Concerns Over Disloyalty Within the Pentagon
Having spent over 40 years working with government civilian employees in various roles, I’ve seen many good people in uniform choose silence over speaking up, often prioritizing the mission instead. This “mission first” mentality is standard, but it’s troubling when individuals, like Pentagon employee Brandon Newsom, exemplify a disturbing trend.
Newsom, who has been with the Pentagon for 16 years and serves as the Director of Business Operations in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, was recorded admitting his intention to remain in his position to reverse actions taken by the Trump administration once the political climate changed. He believed this was his influence: “I can undo whatever’s been done.” He made remarks about the president being a “textbook narcissist” and criticized U.S. policy towards Iran as being “completely stupid,” driven by “one man’s ego.” He even pointed out issues with a prayer service and accountability policies for officials.
This situation transcends mere policy disagreement; it reflects strategic opposition from a career government employee who sees elected leaders as obstacles to be circumvented and then overturned. Newsom openly acknowledged he lacked formal authority yet planned to exploit his position’s influence to delay or void lawful directives—an example of the “disloyal government employee problem” that has been a concern in the Pentagon and federal bureaucracy for years.
Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao rightly put Newsom on administrative leave. Accountability is essential here; suspension should be just the start, and removal should ultimately follow. It’s unacceptable for anyone who vowed to support and defend the Constitution to actively undermine policies from an administration they dislike on a personal level.
I’ve encountered this mindset before—careerists treating the Pentagon as a personal domain rather than as an institution dedicated to the American public and the military personnel who risk their lives. They often disguise their resistance with terms like “institutional knowledge” or “continuity,” but at its core, it tends to boil down to protecting personal ideologies.
These individuals linger, delay actions, leak information, and wait for a more favorable administration. In the meantime, military readiness suffers, and the troops are left to bear the consequences. Civilian control of the military isn’t just preferred; it’s foundational. Whether in uniform or civilian roles, government employees don’t have a right to block the will of voters. They must carry out lawful orders or choose to leave.
Allowing a GS-15 or SES to remain in the Pentagon for 16 years while scheming to overturn elected policies is damaging. It erodes trust, invites further issues, and reveals a divided defense establishment to our adversaries. Secretary Hegseth and the Trump administration have articulated a return to warfighting focus and accountability. For this mission to succeed, the environment must be free of those who view changes as temporary hurdles to be eliminated when political circumstances shift.
It’s crucial to root out this mindset. We should utilize existing tools and enhance them if needed to ensure loyalty to the Constitution and the chain of command, rather than personal agendas. After more than three decades in uniform, I believed wholeheartedly in my mission and this country. Most service members still share that sentiment. They deserve leadership committed to the same values, not individuals waiting for opportunities to undermine the American people’s will.
It’s time to terminate those who do not align with this commitment and replace them with individuals who understand that service means upholding the policies of the elected government, not undermining them. Our national security relies on this principle.
