Since being confirmed earlier this year, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been plain about one thing: he wants to shake things up at the department he now leads. He campaigned on cutting bureaucracy and restoring mission-first focus across the services. That promise is now colliding with status quo players who want to protect old power structures.
The latest example of that came this past week when Hegseth stunned the Pentagon by firing a high-level official.
On Friday, Hegseth moved to remove Jon Harrison, who had been serving as chief of staff to the secretary of the Navy. Politico reported the action as a clear signal that Hegseth will not tolerate internal resistance to his agenda. The Pentagon released a terse statement confirming the change and closing the book on Harrison’s role.
“He will no longer serve as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Navy. We are grateful for his service to the Department,” Politico quoted the Pentagon as saying of Harris in a statement.
The firing landed just days after the Senate confirmed Hung Cao as under secretary of the Navy, setting the stage for a new leadership lineup. Cao arrives with a reputation for toughness and a clear conservative approach to recruitment and readiness. That profile unsettled some in the Navy’s existing leadership who had already redrawn lines of authority.
Harrison and Navy Secretary John Phelan had pushed through sweeping changes to budgeting and policy offices, moves that effectively shrank the undersecretary’s traditional reach. Those changes created friction right away and left Cao walking into an office with its powers diminished. The result was a tension that quickly edged into an open power struggle.
A power struggle over the undersecretary
In July, Politico revealed that Phelan and Harrison had reassigned several aides who had been expected to assist Cao as he transitioned into his new role. Those reassignments looked like an attempt to control who would advise the incoming undersecretary. From a reform perspective, that kind of gatekeeping smells like a protection racket for old habits.
The pair also planned to interview all future assistants to the incoming undersecretary as part of an effort to centralize decision making. That plan would give Phelan and his chief of staff real influence over who could support Cao and how he could operate. For anyone serious about accountability and mission, centralized gatekeeping is a red flag.
Multiple sources spoke with Politico and said Phelan and Harrison were trying to limit Cao’s influence before he even took full control. Those reports paint a picture of a leadership team trying to hold on to power by rearranging staff and responsibilities. It is the kind of maneuvering reformers warned about when they supported new leadership across the Defense Department.
Hegseth’s move to remove Harrison can be read as a corrective, a blunt instrument to stop institutional churning that blocks effective leadership. Conservatives who back Hegseth see this as necessary to shake up a bloated bureaucracy and restore clear chains of command. Critics will call it disruptive, but disruption can be the medicine an ossified organization needs.
President Donald Trump has been vocal in support of Hung Cao, praising his life story and service. For his part, President Donald Trump put up a Truth Social in February which hailed Cao’s story as “the embodiment of the American dream.” That endorsement reinforced Cao’s standing among Republicans who want leaders with real-world grit and a record of service.
“As a refugee to our Great Nation, Hung worked tirelessly to make proud the Country that gave his family a home. He went to our amazing United States Naval Academy and later earned his Master’s degree in Physics,” Trump recalled. The president also highlighted Cao’s long service record as proof he understands the stakes for sailors and Marines. That kind of background matters when the Pentagon needs leaders who have lived the mission.
The president explained that Cao “served in combat as a Special Operations Officer for twenty five years” before predicting he would “get the job done.” That phrase resonates with vets and conservatives tired of endless process and weak results. Cao’s critics inside the building might prefer slow-grind policy work, but supporters want decisive action.
Cao drew headlines last year for bluntly criticizing the Biden administration’s recruitment tactics and cultural messaging at a time when the military is desperate for recruits. He told a reporter that “When you’re using a drag queen to recruit for the Navy, that’s not the people we want.” That line made him a polarizing figure, but it also underscored a core argument from conservatives: recruitment and readiness require messaging that appeals to traditional recruits.
For Republican allies of Hegseth and Cao, the broader issue is simple: the military must focus on lethal readiness, not culture wars that distract from the mission. That belief explains why Hegseth acted quickly and decisively in removing a chief of staff who critics said was entrenching old lines of influence. The move signals a readiness in this administration to back leaders who will prioritize the force over backstage politicking.
What happens next will be a test of whether reformers can translate personnel moves into real change inside the Navy and across the department. If Hegseth follows personnel moves with policy shifts that restore operational clarity, conservatives will see this as progress. If the old guard reasserts itself, the fight over authority and direction could drag on and slow necessary reforms.
Either way, the removal of Jon Harrison is not a small administrative shuffle; it is a message that new leadership expects loyalty to mission and clarity in roles. For those who believe the Pentagon needs a course correction, Hegseth’s actions are a welcome sign. For everyone else, the bureau battle is only getting started.
