Did Trump publicly criticize or praise the admiral after the on-stage disagreement?

1. What Trump actually said after the on-stage disagreement

After reporters pressed him about the September double‑tap strike, Trump said he “wouldn’t have wanted that — not a second strike” but added that Hegseth told him Hegseth “did not order the death of those two men” and that Trump “believe[s] him,” according to multiple outlets; that quote sits at the center of the apparent public fissure between the president’s words and subsequent White House messaging ^{[1] [2]}.

2. White House and Pentagon moved quickly to shield Hegseth and point to the admiral

Within days the White House and Pentagon publicly identified Adm. Frank M. Bradley as the officer who “directed the engagement,” with the Pentagon press secretary and the White House press secretary saying the admiral had lawful authority for the follow‑on strike and that Hegseth “stands behind Admiral Bradley, 100%,” creating a narrative that the admiral, not Hegseth, ordered the re‑strike ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Public praise for the admiral — but with political strings attached

Pete Hegseth himself posted praise for the admiral — “Adm Mitch Bradley is an American hero... and has my 100% support” — while simultaneously shifting responsibility toward Bradley, a mix of commendation and political distancing that critics call blame‑shifting ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Critics see scapegoating; defenders insist legality

House Democrats and other critics say the administration is “throwing the admiral under the bus” to deflect accountability for a controversial operation that some view as possible wrongdoing, while White House and Pentagon spokespeople insist Bradley acted lawfully and within self‑defense authorities — the dispute is now political and legal as much as it is about words on stage ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

5. The admiral’s position and congressional scrutiny

Reporting shows Adm. Bradley testified to lawmakers that there was no “kill them all” order from Hegseth, and press briefings framed Bradley as the decision‑maker; Congress has increased scrutiny of the strikes and questioned whether the follow‑on attack was lawful, making the post‑stage public statements part of a broader accountability fight ^{[7] [1]}.

6. Why the framing matters: command, law and morale

The sequence — Trump’s equivocal on‑camera remark; Hegseth’s and the White House’s quick reassignment of operational responsibility to Bradley; and partisan charges of scapegoating — has real consequences for military command clarity, potential legal exposure over the strikes, and morale in the officer corps, according to critics and reporting ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

7. Competing narratives in the press and what’s not in the record

Mainstream outlets report both Trump’s comment that he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike and the White House’s naming of Admiral Bradley as the officer who authorized it; The New York Times frames the exchanges as part of a larger moral critique, while The Guardian and The Hill emphasize political fallout and accusations of scapegoating. Available sources do not mention private, contemporaneous communications between Trump and Bradley beyond the public quotes cited here ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Trump publicly expressed skepticism about a second strike but immediately affirmed Hegseth’s denial and later statements from the White House and Pentagon shifted operational responsibility to Adm. Bradley while praising him; critics call this a coordinated effort to deflect accountability, and defenders insist the admiral acted within legal authorities — the facts on the record show public praise and validation of the admiral alongside intense political controversy ^{[1] [3] [4]}.