.png)
Pentagon Influencer Under Scrutiny After Calling Liberal Women a “Pestilence”
A controversy surrounding the Pentagon's use of social-media influencers has gained renewed attention after reporting examined the online statements and government role of Kurt Schlichter, a retired U.S. Army colonel and conservative commentator.
Schlichter, who has more than 620,000 followers on X, has worked with the Pentagon on a task force focused on what the Defense Department described as “woke” or progressive ideologies at military war colleges. His government role and previous social-media statements have prompted questions about the involvement of politically outspoken influencers in government work.
Who Is Kurt Schlichter?
Schlichter is a retired Army colonel who became a lawyer, author and social-media commentator after leaving active military service. According to reporting by The Washington Post, Pentagon records showed Schlichter had an active government email address and was assigned to the office of the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The Post reported that he and other conservative veterans with substantial online audiences were placed in civilian roles within the Defense Department.
Schlichter confirmed to WIRED that he was a civilian government employee working on a task force examining progressive ideologies at the military's senior service colleges. The Pentagon's press secretary, Kingsley Wilson, said the department was proud of the contributions of patriotic civilians and veterans involved in the task force.
It remains unclear from the reporting whether Schlichter is still working with the Pentagon.
The “Pestilence” Comment
The controversy intensified after WIRED reviewed Schlichter's previous public statements.
In a July 2026 article published by conservative outlet Townhall, Schlichter argued that “liberal women” represented a threat to Western civilization. He described them as a “pestilence” and a “plague” and argued that their influence could contribute to the decline of Western society.
The language has attracted attention because of Schlichter's simultaneous connection to a Pentagon task force.
Importantly, these statements are Schlichter's own political and personal views, rather than an official statement from the U.S. Department of Defense.
Previous Statements on Voting
Schlichter's online history includes other controversial political positions. In a 2021 post on X, he argued for restrictions on voting rights for people who do not have children, serve in the military or own property. He proposed using taxation and voting qualifications to penalize what he described as “non-familial lifestyles.” WIRED reported that posts from the thread were collectively shared thousands of times.
Such proposals would represent major changes to the principles governing political participation in the United States.
The U.S. Constitution currently establishes voting rights through constitutional amendments and federal and state law, rather than general property ownership or military-service requirements.
Comments About Immigrants and Historical Figures
WIRED's review also documented other controversial statements from Schlichter.
The report says he has praised authoritarian leaders including Chile's Augusto Pinochet and Spain's Francisco Franco in posts on X. It also documented derogatory comments about immigrants, including language describing them as “Third World barbarians” and “semihuman savages.”
These statements form part of the broader debate over Schlichter's public role and whether individuals with such histories should hold positions connected to government institutions.
Schlichter did not respond to WIRED's requests for comment, according to the publication.
Why the Pentagon Connection Matters
The controversy is not simply about an influencer's social-media posts. It also raises questions about the growing intersection between government, political communication and online influence. The Washington Post reported in August that the Pentagon had placed several conservative veterans with significant social-media followings into civilian government positions. The individuals included Schlichter, retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness and retired Army Colonel Thomas Anderson. Their assignments attracted attention because these individuals already had substantial audiences outside government. That creates an unusual situation: people who built their careers partly through online commentary can potentially bring those communication networks and political perspectives into government institutions.
The development reflects a much broader transformation in how political and public communication works.
Social-media platforms have created a new class of influential commentators who can reach hundreds of thousands — or millions — of people without working for traditional media organizations.
Government agencies have also increasingly recognized the importance of communicating directly with online audiences. But when influencers become government employees or advisers, questions can arise about transparency, institutional neutrality, conflicts of interest and the distinction between personal commentary and official government communication. Those questions become especially significant when the influencer has publicly expressed strong political views.
A Debate About Government and Online Influence
The Pentagon's relationship with influencers is part of a larger conversation taking place across government and society: Where should the line be drawn between public communication and political advocacy?
Supporters of using experienced veterans and communicators could argue that people with large audiences can help government institutions communicate more effectively with the public.
Critics may instead question whether politically outspoken commentators should participate in policy-related government work, particularly when their public statements target specific groups or political viewpoints.
The controversy surrounding Schlichter has brought those competing concerns into sharper focus.
The story is ultimately larger than one individual.It illustrates how the boundaries between social media, politics, government and personal branding are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. An influencer can build an audience through strong opinions. A government institution can benefit from people who understand how online communication works. But when those two worlds overlap, transparency becomes especially important.
For audiences, the episode is also a reminder to distinguish between an individual's political commentary and the official position of the institution with which that person is associated. In Schlichter's case, his statements about liberal women, voting rights and immigrants are his own public positions. His work with the Pentagon, meanwhile, was connected to a specific task force examining ideological issues at military educational institutions.
The controversy now places a much bigger question in the spotlight:
"When social-media influence enters government, how should personal political expression and public responsibility coexist?"
Comments