On protecting classified information, Pete Hegseth picks a fight he can't win
But of particular interest were his comments about the one criticism that apparently bothers him.
'There's a reason why our nation's most closely held secrets are contained in certain places with only access from certain people,' the former Fox News personality said. 'Nobody takes that more seriously than me.
'If there's one thing I've sort of been offended by — I don't get offended by much; I'm here to do my job for the president, for the country — is this idea that I don't take classification or I don't take clearances seriously. Nobody takes it more seriously than me.'
I can appreciate why Hegseth is eager to defend himself, especially on a network his boss watches, but all things considered, this was a subject he probably should've avoided.
By now, the basic elements of the 'Signalgate' controversy are probably familiar: Top members of Donald Trump's national security team participated in an unsecured group chat about sensitive operational details of a foreign military strike — and they accidentally included a journalist, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, in their online conversation.
The final paragraph of Goldberg's piece on the fiasco read, 'All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group — which, at the time, included me — 'We are currently clean on OPSEC.''
'OPSEC' refers to 'operations security.' In other words, the defense secretary was certain that he and his colleagues — while chatting on a free platform that has never been approved for chats about national security or classified intelligence — had locked everything down and created a secure channel of communication.
Of course, we now know that Team Trump was most certainly not 'clean on OPSEC,' Hegseth's embarrassing boast notwithstanding.
What's more, while there was some discussion of whether their discussion included classified information, there's no denying the chat did include highly sensitive information about times and targets, much of which was put there by Hegseth himself.
'1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),' Hegseth told his colleagues in the chat. '1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME) — also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s).' At one point, the defense secretary literally wrote, 'THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP.'
As brutal as those revelations were, they were soon followed by a series of related controversies. The Wall Street Journal reported in late March, for example, that Hegseth brought his wife — who does not have a security clearance — 'to two meetings with foreign military counterparts where sensitive information was discussed.'
The Journal also reported that Hegseth used the Signal messaging app for official Pentagon business more extensively than had been previously disclosed, 'engaging in at least a dozen separate chats.'
Then, a few weeks ago, the Journal also reported that the Pentagon inspector general was investigating Hegseth's "sharing of military plans to a second Signal chat that included his wife and brother.'
It was against this backdrop that Hegseth told a national television audience that 'nobody' takes the protection of classified information 'more seriously' than he does. Among the many unsettling angles to this incident: The defense secretary managed to deliver the line with a straight face.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
32 minutes ago
- CNBC
Pentagon halts weapons shipment to Ukraine amid concerns over U.S. stockpile
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a pause in sending a shipment of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine amid concern about the U.S. military's stockpiles, according to two defense officials, two congressional officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision. Hegseth ordered the delay weeks after he issued a memo ordering a review of the U.S. stockpile of munitions, which has been depleted after years of the United States' sending weapons to Ukraine to defend against the Russia invasion, as well as nearly two years of military operations in the Middle East as the United States fought Houthi rebels in Yemen and defended Israel and allies against Iran, four of the officials said. The munitions and other weapons could be held up until the assessment is complete, the two defense officials and two congressional officials said, and if the munitions are in short supply or needed in other parts of the world, they could be held back even longer. The weapons being delayed include dozens of Patriot interceptors that can defend against incoming Russian missiles, thousands of 155 mm high explosive Howitzer munitions, more than 100 Hellfire missiles, more than 250 precision-guided missile systems known as GMLRS and dozens each of Stinger surface-to-air missiles, AIM air-to-air missiles and grenade launchers, the two defense officials, two congressional officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision said. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: "This decision was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran." The Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment. At a closing news conference after a NATO meeting at The Hague last week, President Donald Trump said the United States is trying to find Patriot air defense missiles to send to Ukraine. "They do want to have the anti-missile missiles," Trump said of Ukraine. "As they call them the Patriots, and we're going to see if we can make some available." He said that the United States is supplying weapons to Israel and that "you know, they're very hard to get. We need them, too." A senior Ukrainian lawmaker on Wednesday called the Pentagon's decision "painful" for Kyiv's effort to defend itself against Russian air strikes. "This decision is certainly very unpleasant for us," Fedir Venislavskyi, a member of the Ukrainian parliament's defense committee, said in Kyiv, according to Reuters. He added, "it's painful, and against the background of the terrorist attacks which Russia commits against Ukraine ... it's a very unpleasant situation." Ukraine's foreign ministry also met with John Ginkel, a U.S. diplomat based in Kyiv, to discuss military assistance and defense cooperation between with two countries. "It was stressed that any delays or hesitation in supporting Ukraine's defense capacities would only encourage the aggressor to continue the war and terror, rather than seek peace," the ministry said in a statement. Ukraine has repeatedly appealed for additional U.S. and European air defense weaponry as Russia has stepped up its air raids in recent months. Over the weekend, Ukraine's Defense Ministry said Russia had launched the largest aerial attack on the country since Moscow's full-scale invasion in 2022, firing 60 missiles and 477 drones. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are also working to secure a permanent ceasefire. Though it's common for new administrations to pause weapons transfers to assess stockpiles, there are concerns about the moment in which this is happening, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. The official said Ukraine needs to appear strong to get Russia to the negotiating table. During a visit to Washington on June 5, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's top adviser, Andriy Yermak, told reporters that his country was holding off Russian forces but needed more air defense systems to safeguard its cities from Russian attacks. The munitions were approved as part of Presidential Drawdown Authority and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative packages during the Biden administration, the defense officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision said. Some of the shipments are already in the region but have been stopped before being turned over to Ukraine, according to a defense official and two sources with knowledge of the decision. Last month, the acting chief of naval operations, Adm. James Kilby, warned during testimony before Congress that while the Navy has enough standard missiles, known as SM-3s, right now, the United States has been using some missiles and munitions "at an alarming rate."
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
The U.S. military can't quit the Middle East
If you're in the defense business, you've seen this meme in one form or another. "Born too late to deploy to the Middle East," it reads. "Born too early to deploy to the Middle East," it continues. "Born just in time to deploy to the Middle East," it concludes. Why it matters: Flippant? Yes. Compelling? Also yes, as the image's virality today reflects just how entangled the U.S. is in the troubled region, even as it promises to pivot more fully to the Chinese and Russian threat. This is geopolitical tug of war, spiked with public cynicism. Driving the news: Surprise strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities using B-2 Spirit bombers and 100-plus other aircraft marked Washington's latest foray into the Middle East, where for decades it's expended taxpayer dollars and lives. (Think Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.) Meanwhile, the Pentagon frets over Beijing and Moscow and their global ambitions. But the resources needed for that competition — including heavy-duty, traditional military hardware like aircraft carriers — are in high demand elsewhere. Friction point: "There is a disconnect between what we, the United States, say in our national defense strategies and those sorts of products and what actually happens on the ground," Brian Carter, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, told Axios. "The problem is: We episodically prioritize the Middle East over China," he said. "Wehaven't been good about ensuring that we put enough effort into the Middle East to make sure that things don't spiral out of control." "When we have to surge all this stuff in, we're always reactive." Between the lines: Pentagon officials and military leaders have been hinting at this dynamic. Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, has long lobbied for prioritizing China over Europe and the Middle East. During his March confirmation hearing, Colby told senators the U.S. lacks "a multi-war military." Indo-Pacific Command boss Adm. Samuel Paparo in November said support provided to Israel and Ukraine was "eating into" some of the most precious U.S. weapons stockpiles. In April, he revealed it took at least 73 flights to move a Patriot air-defense battalion out of China's backyard and into Central Command. And most recently — just days ago — Acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby told lawmakers the Navy is chewing through Standard Missile-3s at "an alarming rate." The service has used more than $1 billion in munitions fighting Houthi rebels near the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, and the USS Harry S. Truman has lost three Super Hornet aircraft, including one to friendly fire. Zoom out: "The Middle East is the space where four things come together," Daryl Press, the faculty director at the Davidson Institute for Global Security, said in an interview. "It's terrorism and terrorist groups." "It's nuclear weapons and potential for proliferation." "It's the world's most important exportable energy supplies." "And then it's a bunch of countries which have, I would say, somewhat weak control over their borders and airspace."
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump administration shelves Navy's F/A-XX, citing industry strain
The Trump administration is icing the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX futuristic fighter in favor of the Air Force counterpart, the F-47, amid concerns U.S. defense contractors can't handle both. Why it matters: The highly secretive project has for months been in limbo. An F/A-XX contract announcement was supposed to quickly follow F-47 news, according to Reuters, but never materialized. Driving the news: Officials at the Pentagon told reporters the fiscal 2026 budget blueprint includes $74 million to finish design of the Navy warplane. They also said there is debate at the highest levels about its future. "We did make a strategic decision to go all-in on F-47, with a $3.4 billion request for that program, due to our belief that the industrial base can only handle going fast on one program at this time and the presidential priority [is] to go all-in on that F-47 and get that program right," one official said. Catch up quick: Boeing and Northrop Grumman are in the running for F/A-XX. The former bested Lockheed Martin in March for the multibillion-dollar F-47 contract, via the Next Generation Air Dominance effort. Friction point: Boeing executives pushed back on the narrative that it — and others — can't juggle. "From day one, capital investment was for both programs. We've done the same with our technology. We've done the same with our staffing," Steve Parker, the CEO of Boeing's defense business, told reporters at the Paris Air Show. "Absolutely, we can do it. And so can the industrial base. And so can the engine manufacturers. I don't really see that as being an issue." What we're watching: The Navy could end up with a tailored version of the F-47 instead.
