In a dramatic rebuttal that has quickly gone viral, former Defense nominee Pete Hegseth has decisively shut down a hit piece by ProPublica, presenting irrefutable evidence that proves his account of being accepted to West Point. Hegseth, a combat veteran and Bronze Star recipient nominated by President Trump for Secretary of Defense in his second term, has long maintained that he was offered admission to the United States Military Academy in 1999—a claim that ProPublica sought to debunk.

ProPublica’s investigative report alleged that Hegseth had never even applied to West Point, aiming to discredit him by portraying his statement as a fabrication. According to the report, West Point officials were quoted on multiple occasions stating that Hegseth was not accepted to the academy. The hit piece was intended to cast doubt on his integrity, a move that Hegseth’s supporters argue is politically motivated.

However, Hegseth swiftly countered these claims on X (formerly Twitter) by sharing a scanned copy of his West Point acceptance letter. “We understand that ProPublica (the Left Wing hack group) is planning to publish a knowingly false report that I was not accepted to West Point in 1999. Here’s my letter of acceptance signed by West Point Superintendent, Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army,” Hegseth declared in his post. His bold move not only undermined the report but also called into question the accuracy of the information provided by West Point’s public affairs.

Following Hegseth’s post, ProPublica Senior Editor Jesse Eisinger tweeted a response stating, “Hegseth has said that he got into West Point but didn’t attend. We asked West Pt public affairs, which told us twice on the record that he hadn’t even applied there. We reached out. Hegseth’s spox gave us his acceptance letter. We didn’t publish a story. That’s journalism.” This admission led to further scrutiny of the military academy’s statements, as critics began to question why West Point had provided conflicting information.

Amid the controversy, a spokesperson for the U.S. Military Academy issued an apology, explaining that an administrative error had led to an incorrect statement regarding Hegseth’s admission. “A review of our records indicates Mr. Peter Hegseth was offered admission to West Point in 1999 but did not attend,” the spokesperson said. “An incorrect statement involving Mr. Hegseth’s admission to the United States Military Academy was released by an employee on December 10, 2024. Upon further review, we found that this statement was in error. Mr. Hegseth was offered acceptance as a prospective member of the class of 2003. USMA takes this situation very seriously, and we apologize for this administrative error.”

The fallout from the incident has been swift and intense. Prominent figures such as Senator Tom Cotton have weighed in on the matter. In a strongly worded letter to West Point and its superintendent, Cotton called the report a “hit piece” and expressed concern that false information was being used to attack a Trump nominee for Secretary of Defense. “I’m concerned about reports that a U.S. Military Academy official has provided false information to a left-wing reporter writing a derogatory hit piece about Pete Hegseth,” Cotton wrote, emphasizing the political nature of the controversy.

This incident is the latest chapter in a series of politically charged battles surrounding high-profile Trump allies. Hegseth’s response has been celebrated by his supporters, who see it as a vindication of his record and a powerful rebuttal to those attempting to undermine his credibility. By publicly presenting his acceptance letter, Hegseth has not only exposed the flaws in ProPublica’s report but also highlighted what many believe to be a deliberate effort to discredit him through selective misinformation.

Critics, however, continue to scrutinize every facet of Hegseth’s background. Some argue that his past record and political leanings should warrant closer examination regardless of the West Point controversy. Nonetheless, the visual proof provided by Hegseth has forced many skeptics to reconsider the validity of the claims made against him.

As the debate rages on social media and in political circles, the episode serves as a reminder of the intense scrutiny that comes with holding public office—especially in a polarized political climate. The accuracy of official records and the integrity of public statements are under the microscope, and Hegseth’s case highlights the potential for administrative errors to be weaponized in political warfare.

With his reputation now bolstered by irrefutable evidence, Pete Hegseth’s decisive response has become a rallying cry for his supporters. It underscores the broader issue of political smear campaigns and the importance of holding institutions accountable for the information they disseminate. As the story continues to evolve, one thing is clear: in the battle for truth, Hegseth has brought the receipts, and the tables have turned.