(DailyChive.com) – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lashes out at media for “undermining national security” with leaked reports that question the effectiveness of Trump’s Iran nuclear strikes.
Key Takeaways
- Defense Secretary Hegseth accused media outlets of “breathlessly” reporting a leaked preliminary intelligence assessment that contradicted Trump administration claims about Iran strike effectiveness
- The Pentagon released classified footage of bunker-buster bomb tests to counter media narratives and demonstrate the strikes’ destructive power
- Intelligence officials including DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe backed administration claims while Democratic senators remain skeptical
- Hegseth warned Iran that any retaliation “will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed” during Operation Midnight Hammer
Pentagon Leadership Slams “Agenda-Driven” Media Coverage
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unleashed a blistering attack on mainstream media outlets during a June 26 Pentagon press conference, accusing journalists of undermining the success of Operation Midnight Hammer. The operation, which targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21, was described by President Trump as having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. Hegseth specifically condemned news organizations for reporting on a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) preliminary assessment suggesting the strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by “months” rather than eliminating the program entirely.
“Let me be clear about something,” Hegseth declared during the tense briefing. “Whoever leaked that preliminary assessment had an agenda to try to muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful. And the media breathlessly reported it without context or understanding of how these assessments work.”
Administration Counters with Classified Evidence
In an unprecedented move to counter what they called “misleading narratives,” Pentagon officials declassified and released video footage showing tests of the 30,000-pound “bunker-buster” bombs used in the strikes. Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine emphasized these weapons represented “15 years of development and testing” specifically designed to penetrate Iran’s most hardened underground facilities. The administration’s forceful pushback included coordinated statements from top intelligence officials backing claims of the operation’s effectiveness.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued statements affirming the targeted sites were “destroyed” and Iran’s nuclear program “severely damaged.” Hegseth described the operation as “the most complex and secretive military mission in history” and a “resounding success” that demonstrated American resolve. The coordinated messaging campaign highlighted the administration’s frustration with what they perceive as politically motivated leaks designed to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy achievements.
Democrats Express Skepticism Despite Pentagon Assurances
The administration’s confident assertions have met resistance from Democratic lawmakers who emerged from classified briefings unconvinced by the Pentagon’s claims. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) directly accused President Trump of “deliberately misleading the public” about the strikes’ effectiveness. Several senators indicated it was “too early to know” the full impact of the operation, contradicting the administration’s definitive statements about having eliminated Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Even as Hegseth forcefully defended the operation’s success, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Caine acknowledged during the same press conference that “final battle damage assessment will take some time,” creating an apparent contradiction with President Trump’s immediate claims of total destruction. The DIA has stood by its preliminary assessment as a “low-confidence” initial evaluation requiring refinement, further complicating the administration’s messaging efforts.
“This is typical of the liberal media and their allies in Congress,” said conservative commentator Buck Sexton on his radio program. “They’re so desperate to deny President Trump any victory that they’ll undermine our national security by leaking classified assessments before the full picture is available. The Pentagon has made it clear these strikes were successful, but that doesn’t fit the narrative they want to push.”
Operation Midnight Hammer: A Strategic Gamble
The strikes targeted three nuclear sites, including the heavily fortified Fordo mountain complex, using B-2 stealth bombers in a mission that required months of planning. While Hegseth insisted the U.S. wasn’t seeking regime change in Iran, he delivered an unmistakable warning that any retaliation “will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed” during the initial operation. The administration has highlighted the operation’s role in securing a ceasefire after 12 days of regional conflict.
“What the American people need to understand is that this operation was executed flawlessly by our brave men and women in uniform,” Hegseth stated. “The same media outlets questioning our success are the ones who’ve been wrong about Iran’s nuclear ambitions for decades. President Trump promised to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and he delivered on that promise decisively.”
Intelligence Community Divided on Assessment Protocols
The ongoing dispute reflects fundamental tensions between immediate political narratives and intelligence community protocols for damage assessment. While administration figures continue to champion the strikes as “historically successful,” intelligence professionals typically require weeks or months to determine the full impact of such operations. This methodical approach has frustrated White House officials eager to declare a definitive victory.
President Trump has taken to Truth Social to demand firings at The New York Times and CNN for what he called “FAKE stories” about the strikes’ effectiveness. His posts have galvanized supporters who see media skepticism as politically motivated rather than journalistically responsible. The controversy highlights the increasingly partisan nature of national security reporting, with Americans receiving dramatically different assessments depending on their news sources.
“The media’s obsession with undermining this administration has reached dangerous levels,” said former intelligence officer and conservative analyst Fred Fleitz. “When journalists rush to publish leaked preliminary assessments without context, they’re not serving the public interest – they’re serving an agenda. Secretary Hegseth is right to call this out for what it is.”
Copyright 2025, DailyChive.com
