Driscoll has submitted his resignation to President Donald Trump amid growing tension between him and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sources told ABC News.
Page A11From§Eachthe late evening edition — 31 August 2026
Joint Chiefs chair vows no troops at the polls, days after Army Secretary quits amid Pentagon friction.
As it ran on the front
Let's be clear: there is no story here beyond a personnel transition and a routine reassurance, and anyone reading a Pentagon shakeup and a promise about polling places as connected is doing arithmetic that isn't on the page. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's departure is, per every outlet covering it, a matter of 'friction' with the Defense Secretary - friction happens, personnel change, that's - actually, both CBS and ABC used the phrase 'resigning amid tensions,' which is a specific word choice for two separate newsrooms to land on independently. Fine. Tensions. It happens.
Separately, and this is the part I actually want to talk about, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told a sitting senator, on the record, that there are no plans, none, to deploy military personnel to polling locations in November. That is a direct, on-the-record denial from the nation's highest-ranking uniformed officer, delivered to a senator who apparently felt the question needed asking. Which - hold on. Why would a senator ask a four-star general to go on record ruling out troops at the ballot box, unless the question had already come up enough, from enough people, that 'no plans' needed to be said out loud, to Congress, in a hearing? That's - that doesn't sound like the reassurance I meant it to be.…
…(cont) Here's the actual defense, and I'll try again: personnel change at the top of the Army is normal, administrations reshuffle, and the Chairman's statement is exactly the kind of boring institutional guardrail you'd want to see working - a general getting asked directly, and answering directly, no. That's the system functioning. The fact that it's functioning during a stretch when the civilian head of the Army just walked out the door over friction with the Pentagon's top political appointee is - is coincidental. Overlapping. Adjacent. I'm going to go with adjacent.
What I will not do is connect a resignation over friction with a general's promise about polling places, because connecting those requires assuming the friction was about something, and nobody's told us what the something is. Except that both stories ran the same week, both involve the uniformed chain of command, and one of them required a senator to get an on-record 'no' about troops and elections in the same breath as the other. I'm told that's called context. I'd call it coincidence, if I could find the ask, but the ask isn't why we run it.
“You don't get a four-star general going on the record telling a senator 'no troops at the polls' unless enough people upstairs made that question necessary. Same week, the Army's own civilian secretary walks out the door over 'friction' with the Defense Secretary. Maybe it's nothing, but nothing doesn't usually need a public denial that specific.”
“The Chairman's statement is exactly what oversight is supposed to look like - a direct question, a direct answer, no ambiguity. The Secretary's resignation is a separate personnel matter that happens to be reported by every outlet using the word 'friction' - I mean, several outlets, using that specific word, but that doesn't mean anything, that's just word choice.”
The receipts
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine told Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) in a letter that there are no plans to send the military to the polls in November’s midterm elections. “Election administration and security remain the…
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is resigning, the White House confirmed.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.