Spilling the Tea: Danielle Dietrich’s Role in Pete Hegseth’s Confirmation Battle

This article is an early release for paying Substack supporters and will be available to all subscribers tomorrow to supplement the podcast episode.

Oh, and for our paying supporters—don’t miss the “Spill the Tea” video included in this post. It’s a behind-the-scenes look at raw, unedited reactions to this story. Get full access and become a paid subscriber today. Don’t miss out!

A previous version of this post had identified the wrong Danielle and has been revised and corrected.

If you’ve been tracking the saga surrounding Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as Defense Secretary, you know there is drama. Last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee vote was a nail-biter, ending with a razor-thin 14-13 party-line decision to send Hegseth’s nomination to the full Senate.

You would think that means it’s a done deal.

Nope, new allegations have emerged just as he is about to go for a Senate vote—and the details lead to the question, “Is this coordinated?”

Let’s talk about Danielle Hegseth (maiden name Dietrich), Hegseth’s former sister-in-law, via his brother, Nathaniel Hegseth, who divorced Danielle in 2019. Her affidavit has thrown a wrench into his confirmation process.

So, if you were wondering why Sen. Tim Kaine (VA) suddenly pivoted to questions about spousal abuse last week, seemingly out of nowhere, I guess now we know.

While Kaine claims he had no prior knowledge of the affidavit, stating to Punchbowl News that the first time he saw it was on Tuesday, the timing of the events and the history of Senate Democrats leave plenty of room to question whether this is true.

Allegations and Timing: The Political Backdrop

Danielle’s sworn affidavit describes instances of “erratic and aggressive” behavior by Hegseth towards his second wife, Samantha. She recounts a chilling anecdote about Samantha allegedly hiding in a closet out of fear. But here’s the catch: Samantha Hegseth herself has outright denied these allegations, saying there was no physical abuse during their marriage. Her email to NBC News was unequivocal: “There was no physical abuse in my marriage. This is the only further statement I will make.”

Danielle stated that she initially spoke to the FBI about these concerns on December 30, 2024, and followed up with additional information on January 18, 2025 after the FBI reached out, shortly after Hegseth’s testimony on January 14 before the committee.

It’s important to clarify that the “unremarkable” characterization of the FBI report, as reported by Punchbowl News, referred to the report itself, which included her December 30 interview.

Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.)—the chair and ranking member, respectively—are the only committee members who have viewed Hegseth’s FBI file.

If Danielle’s claims were considered significant, the report would unlikely have been labeled unremarkable. Her follow-up with the FBI came only after Hegseth’s confirmation appeared likely, raising questions about her timing and motives.

According to NBC News, Danielle is coming forward under the assurance that her testimony will sway undecided senators to vote against Hegseth. It’s a move that raises more questions than answers about her motives and the broader political machinery behind this revelation.

Who is Danielle Hegseth?

Danielle Hegseth is a Senior Research Scientist and Project Operations Director in the early childhood development research area at Child Trends, where she has worked since November 2019. Child Trends is based in Rockville, Maryland, but Danielle appears to work out of their Minneapolis, Minnesota location.

Child Trends is a research organization focused on equity, diversity, and early childhood development, receiving significant government funding—approximately $25 million in the past 12 months. This funding could face heightened scrutiny under a Trump administration, which has historically aimed to reduce federal involvement in education and scale back DEI-focused initiatives.

Some specific grants at potential risk include:

• Education Grants Management Support Services (EDGMSS) IDIQ
  Potential Risk: High
  These grants, tied to federal education oversight and discretionary funding, could be targeted under an administration looking to scale back spending on such programs.

• Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) Research and Evaluation Initiatives – U.S. Department of Labor
  Potential Risk: High
  Research contracts tied to workforce programs may also be deprioritized in efforts to limit regulatory oversight and cut nonessential spending.

While Danielle’s personal political affiliation is unknown, she has been described as sympathetic to the Democrat cause and her work environment and organizational context suggest a left-leaning perspective. Minneapolis, where she is based, is a progressive city, and Child Trends’ emphasis on DEI aligns with similar ideological leanings. Notably, the organization’s former president has donated nearly $80,000 to Democratic candidates, including $15,000 during the 2023–2024 election cycle.

Here’s a key question: How is Danielle affording $1,500 an hour for an attorney?

A quick search shows that someone in her position with Child Trends makes approximately $120,000 annually. Even with that salary, it’s hard to imagine how she could sustain such a high-cost legal battle without outside support.

How I Confirmed This Was the Right Danielle

At first, I mistakenly thought this was Danielle Dietrich, a Pittsburgh-based attorney. But something didn’t feel right, so I went back to check my work. Here’s how I confirmed her identity:

• I found a Danielle D., who attended the University of Minnesota—Hegseth’s home state.

• Scrolling through her endorsements on LinkedIn, I found one from Penny Hegseth, Pete Hegseth’s mother, who does leadership coaching.

• I then searched for Danielle “Child Trends” and found that they have a researcher named Danielle Hegseth listed without a photo.

This confirmed her identity and connection to the Hegseth family.

Who’s Behind Danielle Hegseth’s Move?

Let’s talk about who is representing Danielle Hegseth.

Leita Walker, a prominent attorney from Ballard Spahr, a firm with deep ties to Democratic politics, represents Danielle. According to Pennsylvania Capital Star, Ballard Spahr’s attorneys have been politically active for decades, with their giving heavily skewed toward Democrats. Their contributions surged during the Trump years, including hosting a virtual inauguration event for Joe Biden in 2020.

Individual attorneys at Ballard Spahr have been politically active for at least the last three decades, according to data from Open Secrets. And their giving has skewed to Democrats.

But the firm’s political largesse nearly quadrupled in the Trump era. The previous high was $272,000 in 2008. In 2016, the firm’s attorneys gave $846,000. By 2020, political giving increased to more than $955,000, including $148,450 from a newly active political action committee.

According to OpenSecrets.org, former Vice President Kamala Harris was the top recipient in 2024.

This brings us to a critical question: who is footing the bill for Walker’s services?

With an hourly rate likely exceeding $1,500, it’s unclear how Danielle could independently afford such a high-profile attorney despite her professional success.

Is someone else underwriting this effort? And if so, why?

Coordinated Opposition or Coincidence?

You are not crazy to speculate that the timing suggests a well-oiled operation.

Danielle submitted her affidavit just days after Hegseth’s Senate testimony, and NBC News (allegedly) received it two days before it was sent to senators.

The “unremarkable” FBI report, which included her initial December 30 interview, was already in the hands of Senate committee members. However, Danielle’s follow-up and subsequent affidavit emerged only after Hegseth’s nomination seemed likely to advance, casting doubt on her motivations.

This carefully staged sequence of events points to a broader strategy that seems designed to derail Hegseth’s nomination at a critical juncture. Combine that with Danielle’s admission that she was assured her affidavit would influence undecided senators, and it’s hard not to see the fingerprints of a coordinated effort.

What’s Next?

The full Senate vote on Hegseth’s nomination remains uncertain. There is word that three Republicans are a no, Mitch McConnell (KY), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK) leaving Vice President J.D. Vance to break the tie.

The timing of these allegations, arriving just as it appeared Hegseth was poised for confirmation, raises questions about whether this is a last-ditch effort to block the vote. The political stakes are high, and this development feels like a calculated move to stall momentum rather than a genuine concern surfacing at the eleventh hour.

Want to know what’s coming next? Tune in to tomorrow’s podcast episode, where we’ll break down what this means for the vote and what to watch for as things unfold. See you there!