Fear, loathing and lie detectors - Hegseth's Pentagon descends into "chaos"
10:33 Share

Huh.

Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use. BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out.

Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit BetterHelp.com slash Random Podcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Alex Dibble and Toby Gillis. Donald Trump's controversial selection to lead the Pentagon is under increasing pressure. Pete Hegseth is under investigation for leaking sensitive information relating to attacks on the Houthis in the Red Sea.

But in the meantime, he's busy trying to clean up the department. With threats of lie detector tests for staff who may be responsible for leaks, a number of senior officials removed, and what some have described as a culture of uncertainty, chaos and fear being fostered. But is this a case of cracking eggs to get a perfect omelette? Or is the Pentagon falling apart, risking its international reputation and leaving the West vulnerable to adversaries who might take advantage?

Our guest today is Michael Evans, The Times' former Pentagon correspondent, who also covered defence for the paper for 23 years. Michael, how have we got to this position? And what are you hearing about the current dissatisfaction within the Pentagon? Well, I think it started probably almost the first day that Pete Hexeth,

was confirmed by the Senate as President Trump's first, maybe only, but who knows, defense secretary. Trump had made it clear that he wanted to turn the Pentagon upside down.

Not necessarily a bad thing. The Pentagon is a huge organization, 26,000 or so actually employed inside the Pentagon, nearly 3 million altogether with the military outside all over the world. So he wanted to make sure that it was, should we say, streamlined and less bureaucratic, and that when he ordered a ship, he didn't want it in 10 years' time, he wanted it in five years' time. So

A reasonable sort of vision, if you like, but he put Pete Hegseth in charge of this.

Not a guy with any experience of running a major organization, let alone one as big as the Pentagon. So I think from pretty well day one, everyone working at the Pentagon was, should we say, wary at the very least. And there is an element of, certainly from the people I've spoken to, of intimidation, if you like, which is sort of, you know, do your job that we expect or else. This has created a really...

a really cautious, wary, fearful sort of atmosphere in the Pentagon, which I've never come across before. And I was Pentagon correspondent for The Times and was in the Pentagon pretty well every day for three years. So I sort of know the place reasonably well. And very recently,

Another element has grown into the Pentagon, and that is a sort of paranoia because the people at the top, particularly Pete Hexeth, is afraid that a number of people, senior people, have been leaking against him.

or just leaking classified material to the media, which, of course, is not allowed. Now, leaking goes on all the time in Washington. So it's not particularly unusual. But for the present administration, particularly, this is anathema.

Yes, and as a result of that, Pete Hegseth fired three senior people, as well as his chief of staff and top spokesman, didn't he? This comes while Hegseth himself is under investigation for leaking those secrets on the messaging app Signal. How much is that linked, Michael, or perhaps about hiding from that by laying the blame elsewhere? Well, I mean, in many ways it's linked completely, and in other ways it's not.

It's a side issue, if you like, because what's going on is what's going on in the Pentagon. So it would have happened anyway and would continue to happen anyway. But for Pete Hegseth, of course, the Signal saga, if you like, is, of course, embarrassing because

Although I don't think it was necessarily his fault the first time round, then the second Signal chat involved Pete Hexer's wife and his brother and his personal lawyer. The last two, by the way, both of whom actually work in the Pentagon, so there's a degree of authenticity there, if you like. But what is strange to me, certainly, is that in both the Signal communications,

incredible amount of detail about the imminent attacks on the Houthis was produced. And I don't really see why that was necessary in

Then you had the big connection between what Hexeth was doing with his secret government material and then his focus on leaks inside the Pentagon. Then the two were interlinked and you couldn't get away from it. And now, of course, every time you mention Pete Hexeth, you mention the signal secrets that were revealed to the world.

In a defence department, of course, intelligence is the main thing they have and sharing it with allies is important. If that intelligence is leaked, it's no longer valuable because your adversaries have it as well. So isn't Hegzeth right to try and weed out the leakers, whether he's guilty of it or not?

I guess. Yes, obviously, it's important. Intelligence has to be kept within the need-to-know circle, as they say, so that, you know, obviously, if it all is blasted out on the front pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post, every time the Pentagon or the White House decides to send an aircraft carrier somewhere, this is very bad news. I mean, as you rightly pointed out,

There are very, very close intelligence sharing arrangements, particularly between these members of the so-called Five Eyes Club. I have to say two things. First of all, the release of information about the attacks on the Houthis did not take place before they actually happened. So it wasn't a leak in that sense. It all came after the attacks that happened. So I think that's quite important to make that point.

But the second thing is that obviously this intelligent sharing family is crucial and has been crucial for so many, many decades that inevitably when there are serious leaks occurring in Washington, Washington being, you know, the, the, the leader of the group, then obviously that has repercussions across this five eyes club. However,

The personal relationships between the heads and lower down of all the intelligence services between these five countries, so that's America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom.

They are absolutely profound and sacred, if you like. So whoever the president, whatever he or she in the future does, those relationships are absolutely key and will remain. So there's a huge degree of trust.

And the investment in intelligence is absolutely huge. And therefore, we, the Brits, don't want to lose out on it. But obviously, there are people who will be concerned that if there are terrible leaks in Washington, it will have an impact. If that trust, those international relationships are eroded because of Hexeth's leadership, surely that is the end of him, isn't it? I mean, what's the point of the Pentagon if it's burning bridges internationally?

Well, I mean, I have to say, we do have a very different administration in the White House. I mean, patently, Donald Trump does not view America's allies in the same way as, let's say, his predecessors and all his predecessors.

He's less tied to alliances, but he will also be aware that this sort of alliance is absolutely crucial. So all these things will eventually maybe will may come to a head. And, you know, it's very difficult to predict what will happen to Pete Hexeth. Michael, let's suppose the relationships with the allies do remain strong.

Even so, this uncertainty, this chaos in the Pentagon, surely it can only be a good thing for America's adversaries. Well, I mean, I would, you know, I would I would love to have a morning inside the Kremlin, for instance. The trouble is it gives Vladimir Putin a huge amount of ammunition, if you like.

You know, he's engaged in this war in Ukraine. He's under huge pressure from Donald Trump to bring the war to an end.

And I think Putin is probably thinking to himself, Washington's got a lot of problems at the moment. I think I can play this one along as long as I can. So I think he will look at the headlines with a degree of satisfaction. Quite what, you know, the leadership in Beijing thinks, of course, is even more difficult to predict. But I guess because they know that America presents

the greatest rivalry to them in every aspect, economically, militarily, etc., that they will also take all this into account

You know, Beijing thinks long term more than probably any other country in the world. So they won't be jumping up and down thinking then they can take advantage of the chaos that's reigning in the Pentagon. They're not going to do that. But I think they will look at it and say, this is all what we think goes on in a democratic world. And thank goodness we don't have a similar system.

OK, Michael, thank you. That is Michael Evans, The Times' former Pentagon correspondent. Now, whether because of the Pentagon issues or others, what is clear is that America's historic allies are increasingly looking within to protect themselves. We analysed how that's happening on Tuesday this week with The Times' defence editor, and it is well worth a listen. For now, though, thank you for taking ten minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. See you tomorrow.

Support for this podcast and the following message is brought to you by E-Trade from Morgan Stanley. With E-Trade, you can dive into the market with easy-to-use tools, zero-dollar commissions, and a wide range of investments. And now there's even more to love. Get access to industry-leading research and insights from Morgan Stanley to help guide your decisions. Open an account and get up to $1,000 or more with a qualifying deposit.

Get started today at E-Trade.com. Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC. Member SIPC. E-Trade is a business of Morgan Stanley. 1-800-Flowers.com knows that a gift is never just a gift. A gift is an expression of everything you feel and helps build more meaningful relationships. 1-800-Flowers takes the pressure off by helping you navigate life's important moments by making it simple to find the perfect gift. 1-800-Flowers.com.

From flowers and cookies to cake and chocolate, 1-800-Flowers helps guide you in finding the right gift to say how you feel. To learn more, visit 1-800-Flowers.com slash ACAST. That's 1-800-Flowers.com slash ACAST.