Army chief QUITS after months of clashes with Pete Hegseth as Pentagon is plunged into leadership crisis
Developing story first seen 1 hour ago
US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has resigned, becoming the latest senior figure to leave the Trump administration amid a months-long, reported feud with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The White House confirmed the departure on Monday, framing it as a planned exit after a successful tenure, though Driscoll had been expected to step down before year's end. His resignation leaves the Pentagon without a Senate-confirmed leader at the top of the Army and deepens uncertainty at a department already grappling with leadership gaps and turmoil surrounding Hegseth, who is himself said to have been sidelined within the administration.
Driscoll reportedly clashed with Hegseth over the blocking of promotions for several Army officers and the April removal of Randy George, the Army's Chief of Staff and a close Driscoll ally, whose ousting left the post without a Senate-confirmed replacement. General Christopher LaNeve, a former Hegseth aide, has been serving as interim Chief of Staff. Sources say Hegseth's moves against George and Driscoll were driven partly by insecurity about Driscoll — a Vance ally and former Army officer — as a potential successor since the March 2025 "Signal-gate" chat scandal, though accounts of Driscoll's performance in the role are disputed.
- Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigns after clashing with Pete Hegseth
- Departure leaves Army without a Senate-confirmed leader
- Feud reportedly tied to promotions dispute and General Randy George's firing
New here? Start with this
Driscoll had been serving as US Army Secretary, the top civilian official responsible for running the Army, working alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who oversees the whole Pentagon. Over recent months the pair had reportedly been at odds, with tension building over decisions affecting senior Army officers and leadership appointments.
The disagreements came to a head with the removal in April of General Randy George, the Army's most senior serving officer and a close ally of Driscoll, which left the Army without a Senate-confirmed head. Driscoll himself was seen as closely aligned with Vice President JD Vance, and some reports have linked the friction to fallout from an earlier scandal involving a leaked group chat among top officials, known as "Signalgate".
This matters because the Pentagon, the headquarters of the US military, has faced repeated turnover and internal disputes under Hegseth's leadership, raising questions about stability at the top of America's armed forces. Driscoll's departure adds to a pattern of senior officials leaving the Trump administration amid reported clashes with Hegseth.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Secretary Hegseth's approach argue that any defense secretary is entitled, indeed obliged, to build a team he trusts and who share his vision for reforming the military, and that reshuffling senior personnel, including replacing a chief of staff or declining to advance certain officers, is a legitimate exercise of his statutory authority rather than evidence of malice. They would point to the White House's characterisation of Driscoll's departure as a planned exit capping a successful tenure, and caution against reading Washington rumour and palace intrigue into what may simply be ordinary, if unusually public, turnover at senior levels of an administration.
The case against
Critics counter that sidelining a respected Army Chief of Staff and effectively pushing out a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official, apparently because he was seen as a political rival rather than for any failure of policy or competence, damages good order at the Pentagon and leaves the Army without confirmed civilian and uniformed leadership at a sensitive moment. They would argue that a pattern of blocked promotions and abrupt removals suggests personal loyalty and self-preservation are being placed above institutional stability and professional merit, values they see as essential to a military that must remain trusted and apolitical.
More coverage