Army Secretary Dan Driscoll submitted his resignation on Monday, effective Sept. 3, following months of tension with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The two have reportedly sparred over the direction of the Army and the ouster of a string of senior officers. His departure is the latest high-profile exit at the Defense Department, even as the military conflict with Iran continues with no end in sight.
Beyond the resignations, personnel questions abound at the Pentagon. Over the past month, Hegseth has blocked the promotions of officers tied to generals he ousted, expanded his wife’s role inside the department and even installed conservative influencers in undisclosed posts to amplify his messaging.
Then there are serious and often humiliating operational issues. Four senior military leaders logged formal objections to his order extending U.S. forces in the Middle East. And the record-setting stretch at sea for the USS Abraham Lincoln—with failing sanitation, basic food shortages and attempted self-harm by crew members—became a public relations crisis that the secretary’s spokesman dismissed as a “false narrative.”
The Iran war has understandably absorbed most of the public attention this year, but that has often shielded the department itself from greater scrutiny. Tufts University political scientist Daniel Drezner observed that the war has obscured an important story: Hegseth is running the Department of Defense “right into the ground.”
That deterioration has taken three main forms: a purge of officers and officials deemed insufficiently loyal; an information ecosystem that rewards loyalty with access while walling out the press; and a military that absorbs the operational cost of policy decisions its own commanders have warned against.
Driscoll’s announced departure falls within the first category. He has led the Army since February 2025 but had grown estranged from Hegseth over the direction of the service, according to multiple people familiar with their relationship. The issue appears personal and filled with court intrigue. Much of the friction traces back to Driscoll’s closeness with Vice President JD Vance, a former Yale Law School classmate. Hegseth reportedly viewed Driscoll’s relationship with Vance as giving Driscoll a direct line to the White House.
In a White House meeting last week, Driscoll raised his concerns about Hegseth’s leadership directly with Donald Trump, according to four people familiar with the conversation. Per reporting by The Atlantic, Trump was reportedly surprised by the number of generals and other senior officers who had been fired, pushed out or passed over for promotion under Hegseth—not exactly a commander in chief in the know. Trump also expressed concern about the depth of the cuts to the Army’s leadership, one source said. Driscoll told Trump he intended to resign, and within days he was gone.
The tension had been building for months. In April, Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George without explanation. But the firing may have been tied to the “Kid Rock incident”—a prime example of how petty and silly things have become.
Here’s the scoop on that, per reporting by the Washington Post. Days before his firing, Gen. George was informed by Gen. Chris LaNeve—the second-highest-ranking Army officer, who apparently has been gunning for the top spot—that Hegseth wanted him to drop an investigation into an unauthorized March 28 helicopter flyby of Kid Rock’s Tennessee estate. George believed that the Army should follow standard protocol and determine whether safety regulations had been violated. Following protocol in such a case shouldn’t even be an issue, and George later told colleagues he felt troubled by LaNeve’s instruction to drop the matter.
Hegseth had already intervened publicly days earlier, unilaterally ending the Army’s review and telling the grounded aircrews to “carry on, Patriots.” Hegseth’s office did not directly address the reported conversation, instead calling LaNeve “precisely the kind of leader the U.S. Army needs right now.” Spokesman Sean Parnell dismissed the Post’s reporting as “regurgitating” a “tired, old story simply to manufacture drama.”
With Driscoll’s departure, the Army is left without a Senate-confirmed civilian secretary, a Senate-confirmed chief of staff, a confirmed general in charge of operations or a confirmed commander of Army forces in Europe. It also has fewer generals than at any point in recent history, despite more than 450,000 active-duty soldiers.
LaNeve has been acting chief of staff for nearly five months, often going directly to Hegseth for decisions and bypassing Driscoll, according to defense officials. The drama has now reached the Senate; Hegseth’s expected nomination of LaNeve is already running into Republican opposition, including from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). One congressional staffer said lawmakers are not inclined to “reward Hegseth for what he did to the Army.” Army Undersecretary Michael Obadal is expected to take over in the near term, though many Pentagon officials fear the White House will instead nominate Parnell, who would face his own contentious confirmation.
Hegseth’s pattern of disfavor and retribution has extended to the officer corps. The New York Times reported that he is blocking the promotions of four Army officers to one-star rank, some with ties to George and to Gen. Chris Donahue. And Hegseth has now removed at least 45 officers from promotion lists this year, more than half of them women or Black service members. In so doing, Hegseth upended the normal promotion process; the officers had already been selected for promotions by peer boards under a system designed to be merit-based and apolitical.
The department’s second deterioration runs in the opposite direction. Hegseth has granted privileged access to those loyal to him while restricting everyone else. That pattern runs through Hegseth’s own household, through a roster of undisclosed online allies inside the Pentagon and through a media strategy that rewards friendly voices while limiting access for the traditional press.
Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, holds no formal title at the Pentagon, but as the New York Times reported she has become her husband’s “most influential adviser and his de facto producer.” Her roles include brainstorming ideas for videos he appears in, prepping him for appearances, sitting in on meetings with journalists and even interviewing potential staff. She was also infamously included in the Signal group chat in which Hegseth shared details of a strike on Houthi targets in Yemen, and her security clearance status has not been disclosed.
She was also present, the Times reported, for a highly sensitive meeting between Hegseth and top British defense officials after the United States temporarily halted intelligence-sharing with Ukraine. British officials indicated their personnel on the ground in Ukraine were put at risk without the early-warning intelligence the U.S. had been providing on incoming Russian missiles. John Ullyot, a former Pentagon chief spokesman who left the job after three months under Hegseth, called the arrangement “bonkers,” telling the Times it was unacceptable for a defense secretary “to involve his wife in his sensitive official duties, including sharing details of an impending military operation, and face zero consequences. Any president deserves better judgment from his national security leaders.”
A Pentagon spokesperson countered that Jennifer Hegseth is “a vital asset and a true force multiplier for our mission” and that the department “actively plans to involve her even more deeply in the future.” That should make no one feel more assured. Trump also named her chair of the President’s Military Spouse Commission this month.
A similar dynamic runs through a set of undisclosed hires the Washington Post reported this week. The Pentagon has installed several conservative veterans with large social media followings in civilian government roles. Neither the Pentagon nor the influencers have disclosed what those jobs entail, even as they use social media to amplify Hegseth’s positions and attack his critics, according to people familiar with the matter and material reviewed by the Post.
Retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness and retired Army Col. Kurt Schlichter, who respectively have 135,000 and nearly 620,000 followers on Elon Musk’s X platform, hold active Pentagon email addresses assigned to the office of Anthony Tata, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. A third influencer, retired Army Col. Thomas Anderson, who writes online as Cynical Publius, held a similar assignment earlier this year.
Pentagon spokesman Joel Valdez declined to say whether any of the three draws a taxpayer-funded salary or how long their assignments are expected to last. Maness has published columns defending Hegseth’s personnel decisions without disclosing his government role. Similarly, Schlichter praised Hegseth’s handling of sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln days before conditions aboard the carrier became a national controversy.
Online critics have noted that many of these influencers have even defended the White House on the question of the Epstein files.
Maness, Schlichter and Anderson also represented the Pentagon’s Senior Service College Task Force during a visit to the Army War College in May. Hegseth said in March that the task force was formed to root out “toxic” or “woke” ideology. Task force members questioned students and professors about their views of Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine. Some students told colleagues they were unsure how candid to be for fear of retaliation, according to people familiar with the visit. In other words, the influencers were pressing War College students on their loyalty to Hegseth while keeping their own Pentagon roles secret.
The contrast between these propagandists and Hegseth’s treatment of the press corps is stark. In September 2025, the Pentagon began requiring credentialed journalists to pledge not to solicit or publish information, even if unclassified, without prior authorization. Hegseth warned that credentials could be revoked from anyone judged a security risk. Nearly all of the more than 100 journalists who cover the Pentagon refused to sign, surrendering their badges rather than accept the terms. Only 15 signed, most from conservative outlets. The New York Times sued the Defense Department that December, and in March 2026 U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled the policy unconstitutional, finding it discriminated based on “editorial viewpoint” and ordering credentials restored.
The Pentagon responded within days with a revised policy that relocated reporters’ workspace to an annex outside the building and barred them from moving through the building without an escort. Times attorneys argued the Pentagon was defying the judge’s order “in letter and spirit.”
The current Pentagon press corps remains composed mostly of outlets that agreed to the original policy, while reporters from the AP and other major news organizations continue covering the Pentagon from outside it. Judge Friedman later blocked enforcement of parts of the revised policy as well, but a federal appeals panel allowed the escort requirement to remain in place. A full panel upheld that decision in July, and the escort requirement remains in force while the underlying case continues.
The department’s third deterioration puts the lives of service members at stake. The U.S. military is now bearing the operational cost of high-level decisions that its own commanders have formally objected to.
On Aug. 14, Hegseth’s own top commanders pushed back formally against the order to extend U.S. force levels in the Middle East. Citing people familiar with the pushback, the Washington Post reported that the heads of European, Pacific and Southern Commands, along with the Navy’s top admiral, responded with a so-called “non-concur.” In the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, that denotes a formal disagreement with the order, even if they will carry it out.
To be clear, commanders do occasionally file similar risk warnings. But Slate’s Fred Kaplan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning national security columnist who has covered the Pentagon since the 1980s, noted the difference. Citing a former senior Navy officer and a retired Navy operations officer, Kaplan observed that it is unusual for so many commanders to file such non-concurs simultaneously during an active combat operation, and “still more unusual, perhaps unprecedented,” for the objections to come from commanders who had been chosen or allowed to remain in their posts in part for their perceived loyalty to Trump and Hegseth.
The Middle East extension order is concerning on several levels. Per the Post’s reporting, it directs some forces to remain in the region through September and others into 2027. European Command and Southern Command leaders told Hegseth that redirecting their ships and surveillance aircraft to support the Iran war has degraded their ability to fulfill homeland-defense missions. Adm. Samuel Paparo, who leads Pacific Command, objected to the continued diversion of an aircraft carrier strike group and destroyers under his command. And Adm. Daryl Caudle, the chief of naval operations, gave Hegseth the bleakest assessment: Barely one-fourth of the Navy’s destroyer fleet is ready to deploy, a sharp decline from prewar levels, and the Navy cannot sustain its current support without a defined end date. One person familiar with the assessment described the overall tenor as an Iran operation that, six months in, had become “too much for too long.”
The Army and Air Force concurred with extending their deployments but flagged significant risks. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division’s mobilized soldiers who deployed in March will remain overseas for a full year. The division commander wrote to families that le…
