Muslim World Report

Pete Hegseth's Pocket Square Sparks Debate on American Nationalism

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 20, 2025 10:53 AM | 6 min read | 1207 words

TL;DR: Pete Hegseth’s recent pocket square choice has sparked a significant conversation about American nationalism, raising crucial questions regarding the inclusivity of national identity. This seemingly minor accessory has greater implications for both domestic politics and international relations, emphasizing the need for vigilant engagement against exclusionary ideologies.

The Troubling Symbolism of Pete Hegseth’s Pocket Square: A Disturbing Shift in American Nationalism

In a recent broadcast, Fox News host Pete Hegseth made headlines—not for his commentary, but for his choice of attire: a pocket square reminiscent of an earlier version of the American flag that conspicuously lacks the current 50-star configuration. This sartorial decision has ignited a national conversation that extends beyond mere fashion, prompting discussions about the complex layers of American nationalism and the implications of such symbolism in an increasingly polarized political landscape. The increasing visibility of Hegseth’s choice raises questions about what this signifies for American identity, national narratives, and the global perception of the U.S.

Hegseth’s non-traditional flag representation evokes critical historical discussions surrounding the original 13 colonies, effectively omitting acknowledgment of states like Hawaii and Alaska, which challenges the inclusivity of the national narrative. As historian Bart Bonikowski (2017) explains, the resurgence of ethno-nationalist sentiments in contemporary politics often hinges upon the construction of a collective identity that emphasizes an exclusionary understanding of nationhood. This omission not only resonates with far-right ideologies but also invites discussions about:

  • Who is included in the national narrative.
  • Who is excluded from this narrative.

As the U.S. grapples with its identity—especially in relation to its immigrant populations and domestic minorities—the symbolism of national emblems becomes increasingly significant. Amidst this charged political climate, the symbolism of national emblems is intertwined with notions of identity, belonging, and historical memory (Kinnvall, 2004). Hegseth’s choice may subtly endorse a version of nationalism that privileges a nostalgic and exclusionary past over a multifaceted American identity. This longing for an “ideal” America resonates with contemporary narratives within far-right circles, where a collective yearning for a time of perceived greatness often overlaps with xenophobic tendencies (Reyna et al., 2022). Such a position is particularly concerning for marginalized communities, as well as for the global perception of the United States, historically viewed as a melting pot of diverse cultures.

The Risks of Exclusionary Symbolism

The ramifications of Hegseth’s symbolism extend beyond domestic discourse and into international relations. His choice may inadvertently signal to global audiences, including nations like Iran, Iraq, and Syria, a growing inclination toward exclusionary ideologies within American political culture. This could deepen existing tensions and undermine the U.S.’s position as a diplomatic partner committed to cultural diversity and inclusion (Mudِde, 2004). Notably, countries with significant Muslim populations may interpret this act as reflective of a rejection of multiculturalism, prompting them to reassess their diplomatic engagement with the U.S. in light of an increasingly aggressive nationalism.

What If: Potential Outcomes of Hegseth’s Symbolism

Hegseth’s choices may initiate various potential outcomes that warrant critical examination:

  1. Empowerment of Exclusionary Movements:

    • If Hegseth’s symbolism gains traction, it may embolden movements that frame America as being under siege by multiculturalism.
    • This dynamic risks creating a vicious cycle wherein marginalized communities feel compelled to assert their identities, leading to further polarization and social fragmentation.
    • As Heather Easthope (2004) notes, conflicts surrounding identity and belonging are often intensified in contexts of political-economic volatility and social change.

  2. Fracturing of Conservative Support:

    • Significant backlash from within the conservative movement could provoke a fracturing of the Republican Party’s base.
    • This may reveal intraparty tensions between traditional conservatism, which may espouse inclusivity, and far-right factions advocating for ethnonationalism.

  3. International Diplomatic Fallout:

    • The implications of Hegseth’s controversial pocket square could provoke substantial reactions from Muslim-majority nations.
    • Historical precedents illustrate how symbolic gestures can lead to significant diplomatic repercussions, potentially hindering cooperation on pressing international issues.

  4. Normalization of Exclusionary Narratives:

    • Movements centered on racial nostalgia can translate into concrete policy changes that restrict immigration and promote harmful “America First” approaches to foreign policy (Charney, 2003).
    • This normalization could catalyze radicalization among segments of the population feeling alienated by prevailing sociopolitical discourses (Jones, 2002).

  5. Reinforcement of Nationalist Ideologies:

    • If celebrated within far-right circles, Hegseth’s actions could legitimize extremist ideologies that frame American nationalism as inherently exclusionary.
    • This may influence candidates and policies across the spectrum, challenging democratic norms.

  6. Reevaluation of U.S. Foreign Policy:

    • A backlash against Hegseth’s pocket square may prompt a reassessment of U.S. foreign policy.
    • Countries may reconsider their engagements with the United States, affecting diplomatic effectiveness on global challenges.

  7. Response from Civil Society:

    • Activists and civil society organizations may increase efforts to counteract the narratives presented by Hegseth and his supporters.
    • This could lead to intensified campaigns advocating for inclusivity and cultural understanding, depending on the mobilization of resources and community engagement.

The Stakes of Symbolism in Political Discourse

The use of symbols in political discourse is rarely innocuous. Hegseth’s pocket square, while ostensibly a minor accessory, encapsulates a complex web of national identity, belonging, and exclusionary narratives that threaten to redefine American exceptionalism. It raises urgent questions about how such symbolism influences both domestic societal dynamics and international relations, underscoring the need for vigilance and proactive engagement from all corners of society.

The implications of Hegseth’s actions extend beyond himself, resonating with various segments of the American populace and beyond. How his actions are perceived will shape not only the immediate political landscape but also the long-term course of U.S. engagement with the world, particularly with Muslim-majority countries.

Conclusion of Analysis

The unfolding narrative surrounding this incident presents a pivotal opportunity for advocates of inclusivity and understanding to galvanize support against the rising tide of exclusionary nationalism. Political leaders, civil society, and global partners must remain vigilant in monitoring the implications of Hegseth’s pocket square, recognizing it as a microcosm of larger ideological battles at play.

Through proactive measures that emphasize dialogue, understanding, and the celebration of diversity, stakeholders can work towards countering the trends reflected in Hegseth’s symbolism. The potential for constructive engagement exists, but it will require concerted efforts to ensure that the principles of a pluralistic society are not overshadowed by exclusionary narratives.

References

← Prev Next →