By Col. Bill Prince, USA ret, USMA ’70

MacArthur Society President Comments on West Point’s Involvement in Providing Derogatory (and False) Information Regarding Secretary of Defense Nominee Peter Hegseth.

By now I expect most visitors to our website have seen the latest imbroglio coming out of West Point – and to me it smells rotten.

(For those interested, Sen. Tom Cotton’s very appropriate letter to USMA Superintendent LTG Steve Gilland can be viewed on Sen. Cotton’s website.  Rep. Jim Banks has sent a similar letter.)

Here is what we know.  ProPublica, a left-wing “newsroom” which according to Sen. Cotton was in the process of publishing “a derogatory hit piece” on Secretary of Defense Nominee Peter Hegseth reached out to West Point regarding Mr. Hegseth’s claim that he had been accepted to the Military Academy.

Mirable Dictu – the PAO apparently responded with alacrity stating that Mr. Hegseth had never even applied to West Point, much less been accepted, in essence calling Mr. Hegseth a liar.

Thank goodness he had kept his West Point acceptance letter from 25 years ago.

Why, you ask, does this smell rotten to me?  I and others have repeatedly asked the PAO for help.  Stonewalled!

I have even offered to send articles I had written in draft to the PAO prior to publication asking for comments, criticisms and corrections which I promised to include.  Stonewalled!

Why such a speedy response to ProPublica?

Reportedly, not once but twice, Ms. Theresa Brinkerhoff, West Point Media Relations Division Chief, assured ProPublica that Mr. Hegseth did not get accepted to West Point. Why would she do this? 

West Point’s official response raises more questions than it answers.  The response cites an “administrative error.” We are supposed to accept, “Oh, so sorry.”  “Know you will understand, as we are always so very busy.”

Like I said, this smells rotten.  I cannot believe that the PAO would have breezed through such an “administrative error”, not once but twice!

I have a theory.  Please forgive a very suspicious old grad.  You cannot tell me that it was just business as usual for the PAO, after getting morning coffee, to interact with a left-wing newsroom noted for smear campaigns to comment on the nominee for Secretary of Defense.

I think Sen. Cotton is being charitable when he says this “…demonstrates egregiously bad judgment.”  Frankly I think it stretches credulity.

It is not my intention to malign LTG Gilland.  Did he approve the release of this (it turns out false) information?  I don’t know and I certainly hope not.

As Sen. Cotton stated, West Point’s releasing any information on Mr. Hegseth likely violates his rights under the Privacy Act of 1974.  And this is derogatory information on the individual nominated to be LTG Gilland’s boss’s boss.  Clearly, an area where angels fear to tread.

For anyone familiar with a military chain of command, this kind of hot potato should have been pushed to the top, and fast.

As I said, I have a theory.  While we don’t know the exact timing, the PAO’s contact (twice) with ProPublica may well have coincided with media reporting that Mr. Hegseth might not have the needed votes for Senate confirmation.  Would the West Point brass have any reason to not want Mr. Hegseth as SecDef.???

Well…, maybe.  Let us consider the following:

“First of all, you got to fire the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and obviously going to bring in a new Secretary of Defense, but any general that was involved — general, admiral, whatever — that was involved in, any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said during an interview on the “Shawn Ryan Show” podcast.  Whew!  Strong words.

USMA – until what many consider a “rebranding” (subject of another lawsuit) – maintained the Office of Diversity Inclusion and Equal Opportunity (ODIEO); requesting funding for that office of $640,000 for FY24.

As I understand it, the Chief Diversity Officer for USMA worked directly for the Superintendent.  LTG Gilland gave enthusiastic introductory remarks and was in evidence at the most recent two day ODIEO Leadership Conference (Aug. 2023) held at West Point and attended by some 300 people, yours truly included.

It appears to me that this incident would benefit from an official Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out exactly who did what, who knew  – and when.

Now I recognize that over the past several years, West Point seems to have become rather comfortable ignoring Federal law and stonewalling FOIA requests (leading to lawsuits to try to force the Academy to tell the truth).

USMA is not just another tactical unit but a public institution that owes transparency to a wide range of groups and individuals who have an interest in its processes and outcomes.  Many of those individuals and groups have lost confidence in what the official spokespeople are saying.

Behind the smile at Saturday’s Army-Navy football game, I would suspect LTG Gilland recognizes there is a new sheriff in town who may not take such a relaxed attitude toward West Point stonewalling FOIA requests. Perhaps I might even get mine answered; now going on 27 months of delays.

The MacArthur Society came into being in large part because concerned graduates were unable to get answers about events, incidents, and decisions over the recent years.

The MacArthur Society is devoted to shining sunshine where it has previously been unnecessarily dark.

For those concerned as we are about the health and wellbeing of West Point, I urge you to join us.

Exciting times ahead

Col. (Ret.) William F. Prince
USMA Class of 1970

The MacArthur Society does not take a position regarding Pete Hegseth’s nomination.  We do take stand against the PAO’s failure to accurately provide facts to an inquiring reporter. It was either sloppy or intentional and neither is acceptable.