Politico dropped an op-ed about Secretary of State Pete Hegseth that wasn’t flattering, and an anti-Trump stooge or a hardcore liberal didn’t pen it—full disclosure: John Ullyot has written columns for Townhall. The top Pentagon aide resigned from his position, explaining that the Defense Department is now plagued by chaos and instability. He disclosed that the three top aides being fired were not dismissed for leaking classified information to the press, which was the backstory for this internal probe at the Department of Defense.
Ullyot claims they weren’t fired over these allegations, but “Hegseth’s team has developed a habit of spreading flat-out, easily debunked falsehoods anonymously about their colleagues on their way out the door.” So, what’s the beef, then? He doesn’t cite their actual reason for termination. He also says there are rumors that more firings are coming.
It’s one thing when the fake news press says something; it’s another when a close friend and adviser claims the Pentagon is a five-alarm dumpster fire. To the untrained eye, this piece is damning, but it dovetails off a New York Times piece that alleges a second Signal chat was formed that included his wife, where information on Yemen military strikes were disclosed.
Is it a coincidence? I’m willing to wait in my trench to let the fog of war dissipate. Still, I’m inclined to be highly skeptical of all anti-Hegseth news for numerous reasons, not least being that the ones who are telling the lies are from a corrupt, lying media apparatus.
We all know the legacy press and Democrats want Hegseth gone, and now we have this story, along with The New York Times trying to revive the Signalgate non-story that didn’t dent the Trump administration one bit.
In March, The Wall Street Journal got the ball rolling on Hegseth’s wife, identifying her as someone who attended meetings where sensitive information was disclosed. Again, the Signalgate 2.0 story and the Journal’s ‘his wife is in on the meetings’ stories were all backed up by anonymous sources which are notoriously incorrect, especially if it relates to any story attacking the Trump administration.
The jury is still out here, but it wouldn’t shock me if this piece also evaporates into the ether. The text and ethos of the piece reek of someone who bought into all the fake news stories about the secretary of defense: it retcons Mr. Hegseth and the Trump administration concerning the Goldberg story, accepts stories about his wife as fact, and cites the latest Times piece about Signalgate 2.0 as fact.
Why? In what world does the legacy press have any credibility to thread this as a career-ending argument for Mr. Hegseth? That’s my question regarding this piece. It reads like someone being compromised; I’m not saying that’s the case. Read it yourself.
These types of actions are why DC is disliked intensely. It oozes of palace intrigue and possible shady tactics aimed at gaining a scalp from a ruling administration. Liberals need something: Signalgate failed. The mass deportations are popular. The work DOGE is doing is popular. And Trump’s pace is making it difficult for them to develop a coherent messaging strategy. They need something, which is why character assassination is their latest ploy—how many alcoholic jokes were made about Hegseth in the past month?
And it’s not the first time a friend or whatnot decided to go against their party? Just look at the Bulwark and the Bill Kristols of the world. This isn’t the first time ambition trumped friendship if that’s what’s going on here; we’re in the world capital of politics.
I could be totally wrong, but how this is tracking seems to reek of another media-centered ploy to get the Democrats a scalp.
UPDATE: The White House issued a full-throated defense of Hegseth, while the Secretary of Defense added that the Signal antics is a game being played by disgruntled employees.
