The commitment to transparency and trust in government, a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s administration, is being questioned amid the secrecy surrounding Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s hospitalization. Austin was admitted to the hospital on January 1 for complications following an elective medical procedure. However, the Defense Department did not inform the White House about Austin’s condition until three days later, raising concerns about the administration’s adherence to its promise.
The lack of disclosure about the details of Austin’s hospitalization, including the nature of his illness and the medical procedure undergone, has ignited a political controversy. This non-disclosure, even to key figures within the White House and Austin’s top deputy, has led to criticism, with experts emphasizing the potential damage to the Pentagon’s credibility and questioning the administration’s commitment to transparency.
Brett Bruen, a former diplomat and crisis communications expert who served in the White House under President Barack Obama, underscored the seriousness of the situation, stating, “Heads have to roll. This is not a minor miscommunication. It’s about the confidence that our national security structure has in its leadership and that the leadership is acting in a transparent way.”
In response to inquiries about the possibility of President Biden firing Austin, White House spokesman John Kirby emphasized Biden’s appreciation for Austin’s advice and leadership. Kirby stated, “There is no plan for anything other than for Secretary Austin to stay in the job.”
As of Monday, January 8, 2024, Austin, aged 70, was reported to be recovering well at Walter Reed from an undisclosed illness, according to his spokesman, Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder. The situation has sparked concerns about the administration’s commitment to transparency and has become a focal point for discussions on leadership and credibility within the national security structure.
Several Defense Department officials affirm that they were not aware of Austin’s illness until the Pentagon released a statement late Friday. Austin, hospitalized on Jan. 1 due to complications from an elective procedure, spent four days in the intensive care unit at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, severely affected by the sickness.
A senior Defense Department official characterized the controversy as an instance of avoidable mistakes. The announcement of Austin’s hospitalization and the subsequent stay in intensive care, along with the delay in informing the White House for three days, was not disclosed until a statement was issued late Friday by Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder.
Defense Department officials also said on Sunday, January 7, 2024, that Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, who had been fulfilling the required role during Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s hospitalization, was not apprised of his condition for several days.
In response to the unfolding situation, Austin acknowledged the shortcomings in communication, expressing in a statement released on Saturday that he “could have done a better job ensuring the public was appropriately informed” about his illness. He committed to improving communication in the future.
However, the continuous release of concerning updates regarding the health of the defense secretary, a crucial figure in the chain of command, has led to a loss of confidence in the military, according to a senior Pentagon official. Describing it as a guide on undermining public trust through omissions, the official characterized the situation as tantamount to lying.
The developments surrounding Austin’s hospitalization and the delayed communication with key officials left Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University specializing in civilian-military relations, astounded. Describing the episode as baffling and indicative of poor judgment, Feaver highlighted the perplexing decision to keep the White House uninformed, emphasizing the duty of Cabinet officers to keep their superiors informed at all times.
The article concludes by referencing President Biden’s concerns about the peril facing democracy and questioning the effectiveness of his actions in preventing events similar to January 6.
The timing of Defense Secretary Austin’s secrecy poses a particular challenge for President Biden, who, upon entering the White House three years ago, pledged transparency and stability in government, aiming to distance himself from the perceived chaos of the Trump administration.
Biden recently delivered a significant campaign speech, emphasizing the critical role of democracy in the upcoming election, where he is anticipated to face Donald Trump again. The lack of disclosure regarding Austin’s illness, coupled with Biden being kept unaware, raises concerns not only about the administration’s transparency but also about the President’s control over his Cabinet, according to Republican strategist Scott Jennings.
The situation is seen as a breakdown in the command structure of the U.S. armed forces, prompting serious questions about the administration’s commitment to transparency. It underscores a culture of secrecy within the Pentagon and the White House National Security Council, which is deemed detrimental to the national security system, according to Scott Jennings.
The administration’s overall track record on transparency, including the handling of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and the State Department’s communication with foreign leaders, has been criticized for falling short of its promises. The lack of candor regarding Austin’s illness is viewed as the latest example of this pattern, and it is expected to attract congressional inquiries.
While the White House maintains its commitment to transparency, critics argue that actions should align with promises. The situation is likely to fuel criticism from Biden’s opponents and divert attention from revelations about alleged derelictions of duty in the previous administration. Austin’s refusal to acknowledge his illness and the delayed announcement by the Pentagon may prompt further scrutiny at the political level.
