Hegseth Directs Army Secretary To Fire Public Affairs Chief
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has directed Army Secretary Dan Driscoll to remove Col. Dave Butler from his position as chief of Army public affairs and senior adviser to the Army secretary, according to a report by Fox News.
Driscoll is currently in Geneva as part of a U.S. negotiating team working on efforts related to the war in Ukraine, Fox News reported.
Butler previously served as head of public affairs for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the tenure of Army Gen. Mark Milley as chairman. He had been slated for promotion to brigadier general and appeared for two consecutive years on an Army list of 34 officers selected for advancement.
The promotion list has reportedly been delayed for nearly four months after Hegseth raised concerns about several officers included by the Army selection board. Under federal law, the defense secretary cannot unilaterally remove individual names from a promotion list once it has been submitted.
According to an Army official cited in the report, Butler offered to voluntarily withdraw his name from consideration in an effort to allow the broader list of promotions to move forward.
Driscoll, an Army veteran and a close ally of Vice President JD Vance—who attended Yale Law School with Vance—had resisted Hegseth’s ongoing pressure to fire Butler for months due to Butler’s significant contributions to the transformation of the Army.
“We greatly appreciate COL Dave Butler’s lifetime of service in America’s Army and to our nation,” Driscoll said in a statement. “Dave has been an integral part of the Army’s transformation efforts and I sincerely wish him tremendous success in his upcoming retirement after 28 years of service.”
Butler accompanied Driscoll to Ukraine to help start peace negotiations in November 2025, Fox stated, adding that Hegseth’s firing demand came late last week.
In 2025, Hegseth took charge at the Pentagon and quickly began to dismiss high-ranking officers or push them into early retirement, often without providing reasons or justifications. Among those affected were Adm. Lisa Franchetti, then chief of naval operations; Gen. CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. James Mingus, who held the position of vice chief of the Army; Gen. Douglas A. Sims, director of the Joint Staff; Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin; Gen. James Slife, vice chief of the Air Force; and Gen. Timothy Haugh, director of the National Security Agency, among others.
Butler, recognized as one of the Army’s top communicators, played a vital role alongside elite special operations units during numerous missions overseas while attached to the Army’s Delta Force from 2010 to 2014.
From 2015 to 2018, he served as the public affairs officer for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. During this time, he worked closely with Gen. Scott Miller when Miller was in command of JSOC from 2016 to 2018.
Following Miller’s request, Butler then deployed to Afghanistan when Miller took command there from 2018 to 2019.
Throughout this period, he acted as the chief spokesman and director of communications for all U.S. and NATO forces while Miller held the position of top four-star general in Afghanistan, Fox reported.
A former four-star officer who once commanded U.S. Special Operations said Butler was “the consummate professional, the most competent Public Affairs officer I have ever worked with and a gifted practitioner of strategic communications.”
In 2025, as part of the Army’s 250th birthday celebrations, President Donald Trump acknowledged Butler specifically for his efforts in assisting the Army chief with organizing the parade in Washington, D.C.
In December, a federal appeals court sided with Hegseth and the Trump administration over its reimposed policy barring transgender Americans from serving in the U.S. military. At the same time, the appeals panel chided the lower federal district court judge appointed by Joe Biden over her ruling against the Pentagon.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
