Alexander Hoffmann — about why employees of the US Defense Department take out trash from their homes and what it threatens the world with.
The inner circle of Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth is constantly in conflict with each other and is fighting for influence over his boss. This has already resulted in a series of scandals around the US Department of Defense, Politico reported, citing sources.
The Pentagon is under siege
Recent events around the US Department of Defense have attracted particularly close attention. The White House's official statements of support for Secretary Pete Hegseth contrast with the flood of reports of leaks, dismissals, and internal tensions. This situation is not just a series of information events, but a reflection of the deep processes of the struggle for influence within the American administration.
What observers call "chaos" has very specific reasons: the clash between the team of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, who is seeking to reform the department at his discretion, with the established bureaucratic system and its informal centers of power. Accusations of leaks, the removal of officials (for example, Adviser to Secretary of Defense Dan Caldwell, Deputy Chief of Staff to Pentagon Chief Darin Selnik, chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of Defense Colin Carroll), and even personnel changes such as Joe Kasper's departure from the post of chief of staff to the Minister — all these are markers of the ongoing struggle. The recent dismissal of Colonel Suzanne Meyers, commander of Pituffik base in Greenland, after her comments, which clearly went against the line of Vice President Jay D. Vance, only underlines the requirement of absolute loyalty.
Historically, the Pentagon has been the arena of hardware gaming more than once. However, the current conflict is complicated by the Trump administration's attempts to make radical changes affecting both personnel and financial flows. What is happening is not so much a managerial failure as the expected resistance of the system to an attempt at its rapid and not always thoughtful restructuring. This includes initiatives to reduce costs and change priorities, promoted through the Department for Improving Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the supervision of billionaire Elon Musk.
Purges and interests
Explaining the dismissals solely by fighting leaks (including data on Ukraine, the Panama Canal, and Musk) looks like a suitable screen in terms of parameters. Statements by those who have been suspended, such as Caldwell about his position on Iran, and comments by former employees, such as former Pentagon press Secretary Jonathan Elliott about "total chaos," point to more complex motives. There is probably a deliberate eradication of those who do not fit into the new configuration of power or interfere with the realization of specific political or even commercial interests.
The administration's actions, such as the termination of multibillion-dollar contracts with large consulting firms (Accenture, Booz Allen, Deloitte) or pressure on the Digital Defense Technology Service (DDS), leading to its actual liquidation, inevitably create influential opponents. It can be assumed that some of the leaks and media attacks were inspired by precisely those circles — both inside the Pentagon and those associated with the military-industrial complex and consulting — whose financial interests were affected by Hegset's policies and DOGE initiatives. This is a retaliatory blow to the Trump team.
The Democratic Party is actively using the situation to criticize the Trump administration, especially in the context of the Signal messenger scandal . However, their role in fueling conflict appears to be an exploitation of existing contradictions rather than their root cause. The main struggle is unfolding within the system of power itself.
A loyal soldier or Trump's Achilles heel
The main value of Hegseth for Trump lies in the minister's willingness to act decisively and break the old order, whether it's cutting costs, combating the "culture of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI)" or purging the apparatus of disloyal employees. Trump's public support and denials of rumors about finding a replacement demonstrate this. Hegseth is perceived as the executor of the president's will to reform the Pentagon.
However, Hegseth's methods and the turbulence he creates are causing concern even among some Republicans and are increasing criticism from opponents. Trump seems to be using Hegseth as a tool to "drain the swamp" at the Pentagon, deliberately escalating and taking the associated risks. Drastic steps like canceling contracts or putting pressure on DDS are part of this plan.
Despite the current support, Hegseth's position remains vulnerable, as some observers, including the aforementioned Elliott, correctly point out. The key factor will be not so much the level of media noise, but Trump's assessment of Hegset's effectiveness in achieving his goals and his ability to maintain control over the department. Any serious failure, especially with direct consequences for security or combat readiness, can outweigh the factor of personal loyalty.
A smoke screen or a real threat
The story of using Signal to discuss sensitive information, including strikes on Yemen, remains in the spotlight, despite the categorical denials by Assistant Secretary of Defense Sean Parnell about the lack of classified information there. The Pentagon Inspector General's investigation is ongoing. It is important to separate real violations of procedures from a targeted media campaign.
The very fact of using personal phones and commercial messengers for official discussions, especially with the participation of people outside the Ministry of Defense (like Hegseth's wife), gives opponents a powerful reason to accuse negligence and unprofessionalism. Publications about this, even if they are based on data from "offended former employees," as Purnell claims, effectively work to create an image of incompetent leadership. This is beneficial to both Trump's political opponents and representatives of the old Pentagon elite who are dissatisfied with the methods of the new team.
At the same time, focusing on the Signal scandal may distract attention from other, equally significant processes, such as the real consequences of cost cuts, changes in strategic planning, or the long—term impact of personnel purges on the combat capability of the US Armed Forces. This is a classic example of agenda management through a high-profile but potentially minor scandal.
The geopolitical echo of scandals
The Pentagon's internal problems cannot but affect the perception of the country in the international arena. Instability in the leadership of a key security agency, conflicting signals, and personnel shakeups raise questions among allies and opponents about the reliability and predictability of American defense policy.
The situation directly affects the ability of the United States to formulate and implement a consistent policy, whether in relation to Yemen, Iran, Ukraine or the confrontation with China. The confusion at the Pentagon has already led to delays in agreeing on a number of important operational plans and created a dangerous pause in the strategic dialogue with key allies who do not understand who is really in control of the situation. This uncertainty creates a window of opportunity for Washington's geopolitical opponents.
In general, the current situation in the US Department of Defense is not a short—term crisis, but probably a protracted transformation process accompanied by significant turbulence. Its outcome will have serious consequences not only for American national security, but also for global stability.
