Ep 119 - The Pentagon’s Influencer Army

There is something almost poetic about the way this story came to light. Jennica Pounds, the conservative online investigator better known as DataRepublican, became convinced that the Deep State might be trying to set her up. A government official had given her documents related to conservative allegations of federal censorship, Pounds became suspicious of what she had been handed, and she sounded the alarm. Except the supposed Deep State operative wasn't some Biden holdover lurking in the shadows. It was Sarah Rogers, Donald Trump's own undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, who essentially responded that there was no setup—she was trying to give Pounds a scoop.

The Pentagon’s new media ecosystem is blurring the line between independent political commentary and government influence.

That would have been funny enough on its own. A little MAGA-on-MAGA friendly fire. But then came the detail that transformed a political farce into something considerably more important: DataRepublican wasn't merely an outside conservative investigator receiving information from the Trump administration. She was working for the Trump administration herself. Pounds acknowledged that she had become a special government employee at the Department of Defense in July. Before that, she had been credentialed as a journalist in Pete Hegseth's revamped Pentagon press corps.

To be clear, the timeline matters. Pounds says her Pentagon press credential expired in June and that she began working for the Pentagon in July. There is no established overlap showing that she was simultaneously serving as a credentialed Pentagon journalist and Pentagon employee. But that isn't really the troubling part of this story anyway. The question is what her enormous online audience knew about the change. When someone builds credibility investigating the federal government and then goes to work for that government while continuing to participate in political commentary, the relationship matters.

And then the story got bigger. Much bigger.

An August 30 investigation by The Washington Post identified other prominent conservative online personalities with Pentagon connections that were not clearly apparent to the audiences consuming their political commentary. Among them were retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness, retired Army Col. Kurt Schlichter, and retired Army Col. Thomas Anderson, better known online as Cynical Publius. According to Pentagon records reviewed by the Post, all three had been associated with the office of Anthony Tata, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

These aren't politically anonymous technical advisers who happen to have dormant Facebook accounts. They are outspoken conservative voices with substantial audiences. Maness has publicly argued that Hegseth needed to identify and remove supposedly disloyal career officials inside the Pentagon. Schlichter is a prominent MAGA commentator and fierce Hegseth defender. Anderson's Cynical Publius account reaches hundreds of thousands of people. Their political opinions are not the problem. Their government employment isn't inherently the problem either. The problem is that the people consuming those opinions deserve to know when the person delivering them is also working inside the institution being discussed.

And these apparently weren't ceremonial appointments designed to hand somebody a Pentagon email address and make them feel important. Maness, Schlichter and Anderson reportedly appeared at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the Pentagon's Senior Service College Task Force. That task force was part of Hegseth's effort to examine professional military education for ideology his administration considers “woke” or otherwise objectionable. The three men reportedly met with students and faculty and asked questions about curriculum and military leadership.

That changes the stakes considerably. We aren't merely talking about influencers tweeting nice things about Pete Hegseth while occasionally wandering through the Pentagon cafeteria. At least some of these individuals appear to have participated in substantive government work that could help shape military education and personnel policy. At the same time, their political audiences were hearing from them without necessarily understanding the government relationship behind the person doing the talking.

There is plenty we still don't know. The Pentagon did not provide the Post with complete answers about precisely what these individuals were hired to do, how long all of their assignments were supposed to last, or whether each of them was being paid. That's important because some critics have already jumped to the phrase “paid Pentagon influencers.” That may make for a hell of a headline, but the available evidence doesn't establish it for every person involved. We don't need to invent the most explosive version of this story. The version we can establish is troubling enough.

We also do not have evidence that the Pentagon was writing their social-media posts. We don't know that Hegseth's office handed anybody talking points and ordered them to go sell those messages to their followers. We don't know that their online advocacy was part of their government duties. And the reporting does not establish a coordinated domestic propaganda operation targeting Americans through conservative influencers. Those are serious accusations, and serious accusations require evidence.

But here's what I find remarkable: we don't need any of that for this to be a problem. 

Imagine seeing a prominent commentator tell hundreds of thousands of people that Pete Hegseth is doing a terrific job, that his critics are undermining him, or that supposedly disloyal Pentagon employees need to be removed. You are entitled to evaluate those arguments on their merits. But wouldn't you also want to know if the person making them was working inside Pete Hegseth's Pentagon? That doesn't automatically make the argument wrong. It gives you relevant information about the person making it.

We understand this principle everywhere else. If someone goes on television praising a pharmaceutical company while receiving money from that pharmaceutical company, we expect disclosure. If an analyst promotes a corporation while holding a financial interest in it, we want to know. If someone presents himself as an independent expert while simultaneously working for the organization he's defending, that relationship is relevant. Government shouldn't get a lower standard.

The larger context makes this even harder to dismiss. Hegseth has dramatically changed the Pentagon's relationship with traditional news organizations. His department imposed new restrictions on Pentagon journalists, prompting reporters from organizations across the political spectrum—including conservative outlets—to surrender their credentials rather than accept the new terms. At the same time, the Pentagon welcomed a new group of media organizations that included a number of explicitly conservative and pro-Trump outlets. DataRepublican herself entered the Pentagon through that new media environment before later becoming a government employee.

There is an illuminating contrast. Conservative journalist Jerry Dunleavy was brought into Hegseth's review of the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. You can agree or disagree with Dunleavy's politics. You can question the investigation. But the Pentagon publicly announced that Dunleavy was involved. His relationship with the department wasn't something reporters had to discover later by digging through government records. That's what transparency looks like.

And then there is the hypocrisy. Oh, sweet Jesus, the hypocrisy.

For years, the MAGA movement has warned Americans about the Deep State. Government operatives manipulating public opinion. Federal officials coordinating with friendly media. Bureaucrats secretly shaping political narratives. Government agencies becoming entangled with outside organizations in ways ordinary Americans cannot see. In fact, that was the entire backdrop to the Sarah Rogers-DataRepublican fiasco that started this story. Conservatives believe the old Global Engagement Center became improperly involved in efforts that suppressed conservative speech. Former officials dispute that characterization, but the conservative principle has been perfectly clear: hidden relationships between government and the information Americans consume are dangerous. 

Okay. I can work with that principle.

So what do we call it when prominent conservative commentators are quietly holding government positions while simultaneously commenting on the administration they're serving? Apparently we've gone from screaming about government operatives influencing political discourse to handing @PatriotEagle1776 a Pentagon email address and calling him a Highly Qualified Expert.

And no, the answer cannot simply be that these people are conservatives and therefore trustworthy. Transparency rules don't change when your preferred political party wins an election. If Joe Biden's Pentagon had quietly brought several prominent progressive influencers into government positions while those influencers continued praising Lloyd Austin, attacking Republican critics and advocating personnel changes inside the Defense Department without clearly disclosing their government relationships, conservatives would have gone absolutely feral. And they would have had a point.

The Pentagon is not a campaign headquarters. It is not a super PAC. It is not a political podcast. It is the headquarters of the United States military. It communicates with Americans about wars, national-security threats, military readiness, personnel and decisions that can put people's sons and daughters in harm's way. Its credibility matters.

That credibility depends partly upon maintaining clear boundaries between official government communication, independent journalism, political advocacy and outside commentary. Those worlds can interact. People can move between them. Conservatives can work in government. Liberals can work in government. Journalists can leave journalism and take government jobs. Government employees can leave and become commentators. None of that is inherently sinister. But when someone crosses one of those lines, the audience deserves to know which side of it they're standing on. 

That's why Jennica Pounds ultimately isn't the most important part of this story. She's simply how we stumbled into it. A conservative influencer thought the Deep State was trying to trap her, accidentally revealed that she was working for the Pentagon, and helped expose a much larger question about how Pete Hegseth's Pentagon interacts with the political-media ecosystem that supports it.

There are still questions that deserve answers. What exactly were these people hired to do? Which of them were compensated? How much influence did they have over policy? Are there others? And did any of their online activity have any connection whatsoever to their government work? We shouldn't pretend we know those answers until the evidence exists. But we should absolutely demand them.

Because the Pentagon doesn't need influencers. It needs credibility. And credibility requires transparency. The problem isn't that these people have political opinions. The problem isn't even that they work for Pete Hegseth. The problem is that the people listening to them weren't clearly told that both things were true.

They spent years warning us that government operatives might be quietly helping shape political narratives. Maybe the objection wasn't entirely to the concept. Maybe they just wanted their turn at the keyboard.

SOURCES

Washington Post — Pentagon secretly installs military influencers in civilian roles - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/30/pentagon-secretly-installs-military-influencers-civilian-roles/

Department of Defense — Hegseth orders review of U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan - https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/article/4193103/secretary-hegseth-statement-directing-dod-review-of-us-military-withdrawal-from/

Associated Press — Pentagon announces new press corps filled with conservative outlets - https://apnews.com/article/b14b8cef6ba63cdac17c8ffac375e615

Associated Press — Hegseth orders additional restrictions on Pentagon press access - https://apnews.com/article/ff9ed0431848cae8816108a8b19c640f

Department of Defense — Updated physical-control measures for Pentagon press access - https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/23/2003721693/-1/-1/1/UPDATED-PHYSICAL-CONTROL-MEASURES-FOR-PRESS-MEDIA-ACCESS-WITHIN-THE-PENTAGON.PDF

Associated Press — Judge sides with New York Times in challenge to Pentagon press policy - https://apnews.com/article/dc7a69b7e7c3f618b3879d9cafec9b25

Associated Press — Pentagon bars journalists from press office after designating it a classified space - https://apnews.com/article/91bae8b82d16b96091f31518cc4d4c72

Department of Defense — Pentagon releases Digital Content Refresh Memorandum - https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Article/4079501/pentagon-releases-digital-content-refresh-memorandum/