivers remarks at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on June 10, 2025. (Daniel Torok/The White House)

This story was originally reported by Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta and Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mariel, Grace and Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

“In my ideal society, we would vote as households,” a pastor tells CNN. “And I would ordinarily be the one that would cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household.”

Another agrees, saying he’d back an end to a woman’s right to vote: “I would support that, and I’d support it on the basis that the atomization that comes with our current system is not good for humans.”

The discussion of 19th Amendment rights was part of a news segment focused on Doug Wilson — a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist pastor based in Idaho — that was reposted to X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The secretary is among Wilson’s supporters, and his involvement with Wilson’s denomination highlights how a fringe conservative evangelical Christian belief system that questions women’s right to vote is gaining more traction in the Republican Party.

Kristin Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and author of “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation,” said Wilson’s broader vision of Christian nationalism has gotten more attention over the past several years, alongside President Donald Trump’s rise to power.

“He was a fairly fringe figure, but this moment was really his moment,” she said. “And then as part of that, also, I think he signaled and gave permission to others that they didn’t need to hide some of their more controversial views, such as, should women have the vote? And that’s something that you didn’t hear proudly promoted from very many spaces, even just a handful of years ago.”

In the CNN interview, Wilson said he’d like to see the United States become a Christian and patriarchal country. He advocates for a society where sodomy is criminalized and women submit to their husbands and shouldn’t serve in combat roles in the military — a belief Hegseth has also publicly shared in the past though walked back during his confirmation hearings.

Hegseth appeared to support the nearly seven-minute interview with the caption, “All of Christ for All of Life.” Wilson has built an evangelical empire over the past 50 years that is centered in Moscow, Idaho, and now spans more than 150 congregations across four continents — including a new church in Washington, D.C. In July, Hegseth and his family attended the inaugural service at Christ Church, according to CNN.

“The Secretary is a proud member of a church affiliated with the Congregation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which was founded by Pastor Doug Wilson,” Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to The 19th. “The Secretary very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.”

Du Mez said Wilson built his brand as a vocal critic of mainstream evangelicalism.

“They were too wishy washy,” Du Mez said, referring to Wilson’s view of much of White evangelicalism in the 1990s and early 2000s. “They were too soft. And so he was kind of bringing a harsher biblical truth, and that included things like a much more rigid application of biblical patriarchy. ”

In 2024, only 1 in 10 Americans qualified as Christian nationalism adherents, according to the Public Religion Research Institute.

Ryan Dawkins, an assistant professor of political science at Carleton College, said Christian nationalism hasn’t necessarily gotten more popular in the past 20 years. But there have been   partisan trends.

“While they used to be more evenly divided between the two parties, over the last two decades, Christian nationalists have sorted into the Republican Party at incredibly high rates,” Dawkins said. “Christian nationalism is almost non-existent within the Democratic Party today, at least among White Democrats.”

While it’s still far from a mainstream opinion, several figures within the Republican Party have flirted with the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment.

Paul Ingrassia, who Trump nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel, suggested approval for the idea in a 2023 podcast. Podcast host Alan Jacoby told Ingrassia that his own wife is the “biggest misogynist this side of the Mississippi, by the way. My wife literally thinks women should not vote.”

Ingrassia responded, “She’s very based,” a term expressing support for a bold opinion.

During the 2020 Republican National Convention, Republicans featured anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson, who has advocated for a new kind of voting system where households, not individuals, would cast votes. Head-of-household voting has historically disenfranchised women and people of color by concentrating power on the male leaders of the home.

In the leadup to the 2016 presidential election, FiveThirtyEight, a political forecasting site, shared data that suggested if women didn’t vote, Trump would win. The hashtag #repealthe19th — a reference to the 19th Amendment, which grants women the right to vote — quickly went viral.

And a former Trump-backed Michigan candidate for the U.S. House who has also held positions in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was found to have made statements criticizing women’s suffrage while in college at Stanford University in the early 2000s. John Gibbs, now an assistant secretary at the agency, said that the country had been damaged by the 19th Amendment because women’s suffrage had led to an increase in the size and scope of the government. He added that women making up half of the population wasn’t enough reason for women’s suffrage. Gibbs’ 2022 congressional campaign denied he opposed women’s right to vote.

Kelly Marino, associate teaching professor at Sacred Heart University and author of “Votes for College Women: Alumni, Students and the Woman Suffrage Campaign” said that while conservative religious sects adamantly opposed to women’s suffrage have always existed, now there is renewed momentum.

“If you look at the way things played out in the past, we have this very liberal period followed by a conservative backlash,” Marino said. “And that’s what’s going on now. You have this period of liberalism where people were having a more expansive view of gender ideology, ideas about sexuality and women in politics. We had some pretty prominent female politicians that were making it pretty far in the last couple of years. And now there’s a backlash.”

Marino said the conservative backlash is reminiscent of the 1960s and 70s. There were significant progressive movements for civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights and environmental protections. But at the same time, the early 1970s saw the emergence of the men’s liberation movement, which focused primarily on issues like divorce law and child custody.

“There’s some men who are promoting a sort of return to tradition, a patriarchal vision for society,” Marino said. “It’s always sort of there, but it’s gaining traction within mainstream consciousness again. And now, you have all this stuff about soft girls and tradwives — this gender ideal of women being the domestic homemaker within a traditional family structure. There’s been a big push for this radical Christianity and some of its values — it’s become really popular even among younger people.”

Joseph Slaughter, an assistant professor of history at Wesleyan University, said Wilson is having his moment in the spotlight — but it’s important to remember that he does not speak for the majority.

“He delights in upsetting people or saying transgressive, un-PC things,” Slaughter said. “Ten years ago, when he posted a video talking about man’s biblical duties — people just sort of yawned and dismissed him. Now, he’s saying things and they’re gaining more currency because of some of this other new right-wing masculinity and the online manosphere.”

Slaughter said it’s particularly concerning that Wilson’s teachings have found their support in a man as powerful as Hegseth.

“What does it mean for somebody who’s running an organization which has had its struggles over the years integrating women and trying to understand existential questions about women’s role in combat?” Slaughter said. “Are Hegseth’s views reinforced by his religion now? Does this church reinforce his cultural chauvinism? For somebody in his position, it’s certainly fair game to ask.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies before the House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee at the U.S. Capitol on June 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Tuesday was the first time Hegseth testified before Congress since his confirmation hearings in January.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles will cost the federal government about $134 million, a Pentagon budget official said Tuesday, as the response to the protests further divided officials in California and Washington, D.C.

The situation in the country’s second-largest city captured the attention of lawmakers in the nation’s capital, even as the Republican-led Congress charted a path forward for the Trump-backed tax and spending cut bill.

Democrats in Congress on Tuesday warned the administration’s actions bordered on authoritarianism, while President Donald Trump said his intervention saved the city from destruction.

“If we didn’t send in the National Guard quickly, right now, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground,” Trump said in the Oval Office Tuesday.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, sought a restraining order blocking the 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines deployed to Los Angeles from assisting with domestic law enforcement. Trump ordered the troops to the city over Newsom’s and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ objections.

Budget question

Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized the administration over several aspects of the deployment, saying Trump was instigating violence, overstepping his authority and wasting taxpayer money.

At a previously scheduled Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing, Democratic Reps. Betty McCollum of Minnesota and Pete Aguillar of California asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the financial cost of placing 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines in Los Angeles.

Hegseth, who is originally from Minnesota, declined to answer McCollum’s question directly, instead invoking the riots in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020 and saying Trump sought to avoid similar chaos in Los Angeles.

“President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Gov. (Tim) Walz, if it gets out of control, it’s a bad situation for the citizens of any location,” he said.

When Aguillar asked a similar question about cost, Hegseth deferred to acting Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell, who estimated the current cost at $134 million, mainly for housing, travel and food. That money came out of existing operations and maintenance accounts, she said.

Hegseth told the panel the deployment was authorized for 60 days.

Just 2 miles away at the White House, though, Trump implied the decision could be more open-ended, saying during the Oval Office event that troops would stay in Los Angeles “until there’s no danger.”

“When there’s no danger, they’ll leave,” he said.

Restraining order

California’s federal lawsuit challenging the deployment, which state leaders filed Monday, includes a request for the court to issue a restraining order by 1 p.m. Pacific time Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer did not issue such an order by that deadline.

The administration intended to use the military personnel “to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” the request for a restraining order said.

“These unlawful deployments have already proven to be a deeply inflammatory and unnecessary provocation, anathema to our laws limiting the use (of) federal forces for law enforcement, rather than a means of restoring calm,” the state said.

“Federal antagonization, through the presence of soldiers in the streets, has already caused real and irreparable damage to the City of Los Angeles, the people who live there, and the State of California. They must be stopped, immediately.”

Democrats in California’s congressional delegation and members of the congressional caucuses for Black, Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Islander Democrats also blasted the administration’s role in inflaming the standoff between protesters and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who’d conducted recent raids on workplaces in the area.

“President Trump’s unlawful decision to deploy the National Guard onto the streets of Los Angeles is a reckless and inflammatory escalation, one designed not to restore calm, but to provoke chaos,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette D. Clarke said at a press conference.

“Let’s be clear about how this began: with peaceful protests sparked by the unlawful and inhumane targeting, detention and deportation of our immigrant neighbors.”

Clarke, a New York Democrat, said in response to a reporter’s question that she believed the sending in of troops constituted an impeachable act by Trump.

“I definitely believe it is, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” she said.

‘Met with force’

Other Democrats on Capitol Hill have said Monday and Tuesday that Trump engineered the conflict to distract from unpopular provisions of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” and other issues.

“Donald Trump, cornered by his own failures – from pushing a heartless bill that would rip health care away from 16 million Americans, to raising costs from his reckless tariffs, to waging war with Elon Musk – Trump is desperately seeking a distraction,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on the floor Tuesday.

“His order to deploy the National Guard and Marines – our own troops – on Americans is not just outrageous and provocative, it’s a dangerous authoritarian overreach that threatens the very fabric of our democracy.”

Rep. Jimmy Gomez led a press conference of California’s U.S. House Democrats Tuesday where he warned that the militarization in Los Angeles could happen elsewhere.

“If it can happen in Los Angeles, it can happen in any state in the union,” he said.

Later, at the Oval Office, Trump said protesters at his military parade on Saturday would be “met with very strong force.”

‘Tarred and feathered’

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Trump acted responsibly to protect Southern Californians and blamed Newsom for “failed leadership” that he said led to the clash this weekend.

Asked if, as Trump and White House border czar Tom Homan have suggested, Newsom should be arrested for interfering with immigration enforcement, Johnson initially demurred before suggesting an 18th-century punishment.

“I’m not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“But he ought to be tarred and feathered… He’s standing in the way of the administration and the carrying out of federal law. Right? He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of the good guys. He is trying to — he’s a participant, an accomplice — in our federal law enforcement agents being not just disrespected but assaulted.”

Johnson said House Republicans were fully behind Trump’s actions and deflected a question about if there was a point at which he would oppose the administration’s efforts.

“He is fully within his authority right now to do what he is doing,” Johnson said. “We have to maintain order.”