Fact Check Analysis: Hegseth takes actions against Trump foe Mark Milley

At DBUNK, we rely heavily on user-submitted fact-checking requests to ensure accountability in news media. One of our subscribers requested a verification of the controversial article titled “Hegseth takes actions against Trump foe Mark Milley”, published by Dan Lamothe in the Washington Post, which explores Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s actions against retired General Mark Milley. Given the escalating debates about this story, particularly regarding Milley’s calls to Beijing, DBUNK has conducted an exhaustive review of the article and the key claims it presents. Let’s break it down and uncover the truth.

Key Claim Investigated

Reader’s Question: One of the most pressing questions arising from this article revolves around General Milley’s communication with Chinese officials during the final months of the Trump administration. Readers want to know: Were Milley’s calls to senior officials in Beijing illegal?

Fact Check Findings

The claim that General Milley’s calls to Chinese officials could constitute illegal actions was neither explicitly stated in the article nor backed by substantial evidence. However, multiple layers of misinformation, missing context, and biased framing exist throughout the piece, warranting clarification:

1. Context Behind Milley’s Beijing Calls is Incomplete

The article notes that Milley’s calls were coordinated with Trump administration officials but glosses over critical details that contextualize the legality of these actions. According to testimony Milley gave to Congress in 2021 about these calls (widely reported and corroborated across media outlets), the conversations were part of established military-to-military communications aimed at de-escalating tensions with China. Milley stated that these communications followed protocols and were coordinated with then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and later Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller. No evidence has emerged showing Milley acted unilaterally or outside the bounds of his role.

Critics interpreted these calls as undermining civilian control of the military, but labeling them “treason” or “illegal,” as was implied by some commentary in the article, lacks evidence. Milley’s testimony and subsequent investigations by congressional committees cleared him of wrongdoing.

2. Biased Framing of Milley’s Career

The article portrays Milley primarily as a ‘political operator’ and amplifies anonymous statements calling him ‘disloyal’ and deserving of post-retirement demotion. This framing fails to acknowledge Milley’s decorated career trajectory and the broader bipartisan praise he received for upholding military neutrality during contentious political moments. For instance, Milley’s apology following the 2020 White House photo-op incident underscores his commitment to prioritizing constitutional principles over political alliances. The exclusion of this balancing perspective reflects bias in the article’s tone.

3. Misleading Comparisons and Generalizations

By suggesting that Hegseth’s revocation of Milley’s security detail mirrors actions taken against other Trump-era officials like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, the article implies a precedent when, in reality, there is no direct parallel. Both Pompeo and Bolton faced heightened security risks due to specific incidents, including threats from adversarial nations. Milley’s case is unique in that the decision appears politically motivated, as highlighted by backlash from congressional figures like Senator Jack Reed. This distinction is crucial and downplayed in the article.

Verdict

Milley’s calls to Beijing were not illegal based on existing evidence and assessments from Congress and the Department of Defense. Claims implying otherwise lack substantiation. Additionally, the article’s biased framing and omission of context skew its narrative, failing to provide readers with a complete and objective account of the events surrounding Hegseth’s actions against Milley.

DBUNK’s investigation underscores the complexities behind the actions taken against Milley while correcting misinformation around the legality of his Beijing calls. We urge viewers to approach content like this critically, as articles can selectively frame events in misleading ways.

Join the Fight Against Misinformation

The spread of misinformation erodes public trust and polarizes society. DBUNK is here to provide clarity, empower readers with fact-checked information, and combat fake news effectively. If you come across questionable claims, send us your fact-check requests, and we’ll investigate. Download our app and stay informed with unbiased news you can trust.

Visit us today to submit your own fact-checking request or keep watching our feeds for updates on the latest verifications. Let’s tackle misinformation and hold it accountable — together.

Original Article: Click here to read the Washington Post article