Top Fox Analyst: Hegseth and Co. Making a Mess of Signal Leak Response
Brit Hume, the network's chief political analyst, laid out a two-step game plan for the administration to mitigate the fallout during a Wednesday night interview on Special Report With Bret Baier.
'There's some fairly well-established rules, if you can call them that, for how to deal with a situation like this,' he said. 'The first is: Get the facts out as fast as you can and don't be afraid to take responsibility.'
Hume said the administration 'did pretty well on that score,' noting that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz owned up to his mistake of inadvertently adding The Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a group chat of high-ranking administration officials who were discussing a military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
'But then the second rule is: Don't feed the story,' the analyst went on. 'Once you've made your case about what happened and you're maybe waiting for further information to service, just stop talking about it.'
Hume said top officials got 'bogged down' by debates about whether the group chat discussed 'war plans' or not and whether any of the information shared in the thread was classified.
After The Atlantic published the full transcript of the text thread, officials who were part of the group chat—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance—tried to downplay the importance of the operational details they discussed.
'It's very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,' Vance wrote on X.
The Fox News analyst chided the administration for attacking Goldberg over his release of the messages. Hume pointed out that The Atlantic only released the full transcript after officials attempted to paint Goldberg as a liar.
'I'm not a particular fan of Goldberg or his magazine, but he didn't do anything wrong here,' Hume said. 'He got that thing sent to him passively. He didn't do anything to get it.'
Hume agreed that discussions about the leak have overshadowed the 'success' of the March 15 attack that killed 53 people, but said it was only because officials, including President Donald Trump himself, keep talking about that group chat.
'Stop talking about it, Mr. President. It will work better,' he said. 'The answer is: 'I have said what I have to say about that for now and when we know more later on, we've fully investigated this, we will get back to you.''
Earlier Wednesday, Trump appeared to flip-flop on his earlier statements about the group chat by stating that he was unsure whether any of the information discussed was classified.
Still, Hume said it wouldn't be hard to understand why no heads would roll over the incident.
'The fact of the matter is that, although this looks pretty bad… the mission went off successfully,' he said. 'It did not turn out to be harmful in any meaningful way. It just looks bad. So I can see why the president wouldn't fire anybody over this.'
Hume isn't the only conservative pundit unhappy with the administration's handling of the leak. Other right-wing commentators, including Laura Loomer, Tomi Lahren, and even Piers Morgan, all separately flamed Trump officials.
'Trying to wordsmith the hell outta this signal debacle is making it worse,' Lahren wrote on X. 'It was bad. And I'm honestly getting sick of the whataboutisms from my own side. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Admit the F up and move on.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
44 minutes ago
- Fox News
Parental rights concerns erupt over California bill that would let non-relatives make decisions for kids
California's latest move against the Trump agenda has some parents and activists sounding the alarm over a proposal they say could create legal loopholes that could endanger children and hinder parental rights. The Family Preparedness Plan Act, also known as AB 495, is billed as a way to ensure children are cared for if their parents are suddenly detained or deported. Critics warn the measure goes too far by letting non-family adults step in as caregivers with limited oversight — a change they argue could create dangerous workarounds. "It basically means any adult can self-attest to their own authorization to take guardianship over any minor child," Elizabeth Barcohana, an attorney and California mother of four, told Fox News on Monday. "Without parental notification, consent, background check, any guardrails, this adult… can basically take control over anyone's child." The bill specifies that the measure "does not affect the rights of the minor's parents or legal guardian regarding the care, custody, and control of the minor, and does not mean that the caregiver has legal custody of the minor." Instead, it would authorize caregivers to handle school enrollment as well as authorize medical, mental health and dental care, given that the child lives inside that caregiver's home. Separate provisions of AB 495, however, expand the role of the courts, allowing judges to appoint a custodial parent and another adult nominated by that parent as joint guardians if the parent is expected to be temporarily unavailable, including in immigration-related cases. The bill also states that caregiver eligibility is limited to "nonrelative extended family members," defined as adults with an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child, including teachers, clergy, neighbors or family friends. Supporters say the bill is meant to protect children, not create loopholes. Lawmakers wrote that, "stable caregiving arrangements are essential for the health, safety, and emotional well-being of children" and argued that immigration crackdowns have put families at risk of "widespread family separations" that "disrupt caregiving stability for children under 18 years of age." Several nonprofits have backed the measure, including the Alliance for Children's Rights. Its president, Jennifer L. Braun, said the bill "advances the goal of putting children's well-being at the forefront" by promoting parent engagement in "the hard decisions that are best for their family" and by providing options to support them in times of crisis. The caregiver's authorization affidavit mentioned in the bill includes a section where caregivers must declare whether parents were notified regarding the caregiver's intent to authorize medical care and more. One option reads, "I have advised the parent(s) or other person(s) having legal custody of the minor of my intent to authorize medical care, and have received no objection." The other: "I am unable to contact the parent(s) or other person(s) having legal custody of the minor at this time, to notify them of my intended authorization." Critics like Barcohana say the second option allows adults to assume control of a child without ever speaking to the parents. "[That's] the most egregious thing on this form," she said. Barcohana also warned the measure isn't confined to the children of deported illegal immigrants since the bill's language applies to any child. She says the scope leaves the door open for abuse far beyond its intended purpose. "That intention doesn't make it into the amendments to the statute itself, so it's not limited to that situation and, as a result, it applies to any child, not only California children but a child that is brought in by a trafficker… from another state."
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
In Pursuing Trump Rival, Weaponization Czar Sidesteps Justice Dept. Norms
Edward R. Martin Jr. did not waste any time. Days after Mr. Martin, a Trump-aligned activist, was tapped by the Justice Department to investigate the New York attorney general, Letitia James, he wrote a letter to her lawyer saying he would take it as an act of 'good faith' if she were to resign. Mr. Martin followed up this breach of prosecutorial protocol by showing up outside Ms. James's Brooklyn home, clad in a trench coat and posing for pictures for The New York Post. While he told an inquiring neighbor that he was 'just looking at houses, interesting houses,' Mr. Martin later appeared on Fox News saying that, as a prosecutor, he wanted to see the property with his own eyes. It was the latest in a string of media appearances he made in relation to his investigation of Ms. James, one of Mr. Trump's most prominent adversaries. Each of Mr. Martin's actions violates Justice Department rules and norms: Prosecutors are barred from making investigative decisions based on politics; they are asked not to comment on specific cases; and they are supposed to avoid turning their investigations into public spectacles. The request that Ms. James resign is particularly unusual because it appears the Justice Department is trying to harness its criminal powers to accomplish one of Mr. Trump's political goals. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
4 hours ago
Trump vows to change how elections are run. The US Constitution doesn't give him that power
President Donald Trump on Monday vowed more changes to the way elections are conducted in the U.S., but based on the Constitution there is little to nothing he can do on his own. Relying on false information and conspiracy theories that he's regularly used to explain away his 2020 election loss, Trump pledged on his social media site that he would do away with both mail voting — which remains popular and is used by about one-third of all voters — and voting machines — some form of which are used in almost all of the country's thousands of election jurisdictions. These are the same systems that enabled Trump to win the 2024 election and Republicans to gain control of Congress. Trump's post marks an escalation even in his normally overheated election rhetoric. He issued a wide-ranging executive order earlier this year that, among other changes, would have required documented proof-of-citizenship before registering to vote. His Monday post promised another election executive order to 'help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm elections.' The same post also pushed falsehoods about voting. He claimed the U.S. is the only country to use mail voting, when it's actually used by dozens, including Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Similar complaints to Trump's, when aired on conservative and conservative-leaning networks such as Newsmax and Fox News, have led to multimillion dollar defamation settlements, including one announced Monday, because they are full of false information and the outlets have not been able to present any evidence to support them. Trump's post came after the president told Fox News that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in their Friday meeting in Alaska, echoed his grievances about mail voting and the 2020 election. Trump continued his attack on mail voting and voting machines in the Oval Office on Monday, during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The announcement signals yet another way that Trump intends to stack the cards in his favor in the 2026 midterm elections, after he already has directed his attorney general to investigate a Democratic fundraising platform and urged states to redraw their congressional districts to help the GOP maintain its majority in the House of Representatives. Here's a breakdown of Trump's latest election post and why Congress is the one entity that can implement national election rules. Trump for years has promoted false information about voting, and Monday was no exception. He claimed there is 'MASSIVE FRAUD' due to mail voting, when in fact voting fraud in the U.S. is rare. As an example, an Associated Press review after the 2020 election found fewer than 475 cases of potential fraud in the six battleground states where he disputed his loss, far too few to tip that election to Trump. Washington and Oregon, which conduct elections entirely by mail, have sued to challenge Trump's earlier executive order — which sought to require that all ballots must be received by Election Day and not just postmarked by then. The states argue that the president has no such authority, and they are seeking a declaration from a federal judge in Seattle that their postmark deadlines do not conflict with federal law setting the date of U.S. elections. Trump also alleged that voting machines are more expensive than 'Watermark Paper." That's a little-used system that has gained favor and investments among some voting conspiracy theorists who believe it would help prevent fraudulent ballots from being introduced into the vote count. Watermarks would not provide a way to count ballots, so they would not on their own replace vote tabulating machines. While some jurisdictions still have voters use electronic ballot-marking devices to cast their votes, the vast majority of voters in the U.S. already vote on paper ballots, creating an auditable record of votes that provides an extra safeguard for election security. In his post, Trump also claimed that states 'are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes' and must do what the federal government 'as represented by the President of the United States' tells them to do. Election lawyers said that's a misrepresentation of the U.S. Constitution. It also flies in the face of what had been a core Republican Party value of prioritizing states' rights. Unlike in most countries, elections in the U.S. are run by the states. But it gets more complicated — each state then allows smaller jurisdictions, such as counties, cities or townships, to run their own elections. Election officials estimate there are as many as 10,000 different election jurisdictions across the country. A frequent complaint of Trump and other election conspiracy theorists is that the U.S. doesn't run its election like France, which hand counts presidential ballots and usually has a national result on election night. But that's because France is only running that single election, and every jurisdiction has the same ballot with no other races. A ballot in the U.S. might contain dozens of races, from president on down to city council and including state and local ballot measures. The Constitution makes the states the entities that determine the 'time, place and manner' of elections, but does allow Congress to 'make' or 'alter' rules for federal elections. Congress can change the way states run congressional and presidential elections but has no say in the way a state runs its own elections. The president is not mentioned at all in the Constitution's list of entities with powers over elections. 'The president has very limited to zero authority over things related to the conduct of elections,' said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Parts of Trump's earlier executive order on elections were swiftly blocked by the courts, on the grounds that Congress, and not the president, sets federal election rules. It's unclear what Trump plans to do now, but the only path to change federal election rules is through Congress. Although Republicans control Congress, it's unclear that even his party would want to eliminate voting machines nationwide, possibly delaying vote tallies in their own races by weeks or months. Even if they did, legislation would likely be unable to pass because Democrats could filibuster it in the U.S. Senate. Mail voting had bipartisan support before Trump turned against it during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, but it's still widely used in Republican-leaning states, including several he won last November — Arizona, Florida and Utah. It's also how members of the military stationed overseas cast their ballots, and fully eliminating it would disenfranchise those GOP-leaning voters. The main significance of Trump's Monday statement is that it signals his continuing obsession with trying to change how elections are run. 'These kinds of claims could provide a kind of excuse for him to try to meddle,' Hasen said. 'Very concerned about that.'
