In a tense congressional hearing on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced rigorous questioning over Pentagon strategies and the use of private messaging apps to discuss military operations. While some of the toughest inquiries came from military veterans in the House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth’s sidestepping of direct answers led to heated exchanges. Specifically, when asked by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., about contingency plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if needed, Hegseth confirmed that the Defense Department prepares for every possibility. However, he refrained from directly addressing whether current plans explicitly involved these territories.
The customary practice of the Pentagon to devise various conflict scenarios didn’t ease concerns, as clarified by Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, who probed for assurance that the Pentagon was not explicitly planning invasions of Greenland. Hegseth maintained that the U.S. seeks to work collaboratively with Greenland to mitigate any perceived threats. Throughout the day, the tension persisted, with many lawmakers expressing acute frustration over Hegseth’s reluctance to offer straightforward responses.
During the proceedings, heated remarks flared. Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., accused Hegseth of incompetence and vehemently called for his resignation. In contrast, some Republican legislators excused the defense secretary from such harsh critiques. Hegseth assured them that he was willing to face criticism while making critical decisions.
The session also shifted focus to Hegseth’s use of Signal chats to share details about military actions, specifically involving U.S. strategies against Houthi rebels in Yemen. When pressed about whether he had shared classified information, Hegseth avoided confirming whether the data he exchanged about military strikes was classified, although he insisted the mission’s success was not a secret.
As a Pentagon review concerning Hegseth’s communications awaits release, he did not commit to accepting consequences should it reveal inappropriate handling of sensitive information. In response to a probing question, Hegseth expressed no remorse for what he described as a triumphant operation, despite concerned implications over operational security.
Another contentious topic was the potentially politicized speech by former President Trump at Fort Bragg, raising concerns about political activity among military personnel. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced questions about the event but claimed unawareness of political actions, which included troops reacting vocally and a merchandise stall selling MAGA items.
Hegseth also engaged in a robust debate over the role of women and transgender individuals in the military. He argued against diversity initiatives that he perceives as undermining military effectiveness, expressing reservations about women in combat roles, though acknowledging their growing numbers in the forces. The issue of transgender individuals serving attracted support from some Republicans who opposed funding gender transition surgery in the military.
The topic of potential Pentagon actions in Greenland, a region of strategic interest highlighted by former President Trump, reached a crescendo in the hearing. Greenland represented itself by asserting their stance against any U.S. claims to the island. Hegseth’s evasive replies to questions from elected officials like Smith only deepened the ambiguity surrounding the Defense Department’s strategic intentions under Trump’s administration.