US defence secretary hints at Pentagon plans to invade Greenland, Panama
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions during a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.
Also Read: Pete Hegseth confirmed Iran working towards nuclear weapon, claims US senator
Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.
In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep Adam Smith asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.
'Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Hegseth said several times.
Also Read: 'Mega' tsunami of Greenland in 2023 echoed for 9 days, shook sensors worldwide: NASA
It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later.
'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' said Rep Mike Turner.
As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.'
Also Read: LAPD vs Pete Hegseth: Los Angeles police says 'not informed' about Marines' deployment
'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Hegseth responded.
Time and again, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over.
"You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead," Rep Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. 'You should just get the hell out.'
Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other US leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers.
He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did.
Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers.
That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Rep Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity.
'You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,' Moulton said.
'What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,' Hegseth responded.
A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon.
Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app.
Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves 'at the pleasure of the president.'
President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a US ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders.
'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the US, said Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute.
In an effort not to show the Pentagon's hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Hegseth danced around the direct question from Smith, leading to the confusion.
'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland," Smith said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
41 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump May Try To Alter AUKUS Deal, But Here's Why He Won't Sink It
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there's a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There's a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening'. So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an ' AUKUS agnostic ', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There's also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There's no question there's a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. Why The US Won't Spike The Deal I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the ' Malacca dilemma '. Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. Could Trump Be Angling For A Deal? As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal', but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. (Author: , Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) (Disclosure Statement: From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled "The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations" (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Who is Senator Rand Paul's wife whom Donald Trump calls ' beautiful' amid 'petty clash' over budget?
Rand Paul said he only agrees with Donald Trump when the president calls his wife beautiful. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been at odds with President Donald Trump on the spending bill as Paul sided with Elon Musk on this issue of calling the bill abominable. But his wife, political consultant Kelley Paul, appeared to be a peacemaker as Trump called him 'beautiful' and Rand Paul said this is the only thing about which he agrees with Donald Trump. Amid the ongoing clash, Rand Paul said his family got disinvited from the annual congressional picnic at the White House that was held yesterday. Paul called it very petty and said he had planned to bring his wife, son, daughter-in-law and 6-month-old grandson to the event. "I think I'm the first senator in the history of the United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic," the Kentucky senator told reporters. "Every Democrat will be invited, every Republican will be invited, but I will be the only one disallowed to come on the grounds of the White House." "I just find this incredibly petty," Paul said. "The level of immaturity is beyond words." "They've decided they want to declare war on my family and exclude us from the White House," he added, saying he was given no explanation. "We're just not welcome." Trump responded to the grievance and said the family 'of course' invited. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo "Of course Senator Rand Paul and his beautiful wife and family are invited to the BIG White House Party tonight. He's the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn't he be?" the president wrote. "Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill." Later Thursday, Paul shared a photo of his grandson wearing a red Make America Great Again hat and said "Turns out my grandson is actually invited to the Congressional Picnic! He is ready!" Trump told reporters that Paul has always been a friend and the hardest vote in the history of US senate.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
'No specific power for President over election': Federal judge blocks Trump's executive order on voting laws; says it oversteps presidential powers
A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's controversial executive order aimed at reshaping US election procedures, ruling that it likely violates the Constitution and infringes on states' authority over elections. US District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction against the March 25 directive, siding with a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who argued that the order was an unconstitutional attempt to override state election laws. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Judge Casper wrote in her ruling. Trump's order sought to enforce several sweeping changes to federal elections, including mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, rejecting mail-in ballots not received by Election Day, and linking federal election grants to states' compliance with the new rules. The states challenging the order said it 'usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.' The Biden administration, which inherited the litigation, did not support Trump's order. However, Trump and his allies have maintained the directive is necessary to secure elections, with the White House at the time defending it as 'standing up for free, fair and honest elections.' Casper said the states had shown a 'likelihood of success' in their legal challenges and acknowledged their concerns about the administrative and financial burden the order would impose. She also noted that federal registration forms already require voters to affirm their US citizenship and that noncitizen voting is already illegal under federal law. This marks the second judicial blow to Trump's order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., had earlier blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship mandate. The order was rooted in Trump's long-standing claims of voter fraud — assertions that have repeatedly been debunked by independent reviews and multiple state-led investigations. After losing the 2020 election, Trump has continued to promote baseless allegations about election integrity, including false claims about voting machines and illegal ballots. Critics argue the executive order threatens to disenfranchise voters, particularly in states like Oregon and Washington that rely heavily on mail-in voting. In a separate legal challenge, these states pointed out that the order would bar the counting of hundreds of thousands of ballots postmarked on time but received after Election Day. In Washington alone, more than 300,000 such ballots arrived late in 2024. Trump's order had found support among Republican election officials in some states, who said it could help prevent voter fraud and provide access to federal data for purging outdated voter rolls. But constitutional experts have warned that the president lacks the authority to impose such nationwide election rules — a power reserved for states, with Congress able to intervene only in federal elections. During a court hearing earlier this month, Department of Justice attorney Bridget O'Hickey argued the order aimed to create consistent standards across states and dismissed concerns about cost or feasibility as speculative. She also suggested that late-arriving ballots might be tampered with, although Judge Casper noted that such ballots already require a postmark before or on Election Day, and any received afterward with later postmarks are not counted. Friday's ruling leaves the future of Trump's order uncertain and bolsters state officials' efforts to maintain control over their own election procedures.
