Jimmy Kimmel Calls ‘Bulls**t' on Pete Hegseth's Texting Excuses
Jimmy Kimmel doesn't think Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will last much longer in President Donald Trump's Cabinet.
In his monologue Tuesday, Kimmel detailed the recent New York Times report that revealed Hegseth had texted leaked war plans to his wife and his brother. The sensitive information was apparently the same he'd accidentally sent to a journalist, as revealed by The Atlantic last month.
Kimmel showed a Fox & Friends interview clip of Hegseth downplaying the latest report, insisting he was only sending texts about 'informal, unclassified' topics. Hegseth added, 'That's what I've said from the beginning.'
'Right,' Kimmel replied. 'But it was bulls--t from the beginning too."
Kimmel continued, 'You texted the exact time and place the secret bombing would begin before the secret bombing happened, to your wife, on an easily hackable phone.'
'And his defense for this is, 'Who told you? And how dare they tell you?'' Kimmel joked. 'This is like your wife catching you in bed with another woman and your response is, 'Well, why did you come home so early?''
Kimmel also ripped into Hegseth's repeated attempts to divert media attention towards the 'leakers' who spoke to the press in the first place. He showed a montage of Hegseth saying the word 'leaks,' 'leaker' and 'leaking' over and over again.
'You are the leaker!" Kimmel told Hegseth. 'You leaked so much, you should be wearing Depends to work.'
His latest scandal, combined with rumors of a possible replacement, had Kimmel predicting that Hegseth wouldn't be secretary of defense for long.
'If you see white smoke coming from the Pentagon, it means they fired Pete Hegseth,' Kimmel joked.
Kimmel played the beginning of Hegseth's interview with Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade. Kilmeade accidentally referred to him as the 'former' secretary of defense before correcting himself.
'Oops,' Kimmel said. 'Somebody accidentally put the future in Brian's teleprompter.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says the Pentagon has contingency plans to invade Greenland if necessary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense 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 at a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations. 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, D-Wash., asked whether the Pentagon has developed 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. 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, R-Ohio. As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' '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.' GOP lawmakers on several occasions apologized to Hegseth for the Democrats' sharp remarks, saying he should not be subject to such 'flagrant disrespect.' Hegseth said he was 'happy to take the arrows' to make tough calls and do what's best. Questions emerge on Signal chats and if details Hegseth shared were classified Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss details of the U.S. plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen with other U.S. leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers. Hegseth 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.' He was asked if he would apologize to the mother of a pilot flying the strike mission for jeopardizing the operation and putting her son's life at risk. Hegseth said, 'I don't apologize for success.' Trump's speech at Fort Bragg raises Democratic concerns about politics in the military Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared along Hegseth, was questioned about Trump's speech at Fort Bragg this week and whether the military was becoming politicized. The Defense Department has a doctrine that prohibits troops from participating in political activity while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne Division were directed to stand behind Trump at Fort Bragg, and they booed and cheered during his incendiary remarks, including condemnation of his predecessor, Joe Biden. There also was a pop-up MAGA merchandise stand selling souvenirs to troops in uniform. Caine repeatedly said U.S. service members must be apolitical but that he was unaware of anything that happened at Fort Bragg. Hegseth is pressed about policies on women in uniform and transgender troops Hegseth got into a sharp debate about whether women and transgender service members should serve in the military or combat jobs. He said he has worked to remove diversity programs and political correctness from the military. He said he has not politicized the military but simply wants the most capable troops. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., demanded to know if Hegseth believes that both men and women can pull a trigger, cause death, operate a drone or launch a missile. 'It depends on the context,' Hegseth said, adding that 'women carry equipment differently, a 155 round differently, a rucksack differently.' Hegseth, who has previously said women 'straight up' should not serve in combat, asserted that women have joined the military in record numbers under the Trump administration. He said the military 'standards should be high and equal.' He also was asked about three female service members — now being forced out as part of the Pentagon's move to ban transgender troops. Hegseth agreed that their accomplishments — which Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., read out — were to be celebrated, until he learned they were transgender. Republican lawmakers jumped to his defense, criticizing any Pentagon spending on gender transition surgery. Democrats ask about plans for action against Greenland and Panama President Donald Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of Greenland, a strategic, mineral-rich island and long a U.S. ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from the leaders of Greenland, an autonomous territory that is part of Denmark. 'Greenland is not for sale,' Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the U.S, 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. ___ AP writer David Klepper in Washington contributed to this report. Lolita C. Baldor And Tara Copp, The Associated Press
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Troops in the Streets, Questions in Congress: Mass. reckons with role of military in civil society
It wasn't a matter of whether U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton was going to fire some hardball questions at President Donald Trump's Pentagon chief on Thursday — it was instead a matter of how many he could squeeze in and how intense they would be. It didn't take long to find out. Moulton, D-6th District, cut right to the chase during the five or so minutes he had with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as the former Fox News anchor defended his agency's budget request before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. The Salem lawmaker pressed Hegseth repeatedly on whether he'd accept any personal responsibility for his role in the headline-grabbing national security meltdown known as 'SignalGate,' as well as his purge of senior Defense Department officials. 'You said accountability is back [at the Pentagon], Mr. Secretary,' the Salem Democrat jabbed at one point. " And you know what? The Houthis were held accountable for shooting at our forces," Hegseth responded. Moulton, an ex-Marine, jumped back in: 'I'm just asking if it applies to you.' 'I serve at the pleasure of the president,' Hegseth responded. It was a vivid reminder that the place and primacy of the American military — not to mention its role in a civil society — has been at the center of the public conversation recently in a way that it has not been for a while. That conversation largely has been dominated by the headlines emanating from Los Angeles over immigration protests and the U.S. Marines and National Guard soldiers who have been deployed there as a result. And that's not to leave out Trump's military parade on the streets of Washington, D.C., on Saturday. And Americans have thoughts. A text survey of 1,000 Americans, including more than 200 Californians, by the Washington Post and the Schar School at George Mason University, found deep divisions over Trump's management of the protests. The survey found that Californians were more critical of Trump's actions, as were Democrats and self-identified independents, the newspaper reported. Americans were mostly negative on Trump's handling of immigration. Read More: Poll reveals how Americans feel about Trump sending troops into LA over ICE protests A plurality of respondents to a similar YouGov poll said they didn't approve of the White House's decision to deploy the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, Axios reported. Nearly 8 in 10 respondents to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll said they don't have an opinion one way or the other on Trump's military parade on Saturday. But even within that cohort, 6 in 10 respondents said they don't think it's a good use of public money. And if you think that the White House's power play only applies to California, think again. The order Trump signed authorizing the National Guard deployment also opens the door to similar actions in other states. That's according to Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell, who joined with nearly two dozen colleagues nationwide in support of a lawsuit by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, challenging the White House's action. 'The unlawful deployment of armed forces under the guise of public safety to suppress protests, invoke fear, and silence dissent against the president's cruel policies is dangerous, and every resident should be concerned,' Campbell said in a statement. On Thursday night, a U.S. District court judge in San Francisco ruled that Trump had to return command over those National Guard soldiers to Newsom, The Associated Press reported. Hours later, a federal appeals court reversed the order and restored Trump's authority over the Guard. Elsewhere on Capitol Hill on Thursday, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, the acting ranking Democrat on the powerful House Oversight Committee, blasted the White House's decision to deploy Marines to one of the nation's largest cities. 'Our Marines are often the first responders in a war zone. But American neighborhoods are not war zones,' Lynch, D-8th District, said as the committee held a hearing on the White House's immigration policies. 'Protesters are not enemy combatants — they are Americans who have the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and speak up," the South Boston lawmaker continued. U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-4th District, also a former Marine, told CNN that he never expected to see active-duty Marines deployed to Los Angeles or any other American city. That's because 'in this scenario, as in almost every scenario imaginable, it is unnecessary, it's illegal and it's deeply unfair to these Marines,' the Newton lawmaker said, according to Mediaite. At times like this, we're often inclined to look for historical parallels. Many people look to ancient Rome — although direct comparisons aren't always easy, convenient, or even immediately apparent. Still, the Romans did have a prohibition against allowing legions within the city walls. Returning generals were required to dissolve their armies and enter the city as civilians. It was the ultimate expression of the civil government's authority over the military. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in January 49 B.C., and eventually entered Rome itself, in defiance of that edict, it marked the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic. Again, there are no easy parallels. But the United States has had a similar tradition of a rigidly apolitical military that swears to defend and uphold the Constitution, and not an elected leader, for all of its history. And once the legions are within the city walls, it can be awfully hard to get them to leave. Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests | John L. Micek Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Parade Can't Cover Up How He Made America Weaker
On June 14, a 'big beautiful' military parade will make its way through the streets of Washington. Officially, it commemorates the U.S. Army's 250th birthday, a milestone worthy of recognition. But it also happens to fall on President Trump's 79th birthday. The pageantry will not only honor Army history, it will serve as a made-for-television moment to reinforce the image of a president who claims to have restored American strength. Staged just days after he federalized National Guard troops and readied Marines for deployment to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests, the parade is meant to showcase ' lethality ' and to fulfill Trump's long-held vision of tanks moving down the capital's broad avenues. The estimated cost: $25 to 45 million, although that could increase significantly if the tanks cause damage to DC's roads. But real strength isn't measured by parades. It's measured by whether the United States is more secure, our alliances stronger, and our adversaries more constrained. On that front, the picture is far less celebratory. China's military expansion is accelerating. Its navy is now the world's largest. Its presence in cyberspace, space, and critical infrastructure continues to grow. U.S. rhetoric hasn't slowed Beijing—if anything, it has only deepened its resolve. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which I chaired, reached the unanimous bipartisan conclusion that America's defense industrial base is too slow and too fragile to keep pace with global demands. It is not keeping up with China's rapid military buildup and would struggle to support the demands of a sustained conflict—especially in multiple theaters. Defense Secretary Hegseth recently delivered a forceful speech on the Indo-Pacific in Singapore, but his focus at home has been on fighting culture wars, eliminating diversity initiatives, and now overseeing the deployment of federal troops in U.S. cities. The Trump Administration's stated goal is to refocus the Pentagon on lethality, but in practice, these efforts have become a distraction from that mission. Meanwhile, our trade policies are alienating the very allies we need to help push back on China. In Ukraine, President Trump once promised to end the war in a day. That promise feels farther away than ever. Despite the administration's efforts to work toward a cease-fire, Russia has stepped up both its aerial bombardment and ground offensives. This week alone, it launched nearly 500 drones and missiles in a single night—the largest such barrage since the war began. At the same time, Ukraine has launched its own deep strikes inside Russia, including recent drone attacks on military airfields. Meanwhile, the most recent peace talks yielded little more than a prisoner exchange and the administration continues to pull back from a conflict that once galvanized the West. A bipartisan Senate bill to impose secondary sanctions on Russia's enablers has more than 80 co-sponsors, but it's stalled. And Russian President Vladimir Putin is watching. In Gaza, cease-fire talks remain stuck, while hostages remain captive and the humanitarian situation teeters on the brink. Hamas demands a permanent truce; Israel insists on a temporary pause. Negotiators haven't bridged the divide. Trump's broader vision for the region, anchored in Saudi-Israel normalization, is now on ice. Riyadh isn't moving forward without a credible path for Palestinians. And Trump's relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once central to his regional strategy, has frayed. Then there's Iran. Nearly a decade ago, the Trump Administration withdrew from the nuclear deal negotiated by President Barack Obama, promising to replace it with something tougher and more durable. That alternative never materialized. Now, the administration is advancing a new proposal that would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium at low levels in the short term, while negotiations proceed on a broader agreement to eventually halt all enrichment on Iranian soil. But Iran insists it will never give up that right. This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency formally censured Iran for failing to disclose nuclear activities—its first such resolution in 20 years. Tehran has condemned the move and vowed to expand enrichment. Trump has said he is 'less confident' a deal is within reach. Meanwhile, Iran's stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium continues to grow, Israeli officials are openly weighing military options, and the United States is evacuating diplomats and military families from Iraq due to rising tensions. It's hard to see what's been gained. For all the noise and bluster coming out of Washington, the United States today feels anything but strong. Instead, we are alienating allies, retreating from international commitments, and projecting uncertainty. Trump's attempts to convey otherwise ring hollow. Which brings us back to the parade. The Army's 250 years of service deserve deep respect. Its soldiers have defended not just our territory, but the democratic values we aspire to uphold. But if this administration truly wants to project American strength, it should focus less on optics and more on outcomes. From Eastern Europe to the South China Sea, our adversaries are asserting themselves. Our alliances are under pressure. And we are stepping back from the principles of freedom and liberty we once championed. So it's a bit strange, then, to stage a parade. At a time when American power feels diminished and uncertain, the spectacle may land differently than intended. The world may see it as a performance—and the birthday boy may not like the reviews.
