In a week marked by sweeping changes and mounting controversy, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has set Washington abuzz with a series of bold moves at the Pentagon. The ripple effects are being felt from the corridors of Congress to the upper echelons of the U.S. military, as lawmakers and defense officials grapple with new directives that could reshape the way America’s largest national security institution operates.
On October 15, 2025, Hegseth, alongside his deputy Steve Feinberg, issued a memo that many on Capitol Hill saw as an unprecedented clampdown on transparency. The directive ordered all Department of Defense personnel—including the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service secretaries, combatant commanders, and legislative affairs officials—to coordinate any interaction with Congress through the Pentagon’s central legislative affairs office. The only notable exception: the Defense Department’s inspector general.
According to The Hill, the memo stated, “Unauthorized engagements with Congress by [Defense Department] personnel acting in their official capacity, no matter how well-intentioned, may undermine Department-wide priorities critical to achieving our legislative objectives.” The new policy requires that requests for information, technical assistance, and legislative correspondence all be funneled through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs (OASW), upending a long-standing practice in which military branches and agencies managed their own communications with Capitol Hill.
For some lawmakers, the reaction was swift and fierce. Senate Democrats, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Sen. Angus King of Maine, as well as Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, decried the move as a direct threat to Congress’s constitutional oversight role. “It is directly contradictory to congressional oversight, and it invites a confrontation with Congress. I don’t know how any of us can accept that kind of limitation on the scrutiny that the Pentagon needs and deserves,” Blumenthal told The Hill on October 23. He added, “Because a trillion dollars of taxpayer money is an investment the American people are making there, and they deserve oversight. The memo is, in my view, an improper and perhaps illegal constraint.”
Rep. Smith echoed these concerns, saying he is “deeply” troubled by what he sees as an attempt to “further restrict communication with Congress and impede this committee’s access to detailed information in a timely manner.” In a statement, Smith argued, “Since January, it has been difficult, and at times impossible, to get answers to even the most basic questions submitted by this committee. We have a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. They must immediately return to working with our committee in a collaborative and bipartisan manner for the sake of our national security, national defense, constitutional Republic, and to provide transparency for the American people.”
Sen. Angus King was similarly blunt: “Yes, as a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, we’re in touch with the people of the Pentagon all the time. And I don’t—I don’t understand it, and I don’t like it.”
But the Pentagon defended the memo. Chief spokesperson Sean Parnell described it as a “pragmatic step to internally review” how the department communicates with Congress. In a statement to The Hill on October 24, Parnell said, “The Department intends to improve accuracy and responsiveness in communicating with the Congress to facilitate increased transparency. This review is for processes internal to the Department and does not change how or from whom Congress receives information.” The memo also clarifies that whistleblower protections and other legal rights to communicate with Congress remain intact, and that the department’s comptroller will continue to liaise with appropriations committees and the Congressional Budget Office.
Alongside the communication overhaul, Hegseth has launched a sweeping personnel reshuffle. On October 18, at an event marking the upcoming Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary at Camp Pendleton, California, the Defense Secretary’s latest move came into focus: the nomination of Lt. Gen. Christopher LaNeve to replace Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Mingus, even before Mingus’s departure was publicly announced. As reported by Politico, LaNeve, a former 82nd Airborne Division commander who has served as Hegseth’s senior military aide since April, now stands poised to ascend to one of the Army’s top posts—pending Senate approval.
This nomination marks a significant shift in Hegseth’s approach. While he has previously dismissed his top military adviser, nearly all civilian aides, and senior legal officers, this is the first time he has installed a hand-picked successor in such a high-profile role. “Hegseth wants his guy in,” a defense official told Politico. “Who he replaces doesn’t matter.” The move has sent shockwaves through the Pentagon, especially the Army, which has largely been insulated from the leadership purges that have swept other services in recent months.
Gen. Mingus, who has served as Army Vice Chief of Staff since January 2024, is widely respected for his leadership of the Army’s “transformation in contact” initiative, which uses new technologies to rapidly adapt tactics in the field. He has also led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and previously commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. Mingus was reportedly in the running to lead U.S. Central Command earlier this year, but that post ultimately went to Vice Adm. Brad Cooper.
LaNeve, for his part, is no stranger to the Trump administration. During President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, LaNeve—then commanding general of the Eighth Army in South Korea—addressed the Commander in Chief’s Ball via video. “It’s a profound honor to stand before you today representing our incredible team here in Korea,” he said. “Congratulations on your victory as the 47th President of the United States.” Shortly thereafter, Hegseth brought him to the Pentagon to serve as his closest military aide. The senior military assistant role has historically been a springboard to top leadership positions, as seen with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, who previously held a similar post.
The leadership shakeup doesn’t end with the Army. The Pentagon is also preparing for the retirements of U.S. Southern Command head Adm. Alvin Holsey—who is stepping down less than a year into his tenure after overseeing controversial strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean—and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, set to retire next month halfway through a four-year term. Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach is awaiting Senate confirmation to replace Allvin, while the vice chief of the Air Force position remains vacant following Gen. James Slife’s departure in February.
Hegseth’s tenure has been characterized by a tightening of information channels and a shrinking inner circle. He has not only restricted Pentagon press corps access—prompting an exodus of mainstream media from the building—but has also banned most staff from participating in think tank events. In a particularly pointed move, he reportedly told hundreds of generals and admirals last month that they “should do the honorable thing and resign” if they disagreed with his vision for the department.
Meanwhile, Hegseth and Feinberg have directed the Pentagon’s assistant secretary of legislative affairs to conduct a comprehensive review of the department’s communications with Capitol Hill, expected to be completed within 90 days of the October 15 memo. A follow-up directive on October 17 established a working group to further refine guidance on legislative engagements—a sign that the Pentagon’s approach to congressional relations remains very much in flux.
With the Senate still needing to confirm LaNeve and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle keeping a close watch on the Pentagon’s evolving policies, the coming weeks promise to be pivotal for the future of civilian-military relations in Washington. The stakes—for transparency, oversight, and the very culture of the Defense Department—could hardly be higher.
