EXCLUSIVE: “There’s Zero Confidence in Pete Hegseth”: What Republicans Are Saying Privately About Iran
After speaking with Republican sources in D.C., one thing is clear: behind the public unity, there is growing alarm about the lack of an exit plan and a looming $200 billion ask.
Welcome back to The Red Letter.
Over the weekend, I spoke with Republican sources in the administration, on Capitol Hill, and on K Street about what they are really saying behind closed doors about the war in Iran.
What emerged was a picture of growing unease: no clear plan to end the conflict, frustration with how Israel is handling it, anxiety about wider escalation across the region, and deep discomfort with the administration’s wartime posture, especially at the Pentagon.
One Senate source put it bluntly: “There’s zero confidence in Pete Hegseth.”
“Everyone regrets that they had to vote for him,” the source added. “He’s a bigger regret than RFK.”
Another source pointed to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as an early sign of discomfort around Hegseth after he called for the Pentagon inspector general to investigate Hegseth’s use of Signal. The same source said many now see the real chain of command as lying elsewhere: “This is between the President and his generals, then Hegseth.”
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung rejected that characterization. “Whoever is saying that clearly is not in the room or in the know, and sad that they’re on the outside looking in,” he said.
A Pentagon spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
The unease is not only about Hegseth’s performance on television, though that has become a problem in itself. In a military conflict, the Defense Department is supposed to project calm, discipline, and command. Instead, sources described a Pentagon that feels more combative than reassuring, and an administration more focused on browbeating the press than projecting control.
The administration’s attacks on CNN and its broader effort to pressure the media over war coverage are also beginning to unsettle some Republicans. One source described that posture as disturbing, warning that trying to impose a single version of events on the public is not just politically risky, but dangerous in a conflict this volatile.
The anxiety goes beyond messaging. Multiple Republican sources told me there is still no convincing public explanation of what success looks like and little confidence that the White House has fully thought through what a broader escalation could mean, from Lebanon to the Gulf. For now, most are still publicly sticking with Trump.
Cheung pushed back, saying Trump laid out his objectives in a video statement released shortly after the operation began and again in a Friday Truth Social post: degrading Iranian missile capabilities, destroying Iran’s defense industrial base, eliminating its navy and air force, preventing it from nearing nuclear capability, and protecting U.S. allies in the region.
He also pointed to a POLITICO poll showing that 43 percent of Americans approve of the strikes while 33 percent disapprove, as evidence that the administration retains public support.
