Washington — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has launched a sweeping purge inside the Pentagon, dismissing the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and other senior officials in a move that underscores the deepening politicization of the United States military establishment.
The most high-profile removal came with the firing of Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, director of the DIA, after officials said Hegseth had “lost confidence” in his leadership. Kruse’s dismissal follows weeks of tension over an intelligence report that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claims that US strikes had permanently crippled Iran’s nuclear facilities. The DIA assessment instead suggested the strikes delivered only a temporary setback, a conclusion that reportedly infuriated both the White House and senior Pentagon leadership.
Alongside Kruse, two other top officers were forced out: Vice Adm. Nancy Lacore, the chief of the Navy Reserve, and Rear Adm. Milton Sands, commander of the Naval Special Warfare Command. Both departures were framed as part of a “broader restructuring” but are widely viewed inside Washington as political acts aimed at consolidating control.
The shake-up comes at a moment of heightened scrutiny over the integrity of US intelligence. Analysts warn that the purge sends a chilling signal across the intelligence community: dissenting assessments that contradict political talking points may carry career-ending consequences. Critics in Congress, including senior Democrats, have already condemned the dismissals as an assault on the independence of national security institutions, warning that it undermines both morale and America’s credibility abroad.
For Donald Trump’s allies, however, the move is being celebrated as a course correction, replacing “disloyal” figures with voices more aligned to the administration’s agenda. Supporters argue that intelligence chiefs must be accountable to elected leadership. However, the optics of removing commanders for the substance of their assessments have raised alarm across military and diplomatic circles.
The fallout highlights a growing struggle within the Pentagon over whether intelligence will be treated as an independent guide to policy or reduced to a tool of political messaging. With Iran tensions intensifying and military operations continuing worldwide, the loss of experienced leadership at such a sensitive juncture risks leaving the United States’ security apparatus weakened and compromised.
According to Reuters, the dismissals mark one of the sharpest and most public breaks between military intelligence professionals and political leadership in recent memory, drawing comparisons to earlier moments in US history when intelligence agencies were forced to bend to political will. The agency’s report on Iran appears to have been the final catalyst, exposing the fragility of truth-telling within a system where loyalty to power is now valued above objective assessment.
