Ex-NATO Commander Blasts Pete Hegseth's 'Indefensible' Conduct With Searing Reminder
Retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday for his reported use of Signal to share highly sensitive military plans with Trump officials as well as family members and his attorney.
'There is absolutely no reason on the planet earth he should be doing that and he knows it,' said the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander of Hegseth's use of the third-party messaging app in an interview with CNN's Boris Sanchez.
'He's a former major in the U.S. Army, he was trained throughout his time as a junior officer to protect and guard the nation's secrets. He's got to know that he has failed to do that.'
Hegseth — who shared details of upcoming attacks in Yemen in a Signal chat with senior Trump officials (and a journalist) — is reportedly close to being replaced in his post after The New York Times reported Sunday that he shared nearly identical details in a separate chat with his wife, brother and lawyer.
Stavridis argued that 'Signalgate 2.0,' compared to the first chat involving high-ranking officials only to be 'leaked inadvertently' to a member of the press, now involves 'unclassified individuals who lack the need to know any of this.'
'So it's gone from outrageous to truly egregious and it's conduct that, frankly, is indefensible,' Stavridis said.
The former Fox News host — when asked about the reports of the second Signal chat on Monday — chided the media as he blamed 'disgruntled former employees' for leaks at the Pentagon.
His comments arrive following a chaotic week at the Pentagon that saw Hegseth firing three of his advisers, who — in a joint statement — claimed that they didn't know why they'd been fired.
'You can't just fire people and expect loyalty from them on the far side of the bridge,' Stavridis stressed.
'So no, I'm not surprised about the blowback from firing people that you have hired. We ought to remember, these are folks that Secretary Hegseth hired, put on his team, he chose them, he's worked with them in the past. I think it's quite damning.'
Stavridis pointed to an op-ed recently penned by John Ullyot, a top Pentagon spokesman who resigned last week who claimed that those who were fired weren't responsible for the leaks at the Defense Department.
Congressman: It's 'Fair To Wonder' If Pete Hegseth Was Drinking Amid Signal Use
Trump Can Fire Hegseth But Refuses To; Cannot Fire Powell But Wants To Anyway
Hegseth Lashes Out At Media After Firing His Own Aides Amid Pentagon 'Meltdown'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
44 minutes ago
Hegseth faces Congress for first time since Signal leaks and Marine deployment to Los Angeles
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they are unhappy that Hegseth has not provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which President Donald Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. Lawmakers may quiz Hegseth on the latest searing images coming out of the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. Hegseth has deployed about 700 active-duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel. But there are questions about what the troops will have to do and how much it will all cost. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, will be on Capitol Hill testifying at a separate budget hearing at the same time as Hegseth and is likely to face similar questions. Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Most recently, Hegseth directed the renaming of a Navy ship that had honored Harvey Milk, a slain gay rights activist who served as a sailor during the Korean War. His spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the renaming was needed to ensure "the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander-in-chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed ongoing support for Ukraine. Hegseth's hearing Tuesday before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee will be his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since he squeaked through his Senate confirmation with a tie-breaking vote. It was the closest vote of any Cabinet member. While he has talked a lot about making the military more lethal, it was his use of the unclassified, unsecured Signal messaging app that quickly caught public attention. Set up by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz, a group chat included Hegseth and other senior administration leaders and was used to share information about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. The chat became a public embarrassment because the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to it. Waltz took responsibility for the gaffe, but Hegseth was roundly criticized for sharing details about the military strikes in this chat and in another one that included his wife and brother. Multiple investigations are looking into his use of Signal. The Defense Department's acting inspector general has been looking into the initial chat at the request of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon's watchdog also is reviewing whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete any Signal messages. While any number of those issues could come up at the House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, money issues are more likely to be the focus of the hearings Tuesday in the House and Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Already defense leaders have been grilled in other hearings on the plans to retrofit the Qatari jet and the costs of the military parade. Trump has long wanted a parade, and Army leaders defended it as a good way to attract new recruits. Other questions may involve the costs of expanding the use of military forces to secure the southern border, the plans for the Golden Dome missile defense program, and how the department intends to fund modernization programs for drones and other critical weapons systems.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
No more ‘peace dividend'
One consequence of spending more on benefits is that there is less to spend elsewhere, notably on defence. The so-called 'peace dividend' that Western governments splurged after the end of the Cold War has left us vulnerable to a resurgence of precisely the sort of international tensions we are seeing now. Money that in the past would have bolstered armed forces now goes on social programmes that political leaders are unprepared to unwind because so many voters are dependent on them. Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, was in London for talks with Sir Keir Starmer yesterday as part of a tour of capitals designed to get member states to commit to spending much more on defence. In a speech at the Chatham House think-tank, he called for a 'quantum leap' in collective security just to maintain deterrence. 'Our militaries need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation and medical support,' he said. At the weekend, Russia deployed an estimated 500 missiles and drones in attacks on Ukraine, partly in response to Kyiv's extraordinary coup in destroying Russian bombers based in Siberia last week. The huge amounts of ordnance involved are indicative of the scale of modern warfare. Mr Rutte wants Nato members to commit about 5 per cent of national wealth to defence, though without saying by when. Yet Sir Keir could only reaffirm his Government's ambition to increase spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, rising to 3 per cent in the next parliament if circumstances allow. But they will do so only if he can get to grips with spending in other areas. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
2 hours ago
Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. U.S. Northern Command said it is sending 700 Marines into the Los Angeles area to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents. The 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms, California, and will augment about 4,100 National Guard members already in LA or authorized to be deployed there to respond to the protests. The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said. But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions. The Marines are highly trained in combat and crisis response, with time in conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan. But that is starkly different from the role they will face now: They could potentially be hit by protesters carrying gas canisters and have to quickly decide how to respond or face decisions about protecting an immigration enforcement agent from crowds. According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks. When troops are overseas, how they can respond to threats is outlined by the rules of engagement. At home, they are guided by standing rules for the use of force, which have to be set and agreed to by Northern Command, and then each Marine should receive a card explaining what they can and cannot do, another U.S. official said. For example, warning shots would be prohibited, according to use-of-force draft documents viewed by The Associated Press. Marines are directed to deescalate a situation whenever possible but also are authorized to act in self-defense, the documents say. The AP reviewed documents and interviewed nine U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet public, about the guidance being determined for the Marines. The Pentagon also is working on a memo with clarifying language for the Marines that will lay out the steps they can take to protect federal personnel and property. Those guidelines also will include specifics on the possibility that they could temporarily detain civilians if troops are under assault or to prevent harm, the first U.S. official said. Those measures could involve detaining civilians until they can be turned over to law enforcement. Having the Marines deploy to protect federal buildings allows them to be used without invoking the Insurrection Act, one U.S. official said. The Insurrection Act allows the president to direct federal troops to conduct law enforcement functions in national emergencies. But the use of that act is extremely rare. Officials said that has not yet been done in this case and that it's not clear it will be done. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. If their role expands if the violence escalates, it is not clear under what legal authority they would be able to engage, said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. 'If in fact those Marines are laying hands on civilians, doing searches, then you have pretty powerful legal concerns,' Goitein said. 'No statutory authority Trump has invoked so far permits this.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted late Saturday that he was considering deploying the Marines to respond to the unrest after getting advice earlier in the day from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to one of the U.S. officials. Still, the tweet, which was posted to Hegseth's personal X account and not to his official government account, caught many inside the Pentagon by surprise. As late as Monday, the military's highest offices were still considering the potential ramifications. But the Marine Corps were asking broader questions, too: Do they send more senior, experienced personnel so as not to put newer, less experienced troops at risk of potentially making a judgment call on whether to use force against a civilian? What's lawful under a domestic deployment — where troops may end up in a policing role — is governed by the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizure of persons, including temporarily restraining them, unless it could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
