The conflict in Iran remains unresolved, and Haigeses suddenly purged the army’s top ranks, suspected of fearing "being overthrown" and taking preemptive action.
A power struggle is unfolding in the Pentagon—the Secretary of Defense, Hagues, suddenly purged the Army leadership during the ongoing Iran War.
According to the New York Post citing insiders, the driving force behind this move isn’t military considerations, but rather concerns about his own position. The report shows that on Thursday, Hagues asked Army Chief of Staff General Randy George to resign immediately, with no public explanation given.
At the same time, Army Training and Transformation Command Commander General David Hodne and Army Chaplain Major General William Green were also dismissed. The Pentagon merely stated that “it’s time for a leadership change.”
Several current and former government officials revealed that the real background behind the purge is Hagues’s deep suspicion towards Army Secretary Dan Driscoll—he fears Driscoll is seeking to replace him as Secretary of Defense.
Where does the “paranoia” come from?
An official told the New York Post: “It all stems from the insecurity and paranoia Hagues developed after the ‘Signal-gate’ incident. Unfortunately, some of his closest aides haven’t calmed the situation—instead, they’ve added fuel to the fire.”
“Signal-gate” refers to Hagues accidentally adding a reporter to a group chat of national security officials in March 2025, after which his political standing has been under pressure.
A source close to the Trump administration further explained the logic: “He’s very worried about being fired. He knows Driscoll is one of the strongest candidates to succeed him. So what Hagues has been doing is targeting anyone he thinks is close to Driscoll, and taking action against them. This is the latest—and most striking—example.”
The source also revealed: “Hagues wants to fire Driscoll, but the White House told him he can’t do so, at least not for now.”
Why is Driscoll such a threat to Hagues?
Driscoll is not an ordinary figure. He was a Yale Law School classmate of Vice President Vance, and both participated in the Iraq War. Last summer, Driscoll’s name was mentioned as a potential successor to Hagues.
Last autumn, Driscoll traveled abroad as a representative for the Russia-Ukraine conflict negotiations, which became a critical point for Hagues’s growing suspicions. A source said: “Pete is extremely uneasy about Driscoll speaking privately with others in the military. The final straw for Hagues was when Vance arranged for Driscoll to serve as chief negotiator at a meeting in Ukraine.”
Meanwhile, there have already been discussions within the Pentagon about Driscoll’s successor. One government official said Hagues’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, is “self-promoting,” hoping to become Army Secretary if Driscoll is dismissed.
Timing of the infighting raises concerns
The timing of this personnel shakeup is particularly sensitive. According to Xinhua, Trump gave a prime-time TV address the evening of Wednesday, April 1, laying out his vision to end the Iran War as soon as possible. The next day, the Army’s top general was fired.
A source bluntly said: “This completely undermines the President’s intended ‘war is going well’ tone and message.”
Trump’s recent cabinet reshuffling—including last month’s firing of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Thursday’s dismissal of Attorney General Pam Bondi—has further intensified the power struggle inside the Pentagon. The source said this infighting “is happening at the worst possible time.”
Currently, there is no indication that Trump plans to immediately fire Hagues or Driscoll, but the struggle between the two has pushed their political risk to new heights.
Risk DisclaimerThe market has risks, and investment must be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, and has not taken into account the individual investment goals, financial situation, or needs of any particular user. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. If you invest based on this, you do so at your own risk.