Mattis Aide’s Tell-All Book Cleared for Release After Months-Long Delay by the Pentagon

The book is billed as a “sometimes shocking account” of the Pentagon under President Donald Trump.

Zach Gibson/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A former aide to Defense Secretary James Mattis is moving forward with the release of a book his publisher has hyped as a “sometimes shocking account” of the Pentagon under President Donald Trump, less than two weeks after he sued the Pentagon over claims that officials delayed its release to help Mattis. 

Guy Snodgrass, a retired Navy pilot who served as Mattis’ speechwriter for 17 months, told me that the Pentagon on Wednesday finally cleared his book for publication with only “very, very, very minor” redactions. A letter from the Pentagon, which Snodgrass provided to me, confirmed that his manuscript had been cleared for public release. 

The book, Holding the Line: Inside Trump’s Pentagon with Secretary Mattis, was originally scheduled to publish on Halloween, but Snodgrass said he is unsure whether that date will still be met. A spokesperson for Random House, which is publishing the book through its conservative Sentinel imprint, did not immediately respond to a question about the release date. 

In a lawsuit filed last month against the Pentagon, Snodgrass accused the department of slow-walking his manuscript’s review process to “benefit” Mattis, whose own memoir, Call Sign Chaos, was released last week. Mattis submitted his resignation as Secretary of Defense in December after objecting to Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria.

The Defense Department regularly reviews manuscripts by former government officials to ensure no classified information is included, but Snodgrass claimed in an affidavit filed as part of his lawsuit that Pentagon reviewers went beyond their official purview when screening his book. As I reported last week, officials “were particularly concerned with repeated references to the ‘Tank,’ an ornate Pentagon conference room where Mattis met with Trump and other senior government officials.” In emails included as part of Snodgrass’ case, a Pentagon official told Snodgrass that attendees at these meetings with Trump “need to have absolute confidence that their discussions, to include physical reaction and body language, will not be replicated, period.”

Mark Zaid, Snodgrass’ attorney, indicated Monday on Twitter that the Pentagon was planning to complete its review within the week “with minimal redactions.” That process has now apparently concluded, clearing the way for publication. 

Random House described the manuscript in promotional materials as a “fly-on-the-wall view” of Mattis during Trump’s tumultuous first months in office. In contrast to Mattis’ book, which avoids directly attacking Trump, the central argument of Snodgrass’ manuscript “will be that Mattis, during his first year at the Pentagon, was able to tame some of Trump’s more damaging instincts,” according to a New York Times article from March, when Snodgrass first announced the project. The summary of his book on Random House’s website describes Trump as “a President whose actions were frequently unpredictable and impulsive with far-reaching consequences.”

Mattis is portrayed flatteringly in the promotional materials—the Random House blurb calls him “the administration’s ‘adult in the room.'” But Mattis has been reluctant to criticize Trump since leaving his Cabinet, sparking criticism of the revered Marine Corps general during his much-publicized book tour last week. When Snodgrass emailed him in March to let him know the book was set to be announced, Mattis scolded his former aide for breaking his confidence. “I regret that you appear to be violating the trust that permitted you as a member of my staff to be in my private meetings,” he wrote, according to an exchange Snodgrass later released as part of his lawsuit.

The Pentagon evidently viewed Snodgrass’ project with similar disdain. In a Foreign Policy piece published earlier today, an anonymous former defense official accused Snodgrass of suffering “delusions of grandeur that were clearly misplaced.”

The former official added, “Unfortunately, he assumed a level of importance to his role that neither his responsibilities, position, nor rank afforded him.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate