The White House has quietly begun the search for a new Secretary of Defense, a development that signals President Donald Trump’s second-term administration may be preparing to move on from Pete Hegseth amid growing scandal and dysfunction at the Pentagon. The news, first reported by NPR, underscores the gravity of the crisis engulfing the Department of Defense, where leadership failures have spilled into public view and now threaten national security.
Pete Hegseth, a former Army National Guard infantryman and Fox News personality, was appointed to lead the Pentagon in January 2025 after a contentious confirmation process. His selection was hailed by Trump loyalists as a return to traditional values and military “warrior ethos,” but critics warned that his lack of senior defense management experience and penchant for ideological crusades made him ill-suited to oversee America’s vast defense apparatus.
In the months since, those fears have only deepened.
Hegseth brought an unusual résumé to the role of Secretary of Defense. A graduate of Princeton and Harvard, he served in Iraq and Afghanistan, earning two Bronze Stars. But his post-military career was defined less by strategic policy work than by his high-profile role at Fox News, where he became a conservative firebrand, railing against what he labeled a “woke military” and calling for sweeping cultural reforms.
His nomination drew skepticism from lawmakers across the aisle. While some Republicans celebrated his willingness to challenge entrenched Pentagon practices, others—including several GOP senators—worried about his divisive rhetoric and inexperience. The Senate ultimately confirmed him by the narrowest of margins: 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.
Within weeks of taking office, Hegseth began reshaping the Pentagon in his image. He moved quickly to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, slashing hundreds of millions in funding, and oversaw a purge of senior leaders associated with progressive personnel policies. He promised a military focused on “lethality” and “merit,” but his critics warned that he was gutting the department’s efforts to modernize and reflect the country’s evolving demographics.
The administration celebrated his early moves as decisive. But then came the leaks.
In mid-March, Hegseth became the subject of a major national security controversy when The Atlantic revealed he had shared sensitive military information via the encrypted messaging app Signal. The message, sent on March 15 just hours before a U.S. airstrike campaign against Houthi targets in Yemen, included precise operational details—target coordinates, aircraft to be used, sequencing of attacks—all relayed to a Signal group chat that included Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
The problem? The chat also included a civilian journalist: The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
According to Goldberg, he had been added inadvertently to a chat created by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and was shocked to receive real-time updates about impending military operations. Though he did not publish the sensitive specifics, Goldberg’s report detailed the breach and sparked bipartisan alarm in Washington.
“It’s a serious life and death matter,” Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said in a Senate hearing. “We’re talking about compromising the safety of American servicemembers. There must be accountability.”
The Pentagon initially downplayed the incident, claiming no classified data was shared. But current and former national security officials pointed out that operational plans—even if not explicitly marked classified—are typically treated as such due to the danger they pose if intercepted.
Especially troubling was the inclusion of specifics about the F/A-18 Hornet and MQ-9 Reaper platforms. The F/A-18, a supersonic, carrier-capable fighter jet, and the MQ-9, a high-endurance strike drone, represent the cutting edge of U.S. power projection. If adversaries such as Iran—widely known to back the Houthis—had intercepted the Signal messages, the result could have been catastrophic.
Iran’s drone and missile capabilities are growing, as evidenced by exports to Russia and increased Houthi sophistication. Operational secrecy is a key edge the U.S. holds. That edge was risked—perhaps lost—because of what some are calling Hegseth’s amateur missteps.
If the March breach raised alarms, an April revelation all but confirmed to many inside Washington that Hegseth was unfit for the role.
The New York Times reported that Hegseth had sent similar operational details through a separate Signal chat named “Defense | Team Huddle.” This private group included his wife, Jennifer Rauchet (a former Fox News producer with no Pentagon role), his brother Phil (a Homeland Security liaison), his personal lawyer, and others. At least some of the information mirrored what had been shared in the first chat—including flight schedules for the Yemen strikes.
Again, while the Defense Department insisted no classified intel had been compromised, lawmakers were unconvinced.
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, called the episode a “reckless disregard” for national security norms.
“What possible justification exists for sharing sensitive operational data with someone’s spouse or personal attorney?” Reed asked during a televised interview. “This is not how a modern military should function.”
Security experts echoed the concern, noting that while Signal is encrypted, it is not approved for classified communications. Its use for high-level operational discussions is highly irregular—and potentially dangerous.
As the Signal scandals dominated headlines, the Pentagon itself appeared to be unraveling.
In early April, four of Hegseth’s senior aides were either fired or resigned amid an internal leak investigation. Among them was Dan Caldwell, a longtime adviser and veteran of conservative policy circles, who was reportedly one of the administrators of the initial Signal group. Caldwell was escorted out of the building, a move that shocked even political allies.
Former Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot, once a close ally of Hegseth, resigned soon after and published a scathing op-ed in Politico. He described the department under Hegseth as experiencing a “full-blown meltdown,” accusing Pentagon leadership of retaliating against staff rather than addressing deeper structural problems.
“Pete came in with a mission,” Ullyot wrote. “But that mission has been lost amid chaos, finger-pointing, and political gamesmanship.”
Ullyot also claimed the real issue was not leaks, but incompetence. “The problems at the Pentagon today aren’t because someone talked to the press. They’re because bad decisions are being made at the top, with real-world consequences.”
Beyond security breaches, Hegseth’s broader leadership and policy direction have drawn harsh scrutiny. His aggressive rollback of DEI initiatives has been celebrated by conservatives but criticized by former defense officials as short-sighted and potentially harmful to long-term readiness.
Paul Eaton, a retired Army general and early critic, said that focusing on culture war talking points rather than global strategic threats was “a distraction at best—and a vulnerability at worst.”
Others, including Caroline Zier, a former Pentagon official, warned that Hegseth’s marginalization of women and minority officers could undermine morale and hurt recruitment. Military enlistment goals have already fallen short in recent years, and critics argue the current climate may worsen that trend.
“There’s no evidence that eliminating DEI improves unit cohesion,” Zier said. “But there’s a lot of evidence that a hostile environment makes it harder to bring in and keep top talent.”
Hegseth’s defenders say he’s correcting a years-long drift in military focus. But opponents argue that his ideological rigidity is costing the Pentagon its professionalism.
The Signal scandals have quickly become a political liability for the White House. Democrats have seized on the opportunity to criticize both Hegseth and President Trump’s leadership.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) have called for Hegseth’s immediate resignation. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), an Iraq War veteran, said Hegseth posed a “clear and present danger” to national security.
Even some Republicans have begun to distance themselves. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a retired Air Force general, said Hegseth had shown an “amateur disregard for chain of command and protocol.” Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), however, countered that “no one should lose their job over a chat app.”
Trump, for his part, has publicly backed Hegseth. Speaking at the White House Easter Egg Roll, he said, “Pete’s doing a great job.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed the media and “recently-fired leakers” for creating a false narrative.
But the private search for a successor tells a different story.
According to NPR, the White House has begun vetting potential replacements, though no names have been released. The process is expected to take weeks, with the administration reportedly considering candidates with both military credibility and political loyalty.
The timing is critical. The Pentagon is managing several high-stakes operations, including continued airstrikes in Yemen, troop deployments to the U.S.-Mexico border, and renewed tensions with NATO allies over defense spending. These issues demand steady, credible leadership—something the administration may now feel Hegseth can no longer provide.
Trump’s first term was marked by rapid turnover at the Pentagon. Secretaries Jim Mattis, Mark Esper, and Christopher Miller all departed amid policy clashes or political fallout. Hegseth was supposed to be different: loyal, aligned, unshakeable.
Instead, his tenure has become a case study in what happens when loyalty eclipses competence.
The White House must now walk a delicate line. Replacing Hegseth risks alienating Trump’s base and inviting media scrutiny. But keeping him in place may erode trust among allies, undermine military morale, and embolden adversaries.
In many ways, the crisis surrounding Pete Hegseth crystallizes a core dilemma of Trump’s second term: the tension between ideological loyalty and effective governance. Hegseth was chosen not for his defense credentials but for his political alignment and media savvy. That choice may now be costing the administration more than it bargained for.
