'Disruptor' Hegseth's unsettled Pentagon starts turning against him
Pete Hegseth wanted to make waves at the Pentagon. But less than 90 days since being sworn in as U.S. defense secretary, he appears put off balance by the very turbulence he himself created.
An ex-Fox News host, Hegseth on Monday accused his former trusted advisers of turning against him following revelations that he texted sensitive U.S. military strike plans from his personal phone to his wife, brother, attorney and others.
"What a big surprise that a few leakers get fired and a bunch of hit pieces come out," Hegseth said on the White House lawn, his children standing behind him, for an Easter celebration.
The White House saw a conspiracy against Hegseth stretching far beyond the small cadre of his once loyal aides, who were fired after accusations they leaked sensitive information, to include the Department of Defense itself.
Hegseth has moved with stunning speed to reshape the department, firing top generals and admirals as he seeks to implement President Donald Trump's national security agenda and root out diversity initiatives he says are discriminatory.
"This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change that you are trying to implement," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
So far, Trump himself is standing firmly by Hegseth, saying he was "doing a great job."
"He was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people. And that is what he is doing," Trump told reporters on Monday.
The latest controversy comes after the dismissal of aides brought to the Pentagon by the Trump administration, firings triggered by a leak investigation ordered by Hegseth's chief of staff on March 21.
The dismissed aides include Dan Caldwell, a longtime colleague of Hegseth's who became one of his most trusted advisors. He was escorted out of the Pentagon last week over leaks for which he denies responsibility. Also dismissed was Hegseth's deputy chief of staff, Darin Selnick.
"TOTAL CHAOS"
John Ullyot, who was ousted from his job as a Pentagon spokesperson after two months, said Hegseth's Defense Department was in "total chaos."
"Hegseth is now presiding over a strange and baffling purge that will leave him without his two closest advisers of over a decade - Caldwell and Selnick - and without chiefs of staff for him and his deputy," Ullyot wrote in a blistering opinion piece published on Sunday in Politico.
Ullyot concluded that Trump should fire Hegseth, saying: "The dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president - who deserves better from his senior leadership."
Trump's eldest son, Donald Jr., slammed Ullyot for the remarks, saying on X that "he's officially exiled from our movement."
The latest upheaval at the Pentagon comes amid a widening purge of national security officials by the Trump administration that has reached every level of U.S. military leadership, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top Navy admiral and the military's top lawyers.
It has also included lower-ranking officials, like Colonel Susan Myers, the commander of a U.S. Space Force base in Greenland, who was fired earlier this month.
An email she wrote appeared to question Vice President JD Vance's assertions during a March visit to Greenland, where he accused Denmark of failing to protect the island from "very aggressive incursions from Russia, and from China and other nations."
A U.S. defense official said the Pentagon, because of the presence of uniformed military officials, was an institution that under normal circumstances could run itself with basic policy guidance from elected officials.
But the confusion surrounding the building's leadership was starting to erode that ability, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Another official said the firings of military officials by Hegseth and those removed as a part of the leak investigation had created a climate of uncertainty within the Pentagon.
The official added that it appeared that at times Hegseth was more focused on minor issues that gain traction on social media among his conservative base rather than clearly communicating national security policies.
Hegseth only narrowly won Senate confirmation. Many lawmakers expressed concern about his temperament and lack of experience, with three Republican senators voting against him.
Senator Roger Wicker, a Hegseth supporter and the Republican who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, has requested an investigation by the Pentagon's independent inspector into Hegseth's use of Signal.
That request followed revelations last month that Hegseth had shared in a Signal chat group that accidentally included a journalist plans to kill a Houthi militant leader in Yemen two hours before the start of U.S. air strikes. Wicker has yet to react to the latest news about a second Signal chat.
A White House official said that abandoning Hegseth would play into the hands of Democrats in Congress. They are increasingly calling for Hegseth to step down.
"Hegseth has turned the Pentagon into a place of chaos," said Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin.
"If he cared about the institution he's leading, he should man up, acknowledge he's a distraction to the military's mission, and resign."
Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
7 hours ago
- Asia Times
Why Israel struck Iran in defiance of Trump
Alarmed by an intelligence assessment that Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons within months if not weeks, Israel has launched a massive air campaign aiming to destroy the country's nuclear program. Israel's air strikes hit Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz, as well as its air defences and long-range missile facilities. Among the dead are Hossein Salami, the chief of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps; Mohammad Bagheri, the commander-in-chief of the military; and two prominent nuclear scientists. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised 'severe punishment' in response. Iran could potentially target Israel's own nuclear sites and US bases across the Persian Gulf. Israel claimed Iran launched 100 drones towards it just hours after the attack. The Middle East is yet again on the precipice of a potentially devastating war with serious regional and global implications. The Israeli operations come against the backdrop of a series of inconclusive nuclear talks between the United States and Iran. These negotiations began in mid-April at President Donald Trump's request and aimed to reach a deal within months. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed the talks, pressing for military action instead as the best option to halt Iran's nuclear program. The diplomatic efforts had stalled in recent weeks over Trump's demand that Iran agree to a zero-uranium enrichment posture and destroy its stockpile of some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium at a 60% purity level. This could be rapidly enriched further to weapons-grade level. Tehran refused to oblige, calling it a 'non-negotiable.' Netanyahu has long pledged to eliminate what he has called the Iranian 'octopus' – the regime's vast network of regional affiliates, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the regime of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthi militants in Yemen. Following Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel's military has considerably degraded these Iranian affiliates, one by one. Now, Netanyahu has gone for beheading the octopus. Netanyahu has in the past urged Washington to join him in a military operation against Iran. However, successive US leaders have not found it desirable to ignite or be involved in another Middle East war, especially after the debacle in Iraq and its failed Afghanistan intervention. Despite his strong commitment to Israel's security and regional supremacy, Trump has been keen to follow this US posture for two important reasons. He has not forgotten Netanyahu's warm congratulations to Joe Biden when he defeated Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Nor has Trump been keen to be too closely aligned with Netanyahu at the expense of his lucrative relations with oil-rich Arab states. He recently visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on a trip to the Middle East, while bypassing Israel. Indeed, this week, Trump had warned Netanyahu not to do anything that could undermine the US nuclear talks with Iran. He has been keen to secure a deal to boost his self-declared reputation as a peace broker, despite not having done very well so far on this front. But as the nuclear talks seemed to be reaching a dead end, Netanyahu decided now was the moment to act. The Trump administration has distanced itself from the attack, saying it had no involvement. It remains to be seen whether the US will now get involved to defend Israel if and when Iran retaliates. Israel has shown it has the capacity to unleash overwhelming firepower, causing serious damage to Iran's nuclear and military facilities and infrastructure. But the Iranian Islamic regime also has the capability to retaliate, with all the means at its disposal. Despite the fact the Iranian leadership faces serious domestic issues on political, social and economic fronts, it still has the ability to target Israeli and US assets in the region with advanced missiles and drones. It also has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20–25% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments flow. Importantly, Iran has strategic partnerships with both Russia and China, as well. Depending on the nature and scope of the Iranian response, the current conflict could easily develop into an uncontrollable regional war, with none of the parties emerging as victor. A major conflict could not only further destabilize what is already a volatile Middle East, but also upend the fragile global geopolitical and economic landscape. The Middle East cannot afford another war. Trump had good reasons to restrain Netanyahu's government while the nuclear negotiations were taking place to see if he could hammer out a deal. Whether this deal can be salvaged amid the chaos is unclear. The next round of negotiations was due to be held on Sunday in Oman, but Iran said it would not attend and all talks were off until further notice. Iran and the US, under Barack Obama, had agreed a nuclear deal before – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Although Netanyahu branded it 'the worst deal of the century', it appeared to be holding until Trump, urged by Netanyahu, unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018. Now, Netanyahu has taken the military approach to thwart Iran's nuclear program. And the region – and rest of the world – will have to wait and see if another war can be averted before it's too late. Amin Saikal is emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University, and Vice Chancellor's strategic fellow, Victoria University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
8 hours ago
- Asia Times
Why Trump won't kill AUKUS
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concerns in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies made by its predecessors to consider whether there is a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There is a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, 'The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict', he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening.' So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an 'AUKUS agnostic', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear that the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There have also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There is no question that there is a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated that the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. The leaders of the three nations announced details of the submarine deal in San Diego in 2023. Photo: Etienne Laurent / EPA via The Conversation I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the 'Malacca dilemma.' Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given that nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defense spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely that whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different from previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal,' but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. John Blaxland is professor, Strategic and Defense Studies Center, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
10 hours ago
- Asia Times
The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs
Despite dire predictions that US President Donald Trump's foreign policy, dominated by real and threatened manipulations of American tariffs and trade practices, US inflation rates and other measures of American economic vigor do not yet give cause for alarm. Indeed, at this writing US-China trade talks seem productive enough so that spokespersons for the European Union say they hope their trade talks take on a similar format. Trump's approach to tariffs has been anything but static—shifting abruptly like a spotlight sweeping across a stage. Yet beneath the political theater lies a calculated strategy with far-reaching implications. While critics assume tariffs invariably raise consumer prices, the reality is more nuanced. Trump's policies appear designed not just for economic leverage but as an extension of his foreign policy vision, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere. Whether this constitutes strategic brilliance or overreach is debatable, but the mechanics of tariffs—and who ultimately bears their cost—demand closer scrutiny. The impact of a tariff hinges on market dynamics, competition and geopolitical leverage. Consider a US$100 product imported from Country X. If the US imposes a $25 tariff, the seller faces a choice: absorb the cost by cutting their price to $75 (keeping the consumer's total at $100) or pass the expense to buyers and risk losing market share. In competitive markets—like coffee from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico—sellers often absorb tariffs to retain customers. But the calculus shifts when alternatives are scarce. A monopolist, such as OPEC in the oil markets, can dictate prices precisely because competitors lack the capacity to undercut them without facing ruin. This imbalance of power invites broader consequences: nations disadvantaged by such asymmetries may resort to political or even military retaliation, as nearly occurred during the 1970s oil crises. Tariffs also reshape local economies. A Mexican manufacturer facing US tariffs might offset losses by raising prices for domestic consumers or slashing wages. A Canadian auto supplier could lobby for government subsidies to preserve jobs while lowering export prices. Meanwhile, China's state-influenced exporters might reduce prices to maintain access to the elastic US market, repurposing tariff revenue for Chinese domestic projects. Trump's tariffs align with a modern revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which asserts US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Recent maneuvers, such as discouraging Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, signal that the administration views tariffs as both economic tools and geopolitical signals. The message is clear: the US will enforce its sphere of influence, and trade policy is one lever to do so. It is possible to imagine Trump's 'super big picture' plan as a compressed version (spanning three years) of the 150-year evolution of the British Empire, beginning with Mercantilism and culminating in free trade. At first, Trump treats the rest of the world as composed of client states, whose economies are tied tightly together with the 'mother ship', the dependent states all at first directed by force majeure to contribute to the greatness of the Metropolitan Authority. Later on, when the dependencies have grown to maturity, a managed form of free trade emerges, and wealth becomes more widely shared. Ultimately, outcomes will be determined by raw power—economic, military and diplomatic. While Trump's aggressive posture may yield short-term gains, inconsistency risks undermining his objectives. China, the primary challenger to this strategy, may currently perceive his actions as domestically focused rather than existential. But if tariffs become an erratic flicker rather than a steady beam, the US could squander its leverage. In an era where trade is war by other means, Trump's tariffs are less about economics than they are about reasserting American primacy. The question isn't whether the world will adapt—it's who will blink first.
