Signal chat leak angers US military pilots
Advertisement
Worse, they said, is that going forward, they can no longer be certain that the Pentagon is focused on their safety when they strap into cockpits.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'The whole point about aviation safety is that you have to have the humility to understand that you are imperfect, because everybody screws up. Everybody makes mistakes,' said Lieutenant John Gadzinski, a former Navy F-14 pilot who flew combat missions from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. 'But ultimately, if you can't admit when you're wrong, you're going to kill somebody because your ego is too big.'
He and other pilots said that each day since Monday, when The Atlantic published an article about the chat disclosures, had brought a stunning new revelation. First came the news that Hegseth had put the operational sequencing, or flight schedules, for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting the Houthi militia in Yemen on March 15 in the unclassified Signal group chat, which included several other senior officials.
'We intentionally don't share plans with people who don't need to know,' said one Navy F/A-18 pilot, who has flown frequently in missions in the Middle East. 'You don't share what time we're supposed to show up over a target. You don't want to telegraph that we're about to show up on someone's doorstep; that's putting your crew at risk.' He and several other current and former pilots spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals from the Pentagon and from allies of President Trump.
Advertisement
But then came Hegseth's initial response to the disclosures. He attacked Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, as a 'so-called journalist,' and sought refuge in a semantic argument, saying that he had never disclosed 'war plans.'
So on Wednesday, The Atlantic published the actual text of what he had written, at 11:44 a.m. the day of the attack, in the group chat: '1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),' Hegseth texted, some 30 minutes before it happened. '1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike window Starts (Target Terrorist is @his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME).'
This text was two hours in advance of the strikes.
Hegseth added, '1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package).' And then, '1536: F-18 2nd Strike Starts -- also first sea-based Tomahawks launched.'
That text gave almost three hours' notice.
On Wednesday, Hegseth called his disclosure a 'team update' to 'provide updates in real time, general updates in real time' to keep Trump national security officials informed.
But details of military operations are usually kept so secret that even the service members taking part in them are 'locked down.' That sometimes means they are not allowed to speak to others who do not have a need to know, let alone tell people about the plans, the fighter pilots interviewed said. In aircraft carrier 'ready rooms,' where flight squadrons spend their time when they are not in the air, crews burn instructions to destroy them.
'It's important to understand the degree that OPSEC is involved in every aspect of your life on an aircraft carriers,' said Joseph Capalbo, a Navy captain who had commanded a carrier air wing and two F/A-18 squadrons, in a reference to operational security. 'Red Sea ops are conducted in complete silence; no one is talking on the radio. Because everything can be heard by somebody.'
Advertisement
A former Air Force fighter pilot, Major Anthony Bourke, added, 'When you disclose operational security, people can get killed.' He said that 'these things are not taken lightly. I have never met anybody in the military who does not know this.'
Hegseth, a former Fox News weekend host, served as a National Guard infantryman.
Commander Parker Kuldau, a former Navy F/A-18 pilot, called Hegseth's disclosures and subsequent response to them 'infuriating.'
'It's so beyond what I would expect from anyone in the military,' said Kuldau, who also flew combat missions in the Middle East. 'The idea that the secretary of defense, who should know better, has done this is just mind-boggling.'
Senior Defense Department officials and military analysts say that the Houthis possess air defenses, provided by Iran, that can target US warplanes.
'The Houthis have received several types of Iranian surface-to-air missiles designed to be capable of engaging fighter jets, including at high altitudes,' said Fabian Hinz, a military analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Houthi rebels for the first time fired surface-to-air missiles at an F-16 jet on Feb. 19, a senior US official said. The missiles missed the fighter. The Houthis have shot down several slower-flying Air Force drones.
The Trump administration has insisted that none of the information on the chat was classified, and Hegseth and other officials have said it was not a 'war plan.'
Advertisement
Sean Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson, said in response to a New York Times inquiry that the Signal chat 'referenced by The Atlantic was not a forum for the official planning and execution of military operations — which also involved Joint Staff and Joint Force leadership.'
The chat included Vice President JD Vance; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the national security adviser, Michael Waltz; and others, but not the acting chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Christopher Grady, the highest-ranking military official.
But one former senior Defense Department official with military experience said Hegseth's text describing launch times and the type of strike aircraft was classified information that could have jeopardized pilots' lives if it had been released or obtained.
This article originally appeared in
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
31 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
an hour ago
Judge says administration can dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Association to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Donald Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many agency staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the museum and library services institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump orders FAA to remove supersonic flight restrictions: ‘Bold new chapter in aerospace innovation'
President Trump is boosting supersonic aviation in the United States. An executive order the commander in chief signed Friday directs the Federal Aviation Administration to repeal a 1973 rule prohibiting overland supersonic flight, establish new noise standards for aircraft and remove other regulations that get in the way of the development of high-speed planes. 'The United States stands at the threshold of a bold new chapter in aerospace innovation,' the president wrote in the order. Advertisement 'For more than 50 years, outdated and overly restrictive regulations have grounded the promise of supersonic flight over land, stifling American ingenuity, weakening our global competitiveness, and ceding leadership to foreign adversaries.' 3 'President Trump is Making Aviation Great Again,' the White House said of the his executive order. AFP via Getty Images Trump argued that advances in engineering and technology have now made supersonic air travel 'not just possible, but safe, sustainable, and commercially viable.' Advertisement 'This order begins a historic national effort to reestablish the United States as the undisputed leader in high-speed aviation,' the president declared. 'By updating obsolete standards and embracing the technologies of today and tomorrow, we will empower our engineers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries to deliver the next generation of air travel, which will be faster, quieter, safer, and more efficient than ever before.' Under current FAA rules, only military aircraft – flying in specially designated areas – are allowed to break the sound barrier over land. The 1973 ban on overland supersonic flight was primarily due to the disruptive impact of the sonic booms produced when aircraft exceed the speed of sound. 3 Boom Supersonic hopes to develop a commercially viable supersonic aircraft. AP Advertisement 3 The FAA banned supersonic flights over the United States in 1973, over noise concerns. Chad Robertson – However, new technology has enabled one aircraft maker, Boom Supersonic, to develop a plane that can cruise above Mach 1 without emitting a sonic boom. 'Supersonic is back, baby!' Boom Supersonic founder and CEO Blake Scholl wrote on X, noting that in January, his company's XB-1 aircraft became the first privately developed supersonic jet to break the sound barrier. 'And today…[Trump] broke the sound barrier…permanently!' he added. Advertisement Scholl argued that the ban on supersonic flight has 'crippled progress' in aviation for half a century, but with Trump's order in place, 'The supersonic race is on and a new era of commercial flight can begin.' 'By removing decades-old regulatory barriers and promoting cutting-edge supersonic technology, President Trump is Making Aviation Great Again,' the White House said in a statement.
