I attended a Pentagon event where Pete Hegseth criticized war journalists.
It’s day 13 of America’s unexpected conflict with Iran, and fittingly, it’s Friday the 13th. I’m running on fumes here, having skipped my morning coffee since I woke up at 5 AM. The Pentagon’s strict no-outside-beverages policy means I couldn’t bring my caffeine fix past the 7 AM security checkpoint for the 8 AM briefing. To top it off, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has tightened the rules, making it mandatory for journalists to have escorts to navigate the building, especially to the coffee stations. I’m also grappling with the surreal reality of being a reporter with no war coverage experience, yet I find myself in a prime seat at the briefing, watching Hegseth take the stage and immediately start taking shots at veteran journalists stuck in the back.
“We will keep pushing. Keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies. Yet some of this crew in the press just can’t stop,” Hegseth declares, his tone perfectly tuned for cable news. He’s addressing seasoned defense reporters from major outlets—those who’ve spent decades covering Middle Eastern conflicts and know the Pentagon’s ins and outs. Many of them are returning for the first time since last October, when the entire press corps resigned in protest after Hegseth barred them from reporting on any information he hadn’t approved.
In the front row, right in Hegseth’s line of sight, are their replacements from what he dubs the “patriotic press”—outlets like One America News and The Daily Wire, many of whom look alarmingly young. It’s not a great look to have a briefing room filled with starry-eyed reporters during a contentious war, so this week, the Pentagon press team announced an open press conference, allowing the veteran reporters back in for the first time in months. But as long as they ask too many questions, Hegseth will continue to belittle them.
“Let me offer a few suggestions,” Hegseth tells the media. “People look at the TV and see banners. They see headlines. I used to be in that business, and I know everything is written with intention. For instance, a banner like ‘Mideast war intensified’ splashed across the screen alongside images of civilian or energy targets hit by Iran—that’s what they do. What should the banner say instead? How about ‘Iran increasingly desperate’?”
But are they? Since his last press conference on Tuesday, two US planes collided (which Hegseth conveniently omits). Iran has launched missiles at Bahrain, sent drones into Lebanon, and threatened American cities. The conflict is now hitting American wallets hard, with Iran laying mines and attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane, causing oil prices to soar. That morning, oil was around $100 a barrel, a 40% increase since the war began.
“More fake news from CNN: reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran War’s impact on the Strait of Hormuz,” Hegseth continues. “That’s just ridiculous. Iran has threatened shipping in the strait for decades. This is their playbook. CNN doesn’t think we anticipated that? It’s a fundamentally unserious report. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network…” He trails off, and a murmur spreads through the room; everyone knows what happened to CBS News after Ellison’s acquisition.
As Hegseth swings between berating the press and glossing over military matters, my mind drifts to why I was invited to this briefing. Yes, invited. The Pentagon press team knows I’m not the friendliest reporter, yet they offered me a seat. What journalist would pass up a chance to attend a press conference at the Pentagon during a war? Usually, these events are packed, but this time, only 60 reporters were allowed in.
Despite my fatigue, I noticed the first question from a woman at One America News—a soft pitch. (“Can you tell us more about the Strait of Hormuz and when it might be fully operational again?”) The second question, from a woman at The Daily Wire, was also designed to give Hegseth a chance to attack the media. (“ABC News updated its story from yesterday, clarifying that the FBI report on Iran possibly striking California was unverified. What impact did that original reporting have on the public?”)
Finally, Hegseth called on an older gentleman in a red tie behind me, Michael Gordon from The Wall Street Journal. He asked, “Iran is thought to have 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in at least two locations and several thousand kilograms of lower purity material. Can you conclude this mission successfully without physically taking control of that material, or are you counting on diplomatic negotiations for its removal? You’ve mentioned missiles and drones, but you haven’t specified that handling that material is a mission priority.”
From Hegseth’s expression, it seemed we both shared a lack of understanding of the seriousness of this issue. Thankfully, he was the one tasked with dodging the question (“We have a range of options, including Iran deciding to give those up, which we would welcome”), while I looked up Gordon’s background. He’s been covering nuclear weapons and Middle Eastern conflicts long before I was even born.
Once Hegseth got past that, he quickly regained his composure, ready to spar with any mainstream outlet that dared to ask a tough question:
> Q (NBC): Is Iran placing new mines?
> Hegseth: We’ve heard them talk about it, just like you’ve reported recklessly and wildly about it—
> Q: I haven’t reported on it, actually, but have they placed any mines?
> Q (NYT): Mr. Secretary, you’ve said the US military has aerial and naval superiority over Iran, yet we’re not escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Why? How did you not plan for this?
> Hegseth: We planned for it. We recognize it. Ultimately, we want to do it sequentially in a way that makes the most sense for our objectives and sends the right signals to the world. … This whole idea of the war widening is what the press wants to portray, but we’re actually closing in on our objectives and controlling how we achieve them.
Hegseth’s disdain for the media is so well-known it’s become a running joke. But this time, it wasn’t just mainstream reporters pressing him with tough questions. The Trump administration had stumbled into an unpopular, endless war—especially among MAGA voters who never wanted to revisit the failures of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet the friendly reporters in the front rows didn’t give him a chance to gloat. Some questions were basic, but I couldn’t tell if they were from MAGA or foreign outlets. One reporter asked, “Given everything the US has accomplished in the last 24 hours, how do you define success in this military option?” But then a front-row reporter lobbed a politically charged question that Hegseth had to sidestep:
> Q: Polls show over 80 percent of Republicans support the president’s military action in Iran, but there’s some concern in parts of the party, particularly from your fellow Fox News alum Tucker Carlson, who called the war “disgusting and evil.” Have you heard these comments, and what’s your reaction?
I recognized this as a MAGA outlet question. If a mainstream reporter had asked about Carlson, a powerful commentator in Trump’s circle, Hegseth would have immediately attacked them for trying to create division. Instead, he deflected. “We’re busy executing on behalf of great patriotic Americans with a clear mission that’s 47 years overdue. We’ll carry that out regardless of what people say.”
The final question, from Lindell TV reporter Heather Mullins, touched on two growing concerns among the right: China’s limited support for Iran and Israel’s role in egging Trump into launching the attack that killed the Ayatollah, which had led to disastrous intelligence on regime change. “I know President Trump is calling for an unconditional surrender from Iran. Given that the US is working with Israel on this operation, are Iran’s demands expected to meet those of both countries or just the US? And what are those demands?”
Hegseth’s response wouldn’t satisfy Israel skeptics: “Our objectives are our objectives. When those are met, we’ll set the tempo for when they’re achieved.” The conference wrapped up quickly, leaving us all a bit dazed. If I had to sum up the general vibe, everyone left feeling more frustrated than when they arrived—the “patriot” reporters who suspected Hegseth was dodging questions and the seasoned national security reporters who knew exactly what he was avoiding.
I felt frustrated too, as I was one of the few in the room who couldn’t ask a solid question about the war. I’ve never witnessed active combat or visited a war zone, let alone traveled to the Middle East. Even if I had prepared a good question, I wouldn’t have the knowledge to follow up, much less engage in a verbal spar with Hegseth if he accused me of lying. However, I’ve covered Trump’s world and MAGA media for over a decade, and a hard rule in both realms is that performance always trumps substance.
That’s clear to anyone watching from home. But what’s less visible, and a new trend in this administration, is the behind-the-scenes production: the reality TV instincts and psychological tactics designed to provoke genuine anger, conflict, and, most importantly, drama among participants trying to take things seriously. This can be achieved by simply depriving them of caffeine, rearranging seating, and filling spots with those more inclined to write about media drama than interrogate Hegseth about the actual war.
