(PatriotNews.net) – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unleashes blistering attack on media outlets for undermining America’s most successful military operation against Iran’s nuclear program in decades.
Key Takeaways
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth accused media of “breathlessly” reporting a leaked preliminary intelligence assessment that downplayed the success of U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities
- Pentagon officials released declassified video of bunker-buster bomb tests to counter media narratives and demonstrate the devastating power of weapons used
- President Trump and top intelligence officials maintain the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program despite contradictory reports
- Democratic lawmakers remain skeptical of administration claims, with Senator Chris Murphy accusing Trump of “deliberately misleading the public”
- The Pentagon warned Iran that any retaliation “will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed”
Pentagon Leadership Slams “Agenda-Driven” Media Coverage
In a fiery press conference at the Pentagon on June 26, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a scathing critique of American media organizations for their coverage of Operation Midnight Hammer, the recent U.S. airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hegseth specifically condemned outlets for reporting on a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) preliminary assessment suggesting the strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by “months” rather than eliminating it entirely. The Defense Secretary accused both the leaker and the media of deliberately undermining what he called “the most complex and secretive military mission in history.”
“Whoever leaked this has an agenda to try to muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful,” Hegseth declared, visibly frustrated as he addressed reporters. “And then the media breathlessly reports it without any context whatsoever.” His comments reflect growing tension between the Pentagon and press corps as conflicting narratives emerge about the true impact of the June 21 operation that targeted three Iranian nuclear sites, including the heavily fortified Fordo mountain complex.
Trump Administration Counters with Declassified Evidence
In an unprecedented move to counter what they view as misleading media coverage, Pentagon officials released declassified video footage showing tests of the 30,000-pound “bunker-buster” bombs used in the strikes. Joint Chiefs Chair General Dan Caine emphasized these weapons represented “15 years of development and testing” and were specifically designed to penetrate Iran’s most hardened underground facilities. The administration’s forceful pushback comes as President Trump has repeatedly claimed on social media and in public statements that the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have both issued statements supporting the administration’s position, affirming that the targeted sites were “destroyed” and Iran’s nuclear program “severely damaged.” However, in a detail that has fueled media skepticism, General Caine acknowledged during the same press conference that “final battle damage assessment will take some time,” seemingly contradicting the absolute certainty projected by President Trump’s statements about total destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Intelligence Community Divided Over Impact Assessment
The controversy stems from fundamental differences in how military operations are evaluated. While the Trump administration has focused on the immediate tactical success of delivering precision strikes against hardened targets, intelligence professionals typically require weeks or months to fully assess damage to nuclear infrastructure and long-term program impacts. The DIA has stood by its preliminary assessment as a “low-confidence” initial evaluation that requires refinement, a standard practice following major military operations.
“What we’re seeing is a clash between political messaging and intelligence community protocols,” explained a former Pentagon official who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “The administration wants to declare total victory immediately, while professional analysts need time to gather evidence and make measured judgments about long-term impacts. Both can be partially right, but they’re talking past each other.”
Congressional Skepticism Grows Despite Administration Assurances
Democratic lawmakers have expressed significant doubts about the administration’s claims following classified briefings on Capitol Hill. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) emerged from one such session asserting that President Trump was “deliberately misleading the public” about the strikes’ effectiveness. Other senators from both parties indicated it was “too early to know” the full impact, a position that aligns more closely with the intelligence community’s cautious approach than with the White House’s triumphant declarations.
The operation, which utilized B-2 stealth bombers to deliver the massive ordnance against underground facilities, has been framed by the administration as a decisive action that secured a ceasefire after 12 days of regional conflict. While Hegseth insisted the United States wasn’t seeking regime change in Tehran, he issued a stark warning that any Iranian retaliation “will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed” during Operation Midnight Hammer.
Media Response to Pentagon Criticism
News organizations have defended their reporting on the leaked DIA assessment as responsible journalism that provides the American public with a more complete picture of the operation’s effects. Several major outlets have noted that preliminary assessments often differ from final conclusions, and that reporting on these differences serves the public interest rather than undermining national security. The tension highlights the ongoing struggle between government control of information and press freedom during military operations.
President Trump has taken his criticism further than Pentagon officials, demanding firings at The New York Times and CNN for what he called “FAKE stories” about the strikes’ effectiveness. This escalation of rhetoric against media organizations reporting on intelligence assessments has raised concerns among press freedom advocates about potential chilling effects on national security journalism during the remainder of Trump’s second term.
Copyright 2025, PatriotNews.net
