By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the “Signalgate” incident, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s influence within the Trump administration has significantly diminished, leading to his exclusion from high-level discussions regarding potential strikes on Iran. A smaller, “Tier One” group—including Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, CIA Director Ratcliffe, and General Caine—now advises the President on military and intelligence matters. Key briefings and war planning are conducted without Hegseth’s involvement, despite Pentagon claims to the contrary. This shift reflects President Trump’s increasing reliance on military leaders and intuition over formal cabinet advice, mirroring a similar decline in influence for Director of National Intelligence Gabbard.
Read the original article here
Trump reportedly freezing out his Defense Secretary, along with other key figures, in Iran planning is a deeply concerning development. The reported lack of communication between the White House and key defense personnel suggests a troubling disregard for established protocols and expertise. This seemingly impulsive approach to matters of national security raises serious questions about the decision-making process within the administration.
The reported exclusion of the Defense Secretary is particularly alarming, given the gravity of the situation. It signals a potential breakdown in the chain of command, potentially leaving the military ill-prepared for any unforeseen circumstances. The sheer lack of coordination raises serious questions about how well-prepared the country is to handle a crisis, if it even is prepared at all.
The reliance on less qualified individuals, or at least individuals without the appropriate institutional knowledge or experience, for critical decision-making is also troubling. This could lead to poorly informed choices with significant consequences, both domestically and internationally. The suggestion that the President relies on non-traditional sources of information further adds to concerns about his competence in managing a crisis.
The fact that the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence are reportedly excluded from critical war planning discussions is unprecedented and frankly, outrageous. Such a move undermines the integrity and effectiveness of the national security apparatus, putting the nation at risk. This is not merely a matter of protocol; it’s a matter of national security and competence.
The reported lack of interface between the White House and key defense officials strongly suggests a lack of coordination and a potentially dangerous reliance on information outside of established intelligence channels. This opaque approach to foreign policy decision-making leaves the public in the dark about critical national security plans. This lack of transparency is incredibly dangerous, and should be of deep concern to all.
The implications of this alleged exclusion are far-reaching and potentially disastrous. The lack of input from military and intelligence experts raises concerns about the feasibility, legality, and morality of any decisions made. Such a reliance on non-traditional sources of advice, outside the typical chain of command, would severely endanger the nation’s security.
Ignoring the professional advice and expertise of the Defense Secretary and other senior officials would be an egregious error with potentially devastating consequences. This blatant disregard for established processes reflects a stunning level of incompetence and raises concerns about the stability and judgment of the leadership. To deliberately exclude the very people whose jobs are to advise on these issues is simply beyond comprehension.
The reported behavior underscores a potential pattern of impulsive decision-making, prioritizing personal preferences over strategic considerations. Such an approach to foreign policy is reckless and potentially destructive, undermining diplomatic efforts and threatening international stability. This situation is alarming. The actions described are not only a threat to national security but also a reflection of leadership deficits.
The President’s reported actions raise serious questions about the competence and stability of the administration. This is not just a matter of political disagreement; it’s a question of national security, and the consequences could be severe. Such an approach to managing the highest office in the land is a serious cause for concern.
The whole situation appears chaotic and dangerously unprofessional. The President’s reported actions suggest a leader operating outside of established norms and expert advice, jeopardizing the nation’s interests. There’s a potential for serious damage to the nation’s reputation, its alliances, and ultimately its security. This is a profoundly concerning matter that demands attention and redress.