The Pentagon is facing a striking dual pressure: an increasingly political battle over who speaks for the US military, and growing concern among senior commanders about the resources being consumed by the war with Iran.
According to reporting by The Washington Post, the Defense Department has secretly installed several conservative military veterans with large social-media followings in government roles, while declining to disclose their assignments. Some have been placed in civilian positions that could influence policy and have publicly amplified Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s views while attacking critics of the Trump administration.
At the same time, The Post has reported that senior US military leaders have warned Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran risks weakening the United States’ ability to respond to threats elsewhere, including to the US homeland.
Taken together, the two developments offer a picture of a Pentagon under pressure over both its public messaging and its military capacity.
Among those whose Pentagon assignments have been identified are Rob Maness, a retired Air Force colonel, and Kurt Schlichter, a retired Army colonel. Pentagon records reviewed by The Washington Post showed that both had active official government email addresses during the past week and were assigned to the office of Anthony Tata, the undersecretary of defence for personnel and readiness. Their addresses carried a “.civ” suffix, identifying them as civilian employees rather than military personnel or contractors.
A third retired Army colonel and online commentator, Thomas Anderson, was listed earlier this year with a “.civ” address and assigned to Tata’s office, according to people familiar with the matter and records reviewed by The Post. Anderson, an attorney who writes under the name Cynical Publius, has more than 323,000 followers on X. He was no longer listed in Pentagon records late this past week.
The assignments had not previously been reported. Pentagon spokesman Joel Valdez declined to tell The Post whether any of the three were receiving taxpayer-funded salaries, what their roles were or how long their assignments were expected to last. Tata did not respond to a request for comment. Maness and Schlichter did not respond to requests for comment, while Anderson declined to comment.
The people familiar with the matter said the individuals were assigned either as “special government employees” or “highly qualified experts”. Schlichter appears in a government database with an “HQE” designation. Special government employees are legally restricted to no more than 130 days of work in any 365-day period, while highly qualified experts may work full- or part-time, with or without compensation.
The secrecy surrounding the appointments has particular significance because of the political role played by the individuals outside government.
Maness, who retired from the Air Force in 2011, has more than 135,000 followers on X and has unsuccessfully sought a US Senate seat in Louisiana. He is chairman of GatorPAC, a political action committee that says it wants to “drain the swamp” in Washington and encourage more military veterans to seek office.
His public commentary has closely aligned him with Hegseth’s agenda. In a Daily Caller article published last month, Maness argued that Hegseth’s team should remove “disloyal” career employees from the department. In a Campus Reform article published Wednesday, he wrote that “Secretary Hegseth’s outrage is justified” in attacking a decision by Army leaders concerning academic standards for students in Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programmes.
In July, Maness also had a letter published in The Washington Post defending Hegseth’s efforts to reduce the number of military officers attending elite universities for fellowships. A Post spokesperson said Maness did not disclose any Pentagon connection before publication.
Schlichter, meanwhile, is a columnist with the conservative site Townhall, where he writes and podcasts about politics, immigration and military affairs. He has nearly 620,000 followers on X. On Aug. 6, he described Trump as a “hero for finally fighting back against Iran”. On Aug. 14, after posting a video of Hegseth praising sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, he wrote: “We are,lucky to have @PeteHegseth.” His X profile identifies him as a retired Army colonel, lawyer and columnist but does not disclose current Pentagon employment.
Anderson has likewise frequently criticised journalists, fellow veterans and others opposing the Trump administration while defending Hegseth’s military reforms. In April, writing for the Federalist, he said there was “a cancer in America’s military ranks, and it must be expunged before it’s too late.”
The Pentagon’s use of politically prominent influencers has also been brought into focus by the case of Jennica Pounds, who writes online under the name DataRepublican. Pounds recently accused a State Department official of attempting to entrap her into publishing government secrets. The official, Sarah Rogers, later acknowledged contacting Pounds and said the approach was not a “trap”.
The episode was followed by the disclosure that Pounds had become a special government employee at the Defense Department in July, after working as a journalist in Hegseth’s new Pentagon press corps until June. She did not respond to a request for comment.
Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman and Air Force veteran, wrote on X that it appeared the Pentagon was “using your tax dollars to hire influencers on X to put out partisan talking points.”
The Pentagon’s relationship with conservative influencers has unfolded as Hegseth has attempted to reshape the public discourse surrounding the department. Last year, he imposed new restrictions on members of the Pentagon press corps that forced dozens of journalists out of the building before introducing a new, primarily right-wing press corps.
Some of the influencers have also participated directly in Hegseth’s efforts to scrutinise military institutions. Maness, Schlichter and Anderson appeared on behalf of the Pentagon’s Senior Service College Task Force at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in May, according to people familiar with the visit.
The task force was established in the spring to examine ideology considered “toxic” or “woke” at senior service colleges. The task force has completed its research and prepared a report that has not yet been released. During their visit to Carlisle, the three met students and professors over several days and questioned them about the performance of Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some students were uncertain how candid they could be and whether answers disliked by administration officials might have consequences.
While questions are being raised about who is influencing the Pentagon’s public and policy environment, senior military leaders are warning about another problem: whether the US armed forces can sustain the scale of the Iran operation.
According to The Washington Post, a classified assessment contained in the Aug. 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book warned that prolonged large-scale operations could weaken US capabilities elsewhere. The assessment was presented to Hegseth by the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force and by four-star commanders overseeing US operations in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
The Secretary of Defense Orders Book, generally produced twice each month, records the worldwide availability of US warships, aircraft, personnel and weapons systems. It reflects presidential priorities and incorporates assessments from senior military commanders.
The assessment came as Trump continued pressing Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and accept US provisions for ending the stalemated conflict, while insisting that all options, including further military action, remained available.
US Central Command has maintained more than 50,000 troops on alert for months in case Trump orders additional attacks. The Aug. 14 orders book directs some forces in the Middle East to remain there through September and some into 2027.
Several commanders responded with what the document describes as a “non-concur”, indicating that they disagreed with extending their forces but would nevertheless carry out the orders.
The commanders of European Command, Pacific Command and Southern Command, together with the Navy’s top admiral, raised objections. Their ships, aircraft and other equipment have been diverted to support the Iran conflict, limiting their ability to conduct other missions and maintain training.
Army and Air Force leaders agreed with Hegseth’s decision to extend their forces but warned of significant risks.
The Navy’s position was particularly stark. Adm. Daryl Caudle, chief of Naval Operations, told Hegseth that the Navy could not sustain its present level of support for the Iran conflict because there was no anticipated end date, according to people familiar with the assessment. Barely one-fourth of the Navy’s destroyer fleet was ready to deploy, a sharp decline from prewar levels.
The Navy has supplied dozens of vessels for the campaign, first for the US assault and defence against Iranian counterattacks and later to enforce Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports. Some ship and crew deployments have been extended by months.
Caudle has publicly described the extensions as “very challenging for our sailors”, saying: “I typically am not a big fan of extensions, and I push back hard on that, but the enemy gets a vote.”
Other commanders expressed concerns about the effect on homeland defence. European Command and Southern Command warned that lending ships and surveillance aircraft to Central Command had degraded their ability to fulfil homeland-defence obligations. Adm. Samuel Paparo, chief of Pacific Command, disagreed with the level of support his command was ordered to provide, including an aircraft carrier strike group and naval destroyers.
The Army is also extending deployments. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, which mobilised 2,000 soldiers in March in response to the Iran war, are expected to remain deployed for a year. Maj. Gen. Brandon R. Tegtmeier, the division commander, acknowledged in a letter that longer tours weighed heavily on military households. Those troops would be central to any ground invasion of Iran.
Patriot air-defence units are also expected to have their deployments extended. Meanwhile, the depletion of Patriot interceptors through the Iran war and previous donations to Ukraine has limited the administration’s ability to escalate the conflict, according to the people familiar with the assessment.
The war has also consumed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, long-range Tomahawk missiles and Reaper drones. The Washington Post has previously reported that about 25 per cent of the Pentagon’s Reaper drone fleet has been lost, while US bases in the region have sustained billions of dollars in damage. The Trump administration has maintained that reports of munitions shortages are inaccurate.
Many Air Force units conducting bombing runs and other continuous operations in the Middle East are expected to remain in the region into 2027.
The warnings are not entirely new. Gen. Dan Caine had advised the White House before hostilities began that the United States lacked sufficient munitions and allied support for an extended large-scale campaign. More recently, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the head of European Command, privately warned that he lacked adequate naval forces to protect Israel and the US homeland from missile attacks.
In the Pacific, US allies have also raised concerns that depleted missiles and air-defence interceptors could leave them vulnerable to China. The Navy’s only dedicated aircraft carrier in the Pacific, a key element of the US strategy for deterring Beijing, was sent to the Middle East to relieve another carrier that had already been deployed for more than 300 days.
Sean Parnell, a spokesman for Hegseth, told The Washington Post that decisions on the scope and duration of force commitments are based on the current threat assessment, presidential strategic priorities and advice from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commanders. The Pentagon, he said, does not discuss internal operational processes or specific concurrences, non-concurrences and risk assessments made during force-allocation deliberations.
The two stories unfolding inside the Pentagon point to different but connected questions about power. One concerns the people being brought inside the institution to shape policy and public messaging; the other concerns the uniformed commanders responsible for sustaining the forces that implement policy.
The Washington Post’s reporting places both questions against the same backdrop: an administration seeking to reshape the Pentagon while prosecuting a prolonged war whose demands are increasingly being felt across the US military.
For Hegseth, the challenge is therefore not simply maintaining political control or winning the argument over military culture. It is also managing a force whose senior leaders are warning that the demands of the Iran operation are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
And as conservative influencers take on undisclosed government roles, the question of transparency extends beyond the battlefield. It reaches into the institution itself: who is advising the Pentagon, in what capacity, and how openly are those relationships being disclosed?
The answers remain incomplete. But the reporting by The Washington Post shows that both the Pentagon’s political transformation and the military’s growing resource concerns are unfolding at the same time, as the United States approaches a conflict that has already reached its six-month mark.
