Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed several senior military officials, including a top general whose intelligence report on Iran upset President Donald Trump. According to officials familiar with the matter, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse has been removed as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
Two other senior leaders — Vice Adm. Nancy Lacore, chief of the Navy Reserve, and Rear Adm. Milton Sands, a Navy SEAL in charge of Naval Special Warfare Command — were also fired.
No official reasons were given for their dismissals. However, the moves add to a growing list of intelligence and military officials who have faced removal after being viewed as disloyal or critical of Trump.
Fallout Over Iran Strike Assessment
Kruse’s firing comes two months after a leaked DIA assessment on U.S. airstrikes against Iran revealed that Tehran’s nuclear program had only been delayed “a few months.” This finding directly contradicted Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims that Iran’s program had been destroyed.
Trump had declared the strikes had “completely and fully obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability. He strongly rejected the DIA’s conclusion, continuing his long history of dismissing intelligence reports he disagreed with. This pattern dates back to 2017 when intelligence agencies confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election on his behalf.
Hegseth, defending the strikes in June, dismissed questions about the limited assessment. He insisted:
“You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated — choose your word. This was a historically successful attack.”
Also Read: ‘Great Friend’: Trump Announces Sergio Gor as Ambassador to India
Democrats Warn of Political Purge
Lawmakers, especially Democrats, expressed concern that these firings undermine U.S. national security.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the decision, “The firing of yet another senior national security official underscores the Trump administration’s dangerous habit of treating intelligence as a loyalty test rather than a safeguard for our country.”
Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, demanded an explanation. He warned that without one, people would “assume that this is another politically motivated decision intended to create an atmosphere of fear” in the intelligence community.
Broader Shake-Up in Military and Intelligence Agencies
These dismissals are part of a broader reshuffle within Trump’s administration.
-
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) recently announced cuts to staff and budget, while also revoking more security clearances of current and former officials.
-
The Pentagon confirmed that Air Force Chief Gen. David Allvin will retire two years earlier than expected.
-
Several other senior leaders, including Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr. (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), the Navy’s top officer, the Air Force’s second highest-ranking officer, and multiple military lawyers, have already been dismissed.
Earlier this year, Hegseth also removed Gen. Tim Haugh, head of the National Security Agency, and Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, a top NATO official.
Push Against DEI and Data Transparency
Although the Pentagon has not provided detailed reasons, reports suggest some of the firings may be tied to support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which Trump has ordered to be eliminated from government agencies.
The Trump administration has also been accused of blocking or removing data that does not align with its political stance. Examples include:
-
firing an official after a negative jobs report,
-
halting publication of climate change studies,
-
canceling vaccine access research, and
-
removing data on gender identity from federal websites.
What the Firings Signal
The removal of Kruse, Lacore, and Sands, first reported by The Washington Post, highlights how Trump and Hegseth are reshaping U.S. military and intelligence leadership. Critics argue that these moves could discourage dissenting views and force officials to align with the president’s political narrative rather than independent assessments.
