US Army Secretary Driscoll resigns after months of friction with Hegseth

US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has resigned from his post after serving nearly 18 months, according to a source familiar with the situation. His departure comes amid growing tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, marking another high-profile exit from the Pentagon under Hegseth’s leadership. Driscoll, who was confirmed for the role in February 2025, had been a key figure in shaping Army policy and procurement strategies. The resignation follows months of reported friction between Driscoll and Hegseth, a relationship that reportedly reached a breaking point in recent weeks. A source close to the matter told Reuters that Driscoll had submitted his resignation to the White House, though it remained unclear whether the administration had formally accepted it. The Army did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the development. Driscoll’s exit adds to a pattern of departures within the Pentagon since Hegseth took office earlier this year. In April, Hegseth removed US Army Chief of Staff Randy George, a move that occurred during a period of intense military activity in the Middle East. Driscoll, who is believed to have maintained a close working relationship with Vice President JD Vance, is the latest senior official to leave under pressure from Hegseth’s administration. White House officials praised Driscoll’s tenure, highlighting his contributions to advancing national security priorities. In a statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly noted that Driscoll “has been highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army.” She cited his efforts in enhancing military readiness, focusing on lethality, and facilitating discussions between Russia and Ukraine. Driscoll had previously criticized the defense industry, arguing that large weapons manufacturers had misled both the public and the government. He advocated for a shift toward more cost-effective acquisitions, pushing the Army to adopt a more flexible approach to purchasing arms. “(The) defense industrial base broadly, and the primes in particular, conned the American people and the Pentagon and the Army,” he stated in remarks from the previous year. His resignation underscores the challenges facing the Pentagon under Hegseth’s leadership, which has seen several high-ranking officials either leaving voluntarily or being forced out. The situation has raised questions about the stability of the military leadership and the ability of the department to maintain cohesion during a time of active conflict. Sources indicate that Driscoll’s decision to step down was influenced by ongoing disputes with Hegseth over strategic direction and operational priorities. While specific details of their disagreements remain unconfirmed, reports suggest that differences over resource allocation and military strategy played a significant role in the breakdown of their working relationship. As the Pentagon moves forward, the search for a new Army secretary will likely involve considerations of both political alignment and administrative experience. With the military engaged in multiple theaters and facing complex logistical demands, the selection process could become a focal point for scrutiny from Congress and the media. Driscoll’s departure leaves a void in the leadership structure of the Army, particularly given his influence on procurement policies and international engagements. His tenure saw notable shifts in how the service approached modernization and force readiness, elements that will need to be addressed by his successor. The White House has yet to announce plans for replacing Driscoll, but the transition is expected to occur swiftly to ensure continuity in Army operations. As the situation develops, further details regarding the reasons behind Driscoll’s resignation and the implications for Pentagon dynamics are anticipated.