This week’s resignation of the Army’s top civilian leader raises serious questions about military leadership under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
As the United States once again stepped up hostilities against Iran, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll’s departure – Wednesday was his last day on the job – has also raised questions about the extent to which Mr. Hegseth is prioritizing political loyalty over professional military judgment.
An Iraq War veteran and law school classmate of Vice President JD Vance, Mr. Driscoll is widely reported to have clashed with Mr. Hegseth over the future of the force. He is also said to have pushed back against Mr. Hegseth’s decision to fire or block the promotions of dozens of top officers without explaining why, moves that ended careers for many including a number of Black and female candidates.
Why We Wrote This
War requires discipline and problem-solving. Dan Driscoll’s resignation as Army secretary highlights a pattern of moves by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – at a time of conflict – that appears to prioritize political loyalty over expertise.
These moves could have a chilling effect on dissent within the ranks – perhaps by design, some military analysts say – at a time when, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops now deployed to the Middle East, frank military advice is needed most.
“When you get rid of a few people, it starts becoming more and more difficult for people to push back to say, ‘Wait a minute, Mr. Secretary,’” says retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who commanded U.S. Army forces in Europe from 2014 to 2017.
“You quell any likelihood of people saying, ‘This isn’t going to work.’”
Mounting tensions
Last April, when Mr. Hegseth fired the Army’s top officer, Gen. Randy George, without explanation, Mr. Driscoll objected.
That fueled tensions between the two men dating back to “Signalgate” in March 2025, when Mr. Hegseth accidentally added a reporter to a social media chat about a sensitive military operation. Had Mr. Hegseth not survived the scandal, Mr. Driscoll was rumored to have been a possible successor.
There were other flashpoints in the jockeying between the two men. The Army secretary had worked closely with General George on efforts to modernize the Army with programs focused on drone warfare, for example, taking lessons from Ukraine to make unmanned systems standard equipment for more soldiers.
Together, Mr. Driscoll and General George drove the development of counterdrone and artificial intelligence technologies to speed up decision-making on the battlefield, before the general was pushed into retirement.
Last month, word was that an experimental drone battalion, a signature initiative launched by Mr. Driscoll and General George, was being disbanded at the behest of Mr. Hegseth’s new acting Army chief of staff, Gen. Christopher LaNeve. With a reputation for conventional combat soldiering, General LaNeve had served as Mr. Hegseth’s senior military aide.
The decision drew criticism as possible personal retaliation and a parochial setback to modernization, despite assurances from Army officials that the phasing out of the drone battalion was a long-planned step to weave lessons learned back into the force.
That may well have been the case, analysts say. But the narrative surrounding it – that it was back-burnered because it was General George’s project – shows the extent, they add, to which Mr. Hegseth’s moves have created a sense of distrust within the service.
Tumult and extended tours
As insidery as they can seem, such policy and personnel moves can have a real impact on military preparedness. U.S. bases in the Middle East are now coming under drone attack. And this week, 82nd Airborne Division troops stationed there were told that because of the Iran war, their tours will be extended to one year, well into 2027.
“You are carrying a lot while your partner is away,” Maj. Gen. Brandon Tegtmeier, division commander, wrote in a Sunday memo to troops’ families.
That’s difficult news to deliver, and “I think leadership there is doing all the right things,” Mr. Hodges says.
But when there’s tumult at the top, troops and their families may start to question such extensions, or wonder if commanders felt empowered to push back enough on orders, he adds. Mr. Hegseth, for his part, has been accused of unlawful retribution, including against a U.S. lawmaker. The defense secretary censured Sen. Mark Kelly, a veteran, and sought to reduce his military pension after he appeared in a video reminding troops of their right to disobey unlawful orders.
Though civilian control of the military is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution, top administration officials from across the political aisle have long valued candid feedback from their military advisers.
The latest developments have left many analysts skeptical about whether senior officers, in particular, will be candid in their counsel with Mr. Hegseth and other top Trump administration officials.
But there is cause for hope on that front for troops who speak truth to power, says one retired Army general, who requested anonymity to speak freely given, he said, the administration’s retribution against active duty and retired military personnel.
For many three- and four-star officers, “They’re far enough at the end of their careers that I don’t think they’re going to hold back on their advice based on their worries about losing their current jobs,” the general argues.
“They’re in an environment where plenty of people are getting fired for doing nothing obviously wrong, or saying nothing obviously contentious,” he says.
“They’ll continue to give advice as they see it. They’ll do it tactfully, and they’ll do it realizing that it’s often not going to be welcome,” he adds. “But I have a lot of confidence that they’ll continue to do it.”