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.”

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

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