Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed several high-ranking Pentagon officials amid growing controversy over the reported results of the United States’ recent military strikes in Iran.
According to Fox News, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other top military leaders were removed after a leaked assessment cast doubt on the long-term impact of Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in June.
Hegseth’s decision was confirmed Friday by a senior defense official who informed Fox News Digital that Kruse had been formally relieved of his post. Kruse led the Defense Intelligence Agency, the agency responsible for gathering and analyzing military intelligence for the Pentagon. His dismissal followed the public surfacing of a classified assessment on Operation Midnight Hammer. The operation in question was launched in June and involved coordinated U.S. military airstrikes on key Iranian nuclear sites, including facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Following the mission, President Donald Trump described the action as a triumph, declaring that the facilities had been “completely and fully obliterated.”
Intelligence Report Triggered Leadership Shake-Up
The internal DIA assessment, however, offered a more restrained view. It reportedly concluded that the airstrikes had only delayed Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, falling short of the administration’s public characterization of the operation’s success. The report was not intended for public release but was leaked to media outlets, increasing pressure on the Pentagon and undermining the White House narrative.
After the document became public, tensions intensified within the administration. Hegseth aimed at members of the press, stating that reporters were “cheering against Trump” and suggesting that media coverage of the leaked report aimed to discredit the mission’s effectiveness. His comments came as the administration sought to present a unified and optimistic view of U.S. military capabilities. Alongside Kruse, two other senior Navy leaders were dismissed: Vice Adm. Nancy Lacore, Chief of the Navy Reserve, and Rear Adm. Milton “Jamie” Sands, Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command. Their removals were announced by Navy officials as effective immediately, yet no explanation was offered regarding the reasons for their ousters.
Experienced Leaders Removed Without Clarified Reasons
Vice Adm. Lacore brought extensive experience to her role. She oversaw tens of thousands of reserve personnel in the Navy and Marine Corps and had previously commanded the U.S. military base in Djibouti. An accomplished Naval aviator as well, she had logged over 1,300 flight hours during her career.
Rear Adm. Sands had a similarly distinguished service record. As a Navy SEAL, he had seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and previously served in senior leadership positions across Special Operations Command and Naval Service Training Command. Defense officials have not disclosed the circumstances surrounding Lacore and Sands’ removals. Their dismissals, however, fit a broader pattern within the Trump administration, which has recently seen a wave of reshuffling within the military’s top ranks.
Trump Continues Restructuring of Military Leadership
In addition to Kruse, Lacore, and Sands, other recent dismissals under President Trump include the removal of Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr., who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Several other key military legal advisors and high-ranking officers from the Air Force and Navy have also been replaced in recent months. This series of abrupt changes has raised concerns within the defense community regarding political motivations behind military personnel decisions. Critics argue that purging top officials in response to inconvenient intelligence undermines the independence of military institutions and long-standing norms of civilian oversight.
At the center of the current controversy, Lt. Gen. Kruse had reportedly been scheduled to speak with lawmakers. It is unclear whether that meeting will still take place or what information he was expected to present related to Operation Midnight Hammer or his agency’s assessment.
Ongoing Debate Over Military Strategy in Iran
President Trump has maintained his stance that the airstrikes carried out in June were both strategically and tactically successful. He said that the United States had eliminated key components of Iran’s nuclear program and described the operation as “historically successful.”
Defending the administration’s position, Trump stated that the installations were “obliterated” and invited critics to use whatever term they preferred to mark Iran’s military defeat. “You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated — choose your word,” he said. The contrast between the President’s statements and the conclusions drawn in the leaked DIA report remains a focal point of political and military discussion. As more information becomes public, questions about the accuracy of battlefield assessments and the transparency of military leadership are expected to grow.
Future Impacts of Leadership Changes Remain Unclear
For now, the consequences of these leadership changes for the Defense Department’s daily operations and long-term strategies remain unknown. The impact on morale within the ranks, particularly among reservists and special operations units, will likely become clearer in the weeks ahead.
As policymakers on Capitol Hill continue to push for more details regarding the operation and its aftermath, administration officials have reiterated that national security remains a top priority. However, the fallout from the leaked intelligence and resultant dismissals has reignited debate over how military information is interpreted, presented, and acted upon at the highest levels of government.
The Defense Department has not publicly named successors to the dismissed officers, nor has it announced whether additional leadership changes may follow. Until then, the Pentagon remains in a period of transition, navigating the ripple effects of a strike operation now under intense public and political scrutiny.
