We have contingency plans: Hegseth hints Pentagon could invade Greenland, Panama
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to confirm on Thursday that the Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans to seize control of Greenland and Panama by force, sparking outrage and disbelief during a congressional hearing.Grilled repeatedly by Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee about his handling of classified military discussions on Signal chats, Hegseth declined to give direct answers -- but one remark stunned lawmakers.advertisement"Our job at the Defence Department is to have plans for any contingency," Hegseth said in response to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., who had pointedly asked whether the Pentagon had plans to forcibly take Greenland or Panama.
Though it's standard for the Pentagon to prepare for hypothetical global conflicts, the defence secretary's phrasing -- and his refusal to clarify -- escalated tension in the room.Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked directly: "It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?"But Hegseth repeated his line about contingency planning, prompting Turner to respond: "I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony."Hegseth responded, 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats.' The session, already fraught after days of stonewalling from Hegseth on various topics, quickly turned confrontational. Lawmakers pressed him on why he had used encrypted messaging apps like Signal to discuss military operations — a move some said sidestepped accountability.advertisement"You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead," shouted Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., his voice rising. "You should just get the hell out."Republican lawmakers pushed back on the tone of the hearing. Several apologized to Hegseth on behalf of their colleagues, condemning what they called "flagrant disrespect."But Hegseth brushed off the criticism. "I'm happy to take the arrows," he said. "We're here to make tough calls and do what's best for national security."The Pentagon has not formally commented on whether operational plans exist for such invasions.With inputs from Associated PressMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Apologise right now': Rep. Fallon snaps at Dem Gov. Tim Walz for comparing ICE agents to 'Gestapo' - The Economic Times Video
Tensions exploded during a fiery House Oversight hearing as Rep. Pat Fallon demanded an apology from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for previously comparing ICE agents to the 'Gestapo.' The hearing, originally scheduled to address sanctuary city policies, came just days after violent clashes erupted in downtown Los Angeles. Governors Tim Walz (MN), Kathy Hochul (NY), and JB Pritzker (IL) were all called to testify, facing intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers over their immigration stances and sanctuary policies.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
200 Marines moved into Los Angeles to protect federal property, personnel
After a week of tense protests over the federal immigration raids, about 200 Marines have moved into Los Angeles and will protect federal property and personnel, a military commander said Friday. Maj Gen Scott Sherman, commander of Task Force 51 who is overseeing the 4,700 troops deployed, said Friday that the Marines have finished training on civil disturbance. Sherman said the Marines would take over operations at noon local time at the federal building in downtown Los Angeles. 'I would like to emphasize that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities. Rather, they'll be focused on protecting federal law enforcement personnel,' Sherman said. The development comes a day after the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that had directed President Donald Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California, shortly after a federal judge had ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The Marines will join some 2,000 National Guard troops that have been on the streets of the city since last week when immigration raids set off protests. Over the past three nights the demonstrations have been largely peaceful with only a handful of arrests mostly due to people failing to disperse. California Gov Gavin Newsom has called the troop deployment a 'serious breach of state sovereignty' and a power grab by Trump, and he has gone to court to stop it. The president has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilise federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States'. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, active-duty forces are prohibited by law from conducting law enforcement. Sherman said the National Guard soldiers at that location will transition to provide protection to federal law enforcement agents but not participate in law enforcement activities. Sherman said the US Marine Corps is responsible for guarding US embassies overseas so they are well-trained on how to defend a federal building. Some National Guard troops have protected immigration agents making arrests but Sherman said 'we have had no soldier or Marine detain anyone'. The National Guard troops that were protecting federal property will transition to providing protection to more federal law enforcement officials, Sherman said. States face questions on deploying troops With more demonstrations expected over the weekend, and the possibility that Trump could send troops to other states for immigration enforcement, governors are weighing what to do. Texas Gov Greg Abbott, a Republican, has put 5,000 National Guard members on standby in cities where demonstrations are planned. In other Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they may deploy troops. A group of Democratic governors earlier signed a statement this week calling Trump's deployments 'an alarming abuse of power'. Hundreds arrested in LA protests There have been about 470 arrests since Saturday, the vast majority of which were for failing to leave the area at the request of law enforcement, according to the police department. There have been a handful of more serious charges, including for assault against officers and for possession of a Molotov cocktail and a gun. Nine officers have been hurt, mostly with minor injuries.
NDTV
2 hours 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.)
