U.S. Secretary of War (formerly known as the U.S. Department of Defense) Pete Hagerseth suddenly fired Jon Harrison, chief of staff of the Department of the Navy, on October 3. This was the sixth senior U.S. military general fired during Hagerseth's tenure. This move triggered a new round of panic within the Pentagon, fearing that it would anger superiors by being outspoken. For a time, everyone in the Department of Defense felt insecure.

On October 5, local time, Pete Hergershus attended the 250th anniversary celebration of the U.S. Navy.

According to sources, the sudden dismissal is part of a widespread culture of intimidation and retaliation at the Pentagon. In this culture, senior officials can be dismissed without cause for providing military assessments that Trump disapproves of.

Similarly, most of Hegseth's actions are not publicly explained, which exacerbates the uncertainty across the department-an uncertainty that may deter people from speaking out differently in major decisions. "It adds to the climate of fear when people are laid off randomly and suddenly," said a former U.S. defense official.

A senior defense official at the department said in such circumstances: "It's best to keep a low profile and not try to do anything that is good for the organization."

Prior to this, Harrison, then a senior general of the U.S. Navy, tried to reform the department by quickly reorganizing the bureaucracy, but according to several current officials of the Ministry of National Defense, Kaohsiung, the deputy secretary of the Navy appointed by Trump, expressed his dissatisfaction with Harrison's action, which prompted Harrison to leave.

In response to this matter, a White House spokesman said Trump was "full of confidence" in what Hegseth had done and firmly believed that he could ensure that all members of the Department of Defense were determined to "make America strong again."

However, Hegseth has a hard time either. He himself revealed on October 5th that Trump was not very satisfied with him in a recent meeting and yelled at him in the Oval Office of the White House because he failed to complete a certain task. Currently, Hegseth has not disclosed what it is that he failed to accomplish. (Previous report: The U.S. Secretary of War, who just led more than 3,000 people to break the world record, revealed that Trump yelled at him because he failed to complete a task)

Extended reading

From four-star generals to contract workers, the Pentagon is accused of randomly testing 5000 people

U.S. Department of Defense launches investigation into "national security information leakage"

According to reference news, since April this year, the U.S. Department of Defense has been investigating the so-called "national security information leakage incident", and Defense Secretary Hegerseth threatened to lie to the relevant persons.

Nowadays, the rumors of polygraph testing are resurrected again.

The draft of the Memorandum of Understanding by U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Vanberg showed that all the military, civilian employees and contractors (anticipated to be more than 5,000) at the Joint Meeting of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff were either required to sign a confidentiality agreement and accept random lies.

A Pentagon spokesman refused to answer the plan in a reply email, saying only that the relevant reports were "untrue".

still under consideration.

In the draft of the memorandum, Deputy Defense Minister Vanberg said that the protection of sensitive information is critical to national security, the security of operational personnel and the high-level decision-making space.

The draft above and another Vanberg document show that the Pentagon is considering a stringent set of procedures that require headquarters personnel, including senior officials, to sign full confidentiality agreements and establish random lying detection mechanisms to strengthen the fight against information leaks.

According to the proposed policy, those involved will face random lying tests and regular security review interviews.

However, the draft and document do not clearly stipulate which personnel will sign the agreement and undergo polygraph detection. It is considered that they will apply to all personnel in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, covering four-star generals, administrative assistants and contractors, with a number of more than 5,000 people.

Deputy Defense Minister Feinberg also warned in the draft that those who fail to abide by the confidentiality agreement may be punished. The Pentagon will also punish service members who don't sign the agreement through the military justice system.

Sources say that those involved in violating the agreement may face dismissal.

At present, the draft memorandum has not yet been signed for ratification and has not specified a date and is still in the consideration phase.

In a statement, a Pentagon spokesman declined to answer about the plan, but noted that the reports were false and irresponsible.

Root out critics

As usual, the U.S. intelligence communityins security licenses for a certain period of time (e.g. every few years) by lying.

But at the Pentagon, random lie detection is unprecedented. Why suddenly break the routine?

Many observers believe that this is closely related to the "loyalty strategy" pursued by the Trump administration and the Department of Defense. Hagerseth tried to suppress and eradicate internal critics by strengthening information controls.

Some officials have criticized the measures, which appear to help prevent leaks, but are essentially ¡°instruments of intimidation¡± with the real purpose of creating a panic atmosphere in the workplace and putting loyalty above everything.

In fact, according to former officials and national security lawyers, the Pentagon already has mature regulations to limit and punish leaks, and additional confidentiality agreements are just superfluous.

U.S. Secretary of War Hertz

A former senior defense official bluntly said,"If you have been exposed to intelligence plans, you have already assumed confidentiality obligations. Public speeches must be reviewed in advance, and contacts with the media must be reported. There is no need for a new agreement."

Some commentators pointed out that the Pentagon's new rules are not designed to crack down on any foreign espionage activities, but more to ensure internal loyalty to the Department of Defense and the leadership of the Trump administration.

The White House stopped.

In fact, this is not the first time the Pentagon has threatened to use a lie detector.

In March, the Atlantic Monthly that Hertz and several senior government officials had discussed U.S. plans to fight the Houthi armed forces in Yemen on crypto-social software ¡°signals¡± and leaked information in advance.

After the incident came to light, the Pentagon was in turmoil. Hegseth immediately fired three senior officials, accusing them of leaking secrets to the media, but never produced any evidence.

He threatened to use a lie detector in the department¡¯s staff and put it into effect until July, when Heidegger¡¯s chief adviser, Weaver, and others, filed a complaint with the U.S. President¡¯s office, the White House ordered a halt to the lie.

Tightening transparency

It is worth mentioning that in the past few months, in addition to setting off internal storms, Hegseth has been relentless in tightening media transparency.

Under Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon greatly reduced the number of regular press conferences, strictly restricted journalists from traveling with senior officials, and even expelled the offices of some news organizations from the building.

Media reporters were forced to sign agreements prohibiting unauthorized solicitation or collection of information-even if the information was not confidential. Violators may lose their interview qualifications.

Ironically, Fox host Hergershth used to rely on television news and is now shaking and becoming the toughest ¡°anti-media fighter¡± in the Trump cabinet.

From lie detection to media restrictions, some commentators have asked, is this series of measures really for the sake of so-called "national security" or is it a naked arrogance of power?