The Washington Post has once again chosen to publish sensitive national security information in a way that appears designed less to inform the public than to damage a Republican-led Pentagon in the middle of an ongoing conflict.
According to the Gateway Pundit, the far-left outlet ran a story built around material from the classified Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB), transforming what should be one of the most closely guarded documents in the Department of Defense into the backbone of a political hit on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
The SDOB, as even the Post acknowledged, is a highly classified product that lays out the worldwide availability of warships, aircrafts, weapons systems, personnel, along with assessments from senior commanders, making its unauthorized disclosure a serious breach of operational security.
The Washington Post reported that several senior military leaders had warned Hegseth that keeping more than 50,000 American troops in the Middle East for an extended period is unsustainable and could degrade the nations ability to respond to threats in other regions.
The paper further claimed that some forces ordered into the region would remain through September, while others could be held in theater as far out as 2027, all based on the Aug. 14 edition of the SDOB.
That orders book, by design, is supposed to remain behind a thick wall of classification because it details the global disposition and readiness of American warships, aircraft, weapons systems, and personnel, as well as the candid assessments of senior commanders.
Yet the Post not only described those assessments, it highlighted that four four-star officers had filed formal non-concurs objecting to the proposed extensions of Middle East deployments.
A non-concur in Pentagon practice does not constitute refusal to obey an order; it is a formal record of professional disagreement while affirming that the directive will still be carried out.
Nonetheless, Washington Post military affairs reporter Dan Lamothe seized on the internal dissent as political ammunition, broadcasting it on social media as though it were proof of systemic failure under Hegseth.
Four-stars all non-concurring with prolonging operations against Iran as they are into 2027, per this Washington Post exclusive, Lamothe wrote, before listing the four commanders.
That framing conveniently served the narrative of a Pentagon supposedly overextended and mismanaged, while glossing over the far more serious question of how Lamothe obtained access to one of the most sensitive force-allocation documents in the U.S. government.
Jennica Pounds, better known online as DataRepublican and currently serving as a Special Government Employee at the Department of War, was quick to call out what she viewed as the real scandal.
In her view, the problem was not that commanders had offered frank advicesomething conservatives have long insisted is essential in wartimebut that someone inside the system apparently decided to leak the SDOB to a media outlet openly hostile to the current Republican administration.
DataRepublican wrote:
Hello Mr. Lamothe,
Four generals analysis is not the important point here. The article says that the information comes from Aug. 14 Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB).
As that article explains, the SDOB is classified and lays out the worldwide availability of warships, aircrafts, weapons systems, personnel, along with assessments from senior commanders. That includes which leaders non-concurred which you are amplifying.
This is one of the most serious leaks I have ever seen, and you are using this to score partisan points against Hegseth.
You and your miltwitter journalist sphere spent a whole week hammering a DOGE-affiliated analyst for refusing to leak sensitive documents, accusing her of violating ethics.
Perhaps the ethics were just arbitrary conveniences all along. Perhaps the professional code exists to protect the true raison detre that you and the rest of legacy Pentagon press corps exist by:
By your twisted morality, its fine to handle materials that might very well undermine an active war and publish whatever youd like from them in order to score political points against Pete Hegseth. Just as long as you disclose, that makes it fine for WaPo to protect traitors running in our midst.
Trending: US Launches Surprise Attack on Iran Senior IRGC Official DROPS DEAD on Live TV at Regimes Nightly Rally! (VIDEO)
And in your personal case, disclosing apparently doesnt extend to fellowships at CNAS and other engagement heavily funded by the military-industrial complex.
The United States is engaged in active combat operations. WaPo holds material that may very well undermine the safety of Americans in harms way. WaPo took routine discussion of a serious internal force-allocation problem, and elevated that into cheap partisan shots.
The one without ethics here is the entire staff of the Washington Post who did not immediately turn in this traitor as soon as they received the material.
Her criticism underscored a longstanding conservative concern: that legacy media outlets apply one standard when leaks can be weaponized against Republicans, and another when the information might damage Democrats or the national security bureaucracy they tend to favor.
The same press corps that lectures about ethics when analysts refuse to leak now appears comfortable handling a document that, if exposed in full, could give adversaries a detailed snapshot of American global posture.
Sean Parnell, Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs and a combat veteran himself, echoed Pounds outrage and sharpened the focus on the legal implications.
Parnell argued that the Posts decision to publish material from the SDOB was not just reckless but potentially criminal, and he accused the paper of misrepresenting the underlying facts to fit a partisan storyline.
Parnell wrote:
Publishing highly classified assessments from the Secretarys orders book is a crime.
Its a betrayal of the force. And much of what theyre publishing is inaccurate.
Of course, we demand candid military advice. Non-concurs are standard. The Secretary sees them constantly. Thats how you run a real military.
We are in great shape around the world. This story isnt about readiness.
Its TDS and PDS they hate President Trump and Secretary Hegseth more than they love America.
Lamothe, rather than address the core concern about the leak itself, responded by cloaking his actions in the rhetoric of press freedom.
Fact check: Independent journalism is not a crime, Lamothe wrote, insisting that scrutiny of wartime decision-making is especially important at a time when government officials are withholding key details and concerns about a war being fought on behalf of the American people with their taxpayer dollars.
The Washington Posts corporate response followed the same script, invoking the First Amendment while sidestepping the question of who broke faith with the military and the law by handing over the SDOB.
Were confident in our reporting, our sourcing and the constitutional protections that guarantee the rights of news organizations to publish information in the public interest that holds officials accountable, spokesperson Olivia Petersen said, adding, The assertion that such publication is a crime is both incorrect and irresponsible.
For conservatives, that familiar invocation of public interest rings hollow, because it seems to surface only when the target is a Republican president or a Trump-aligned official like Hegseth.
The same zeal is rarely visible when leaks might expose how a Democrat administration mishandled a crisis, concealed key documentsas in the Abbey Gate debacleor misled the public about the costs of its own foreign policy.
What remains unanswered, and what the Posts statement conspicuously avoided, is the central issue of access and accountability: who within the Pentagon or broader national security apparatus had access to the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, and who chose to funnel its contents to a partisan press outlet.
While the Post may claim constitutional protection for publishing, those protections do not extend to the government employee or military officer who allegedly violated classification laws to facilitate the story, and that individual could face serious criminal exposure if investigators determine the disclosure was unauthorized.
Login