Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen called the government source behind his own newspaper’s reporting on military opposition to prolonging the Iran war a “traitor” who should face prosecution.
“Whoever leaked this is a traitor and ought to be prosecuted,” the conservative columnist wrote Sunday on X, sharing the Post’s exclusive report that senior military commanders had warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth against sustaining large-scale operations against Iran.
The comments created an unusual tension at the Post, which had already defended its reporting after Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell accused the newspaper of committing a crime by publishing classified information.
“We’re confident in our reporting, our sourcing, and the constitutional protections that guarantee the rights of news organizations to publish information in the public interest that holds officials accountable,” the Post said in a statement. “The assertion that such publication is a crime is both incorrect and irresponsible.”
Post foreign-policy columnist Josh Rogin challenged Thiessen by pointing to the newspaper’s defense of its reporting.
“I said whoever LEAKED it, Josh,” Thiessen responded. “You do get that a government official leaking classified information to the press is committing a crime, right?”
Thiessen’s clarification drew a distinction between prosecuting the journalists who published the classified information and the government official who provided it. But his call would still target a confidential source behind reporting published by his own newspaper.
The underlying Post report said four senior military commanders formally objected to continuing to divert personnel and equipment to the Middle East into 2027. The warnings appeared in a classified Aug. 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, according to people familiar with the assessment.
The commanders warned that extended deployments were degrading their ability to carry out other missions, including homeland defense, according to the Post. Navy chief Adm. Daryl Caudle reportedly argued that the service could not sustain its current level of support for the Iran conflict without a clear end date.
Parnell disputed portions of the report but acknowledged that Hegseth regularly receives such objections from military leaders, describing “non-concurs” as a standard part of the process.
