President Trump and Hegseth Condemn Leaks Questioning Effectiveness of U.S. Military Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unleashed a fierce rebuke of media reports and leaked intelligence assessments during a NATO summit press conference in the Netherlands, dismissing claims that U.S. military strikes failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. The fiery remarks came in response to a leaked Pentagon report suggesting the strikes, conducted over the weekend, set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, contradicting Trump’s assertion that the facilities were “completely and totally obliterated.” The administration’s outrage underscores escalating tensions over the strikes’ effectiveness and the political fallout from unauthorized disclosures.

A Bold Claim Under Scrutiny On Saturday, June 21, 2025, President Trump announced via Truth Social that U.S. forces, in coordination with Israel, had executed precision strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In a televised address from the White House, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Hegseth, Trump declared the strikes a “spectacular military success,” claiming Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities had been “obliterated.” Defense Secretary Hegseth echoed this sentiment at a Pentagon briefing on Sunday, calling the operation, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” an “incredible and overwhelming success” that devastated Iran’s nuclear ambitions without targeting its troops or civilians.

However, a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) preliminary assessment, reported by CNN and confirmed by outlets like The Guardian and The Washington Post, painted a less decisive picture. The report, categorized as “low-confidence,” suggested that while the strikes caused “moderate to severe” damage, key underground structures at Fordow and Natanz remained intact, and Iran’s nuclear program could resume within months. The assessment noted that enriched uranium stockpiles had likely been moved prior to the attack, and centrifuges were largely undamaged.
Trump and Hegseth’s Furious Response
Speaking at the NATO summit on Wednesday, Trump slammed the media as “fake news” for amplifying the leaked report, accusing outlets like CNN and The New York Times of undermining the U.S. military and pursuing political agendas. Reading from a statement attributed to Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, Trump insisted the strikes had “devastated” Fordow’s critical infrastructure, rendering it “totally inoperable.” He called the leakers “scum” and suggested their actions were designed to “make the president look bad.”
Hegseth, standing alongside Trump and Rubio, confirmed the existence of the DIA report but dismissed it as “preliminary” and “low-confidence,” emphasizing that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into the leak. “We’re doing a leak investigation with the FBI right now because this information is for internal purposes—battle damage assessments,” Hegseth said. “CNN and others are trying to spin it to make the president look bad when this was an overwhelming success.” He argued that the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, dropped precisely on target, ensured Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated,” and challenged skeptics to “get a big shovel and go really deep” to assess the damage.
Hegseth also accused the leakers of having “other motives,” a sentiment echoed by Rubio, who called them “professional stabbers” manipulating intelligence for political gain. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went further, labeling the leak a “clear attempt to demean President Trump” and discredit the pilots who executed the mission. She claimed the report was “flat-out wrong” and leaked by a “low-level loser” in the intelligence community.
Conflicting Assessments and Satellite Evidence
The leaked DIA report has sparked a heated debate over the strikes’ true impact. Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies, analyzed by experts, showed six fresh craters and debris at Fordow, indicating significant surface damage. However, the extent of destruction to underground facilities remains unclear, as the MOP bombs were designed to penetrate deep structures. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported no off-site radiation increases but noted that assessing underground damage at Fordow was not yet possible.
Iranian officials, including deputy political director Hassan Abedini, claimed the targeted sites had been evacuated in advance, with enriched uranium reserves relocated, minimizing the strikes’ impact. Conversely, CIA Director John Ratcliffe posted on X that “credible intelligence” from a reliable source indicated Iran’s nuclear program was “severely damaged,” potentially requiring years to rebuild. Israeli officials, including military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin, claimed the strikes delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by “several years,” aligning with Trump’s narrative.
Political and Diplomatic Ramifications
The controversy over the leaks comes at a sensitive time, as Trump navigates diplomatic challenges at the NATO summit and faces domestic criticism for bypassing Congress to authorize the strikes. Democratic leaders, including Rep. Jim Himes and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, accused Trump of violating the Constitution, arguing that military action against Iran required congressional approval. Republicans, however, largely praised the operation, with House Speaker Mike Johnson stating that Trump had enforced a “clear” policy against a nuclear-armed Iran.
Internationally, the strikes have drawn condemnation from Iran, Russia, China, and the UN, with Secretary-General António Guterres calling them a “dangerous escalation.” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vowed a “proportionate response,” raising fears of retaliation against U.S. bases or shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump, undeterred, likened the strikes to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, asserting Iran’s nuclear capabilities were “gone for years” and warning of further action if Tehran resumes enrichment.
A Test of Credibility
The leaked report and the administration’s vehement response highlight a broader struggle over narrative control. Trump and Hegseth’s insistence on “obliteration” contrasts with cautious assessments from military officials like Gen. Dan Caine, who described the damage as “extremely severe” but noted that a full evaluation would take time. The administration’s focus on leaks risks overshadowing substantive questions about the strikes’ strategic impact and Iran’s next moves.
Critics argue that Trump’s exaggerated claims, coupled with Hegseth’s combative rhetoric, could erode trust among allies and embolden Iran to accelerate its nuclear efforts covertly, as North Korea did after similar setbacks. Supporters, however, view the strikes as a bold demonstration of U.S. resolve, with Hegseth’s leak probe signaling a crackdown on dissent within the Pentagon.
Looking Ahead
As the FBI investigates the leak and the Pentagon refines its damage assessment, the world awaits Iran’s response and the long-term consequences of the strikes. Trump’s push for peace talks, coupled with threats of further attacks, creates a precarious balance. For now, the administration’s battle against “fake news” and leakers appears as intense as its military campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, with both fronts shaping the narrative of Trump’s foreign policy legacy.

LISPRINCE