In contemporary Washington, leaks are political warfare by other means — and the body count has been rising at the Pentagon. Over the past week, the Defence Department has been racked by internal conflict. Three of defence chief Pete Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave and then fired, allegedly as part of a leak investigation. Then, Hegseth’s chief of staff — who allegedly ordered that investigation — was out the door, too.

In addition to massacring the senior political staff of the Pentagon, this battle has now drawn in Hegseth himself. Over the weekend, a former defence spokesman (who was appointed to that position by Hegseth) wrote a piece for Politico essentially calling for the former Fox News presenter’s ouster and warning that future scandals would be coming. Coincidentally, The New York Times reported on Sunday about the existence of yet another Signal chat in which Hegseth allegedly talked about operational defence details with his inner circle (including his wife and personal lawyer).

If the first Signal group chat controversy risked inflaming tensions between hawks and restrainers in the Trump administration, the current leak battles seem to be the ratcheting up of this struggle. This Pentagon meltdown comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks prefer a more assertive stance toward the regime, while many restrainers warn against geopolitical escalation. Reportedly, President Trump decided not to back a planned Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities — with Hegseth and JD Vance warning against intervention — and the Trump team seems to be hoping to strike some nuclear deal with Iran.

This policy tug-of-war intersects with personnel power struggles. Many restrainer voices in the press have continued to push for the removal of the hawkish National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and the three fired Hegseth aides were identified as restrainers. Dan Caldwell, one of those purged staffers, posted a statement to X on behalf of himself and his two colleagues, attacking their treatment as “unconscionable” and pledging to continue supporting Trump. Shortly after that, Caldwell wrote another post slamming “Iran hawks”. Even through the fog of administrative war, the stakes of Iran policy for both sides seem relatively clear.

When it comes to war, the President’s own impulses are conflicted. Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth as well as the Iraq War, Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts. In the Trump White House, “regime change” has the same taint that “appeasement” had in the George W. Bush administration. At the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion.

With his background in cable news and relative distance from the rigidly formulated ideologies of the Beltway policy communities, Pete Hegseth could seem in some ways a complement to Trump’s own heterogeneous impulses on foreign policy. As of yet, he has straddled both camps, but that has also meant that he has drawn the ire of both sides — hence, the current leak war.

However, Hegseth’s exit would cause the battle between the two sides to grow even fiercer, and a protracted Pentagon civil war could paralyse the Trump administration’s ambitious reform efforts. Perhaps realising these political dangers, the White House has stood strongly behind Hegseth. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt slammed the anti-Hegseth leaks and said that the “entire Pentagon” was working to sabotage him.

Trump’s politics of strength make him especially resistant to any idea of capitulating to the press, so the side (whether restrainers or hawks) that becomes too identified with leaks could see themselves frozen out. In Trump’s White House, the persona of the president matters far more than any ideology, so those of a more ideological bent will have to learn to compromise — or risk exile from the corridors of power.

---