On June 26, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a fierce verbal attack on Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin during a Pentagon press conference, igniting a rare and public clash between former colleagues. The confrontation unfolded amid the Pentagon’s efforts to push back against media reports questioning the effectiveness of recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The weekend bombing mission, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three Iranian nuclear sites, including the deeply buried Fordow facility. Initial intelligence assessments leaked earlier in the week to outlets such as CNN and The New York Times suggested the strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, rather than crippling it entirely. This assessment prompted skepticism and critical coverage from various news organizations, which the Pentagon and President Donald Trump’s administration vigorously disputed.
During the tense exchange, Griffin pressed Hegseth on a crucial detail: whether the U.S. had certainty that all highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow mountain at the time of the strikes. She referenced satellite imagery that showed more than a dozen trucks at the site a few days before the operation, raising the possibility that Iran might have moved nuclear material to avoid destruction.
“Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow mountain, or some of it, because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance? Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?” Griffin asked pointedly.
Hegseth did not provide a direct answer. Instead, he launched into a blistering criticism of Griffin, accusing her of misrepresenting President Trump’s statements. “Of course, we’re watching every single aspect. But, Jennifer, you’ve been about the worst. The one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the president says,” he said, his tone sharp and dismissive.
Griffin, a veteran journalist with decades covering military and foreign affairs, quickly pushed back. “I was the first to report about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night, and, in fact, I was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission, with great accuracy,” she said, emphasizing her credibility and detailed reporting on the operation. “So I take issue with that.”
Hegseth acknowledged the complexity of the mission, calling it “the most complex and secretive military operation in history” and thanking Griffin for recognizing its success, but he remained adamant that the media’s negative coverage stemmed from an inherent bias against President Trump. “You cheer against Trump so hard, it’s like in your DNA and blood,” he charged. “You have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes.”
This heated exchange came as the Pentagon sought to discredit the leaked initial battle damage assessment, which it described as preliminary, uncoordinated with the intelligence community, and of low confidence. Hegseth called the leak “irresponsible” and accused those behind it of having an agenda to “muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful.”
Supporting the Pentagon’s position, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued statements asserting that the damage to Iran’s nuclear program would take “years” to rebuild. Hegseth echoed these statements, quoting the CIA’s confirmation that “credible intelligence indicates Iran’s nuclear program has been severely damaged by recent targeted strikes.”
Yet, despite these official reassurances, the question about whether Iran moved enriched uranium before the strikes remains a critical point of contention. Hegseth himself admitted, “If you want to know what’s going on at Fordo, you better go there and get a big shovel, because no one’s under there right now,” underscoring the difficulty of independently verifying the strike’s full impact.
The confrontation between Hegseth and Griffin drew swift reactions within media circles. Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume condemned Hegseth’s attack on Griffin as “unfair,” praising her professionalism, knowledge, and unmatched experience at the Pentagon. “I have had and still have the greatest regard for her,” Hume said on air, emphasizing that Griffin did not deserve such personal criticism.
Griffin’s reputation as a seasoned Pentagon correspondent is well established. She began her journalism career in the mid-1990s and has covered major conflicts including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Her reporting has often involved sensitive military and intelligence matters, and she is known for breaking important stories, including earlier this year about Hegseth’s sharing of classified information via a Signal group chat, which sources said put the joint force at risk.
The White House has also taken a hard line on leaks, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt declaring that the individual responsible for leaking intelligence reports “should be in jail.” Meanwhile, President Trump himself praised the press conference where Hegseth defended the operation, calling it “one of the greatest, most professional, and most ‘confirming’ News Conferences I have ever seen!” on his social media platform.
Despite the administration’s efforts to control the narrative, the dispute over the operation’s effectiveness is far from settled. The White House is now limiting access to classified details as it prepares to brief lawmakers, signaling ongoing tensions between the Pentagon, the media, and Congress over transparency.
As the dust settles from the weekend strikes and the subsequent media storm, the clash between Hegseth and Griffin stands out as a rare public fracture within the pro-Trump media ecosystem. It highlights the challenges of reporting on highly sensitive military operations amid political pressures and the complexities of verifying intelligence assessments.
For now, the full story of Operation Midnight Hammer’s impact on Iran’s nuclear ambitions remains shrouded in uncertainty. But the fierce exchange at the Pentagon press conference underscores that, in the battle over information and narrative, even allies can become adversaries.
