Pentagon Hires Military Veterans as Advisors, Washington Post Cries Foul

Clear Facts

• The Washington Post published a report claiming the Pentagon “secretly installed” conservative military veterans Rob Maness, Kurt Schlichter, and Thomas Anderson in government roles
• All three veterans served on a temporary task force reviewing senior service colleges and have since completed their service, receiving no ongoing compensation
• The veterans accused the Post of using illegally obtained personal information and creating false narratives about their advisory roles

The Washington Post came under fire from conservative journalists after publishing a report suggesting three military veterans were “secretly installed” by the Pentagon to promote the Trump administration’s agenda. The article by Dan Lamothe and Tara Copp characterized Rob Maness, Kurt Schlichter, and Thomas Anderson as hidden government operatives rather than what they actually were: temporary advisors on a task force.

The Post’s report claimed the Pentagon “secretly installed several conservative military veterans with large online followings in government roles, declining to disclose their assignments as they amplify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s viewpoints and attack those who scrutinize the Trump administration.” The article further suggested these advisors were assigned to “civilian roles that could lead to changes in policy.”

The three veterans swiftly responded, exposing what they described as deliberate mischaracterization of their service. Each clarified they had been invited to participate in a task force studying senior service colleges, drawing on their military experience and previous commentary on improving these institutions.

“My service with the Department of War as a ‘Special Government Employee’ was exclusively limited to participation in such task force and ended on July 26, 2026,” Anderson wrote on X.

“At no time have I ever received any compensation of any kind from any government source of any kind for anything I write or have ever written on X or in any magazine or other source. Those who claim otherwise defame me. I proudly and unabashedly support the efforts of President Trump and the Department of War because it’s the right thing to do.”

Maness went further, accusing the Post of publishing illegally obtained personally identifiable information from government databases. He described the article’s framing as “completely fabricated, categorically false, and defames me.”

“I patriotically and unashamedly support the efforts of President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and the Department of War to ensure we are producing senior officers who can win our nation’s wars because it’s the most impactful thing to do for America’s future,” Maness stated.

Schlichter took his response a step further, publishing a detailed rebuttal in his Townhall.com column where he dissected the Post’s reporting methods.

“The leftists who seized on this innuendo don’t care about the truth, and it’s irrelevant whether the regime media reporters wrote garbage on purpose or because they are grossly incompetent,” Schlichter wrote.

“I don’t argue with people who, through malice or ineptitude, act in bad faith unless I’m in court. But I will use this situation as a cautionary example of why the regime media is trash and why your contempt for it is so well-deserved.”

Schlichter noted the Post even misspelled his name in the original piece, suggesting a lack of basic journalistic care.

When contacted by Fox News Digital, Post journalist Dan Lamothe defended the article as “accurate as written,” claiming the issue was that neither the journalists nor the Pentagon “disclosed they were special government employees” while commenting on Pentagon matters. This defense sidesteps the central complaint: that the Post characterized temporary advisory roles as secretive permanent positions designed to manipulate public opinion.

The Pentagon responded by highlighting a statement from Under Secretary of War Anthony Tata, who praised the task force’s work.

“Senior officers deserve the best possible education: effective, unbiased & laser-focused on our core warfighting mission. @SecWar directed a Senior Service College Task Force to conduct a comprehensive review of @DeptofWar SSCs. Its mandate: ensure these institutions are anchored in military history, strategy, high standards, meritocracy & overall excellence,” Tata wrote on X.

“That review is now complete. Special thanks to @RobManess, @KurtSchlichter & Tom Anderson for answering the call to serve on this Task Force. Led by Dr. Maurice L. Todd—ASW(R), PhD, MA, MS & top 5% West Point graduate—they delivered critical recommendations to strengthen our SSCs & prepare our military leaders to achieve peace through strength.”

The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between legacy media outlets and conservative voices in the national security space. What the Post framed as a scandalous “secret installation” was actually a straightforward temporary advisory role—the kind of expert consultation that occurs across administrations. The difference here appears to be that these particular advisors hold conservative views and publicly support the current administration’s defense priorities.

The episode also raises serious questions about the Post’s sourcing methods, particularly regarding the allegedly illegally obtained personal information. If government employees leaked protected personal data to damage these veterans’ reputations, that would constitute a far more serious breach of public trust than anything alleged in the original article.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.