Latest news with #Signalgate1.0
Axios
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Why the MAGA world won't turn its back on Hegseth
MAGAworld's repeated races to defend Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth help illuminate what it takes for the president's most hardcore supporters to truly have your back. The big picture: Agreeing with President Trump on policy isn't enough to earn the MAGA movement's full-fledged backing. For that, it helps to have been around since the beginning — and having the right enemies is just as important as having the right friends. MAGA is ready to fight "when we know who the people are, they've been in the trenches with us before, they're fighters. We know the media is just coming after them," said Steve Bannon, the popular podcaster and MAGA leader. The base may not be as ready to jump to someone's defense if it doesn't know "how solid they are in backing the president's program and how far they're prepared to commit to it and fight for it and suffer for it," he said. Zoom out: Already, Hegseth has survived multiple scandals. He faced a grueling Senate confirmation process marred by allegations of sexual assault and binge drinking. Trump's media allies helped push Hegseth over the finish line by threatening to mount primary challenges against any Republicans who voted against him. After winning confirmation, he was criticized for sharing Yemen attack plans in a Signal group chat organized by Mike Waltz, Trump's national security adviser, that accidentally included a journalist. He was later reported to have sent similar plans to a Signal chat he established that included his wife, among other allies. Hegseth's Pentagon has also been beset by infighting, leading to a furious leaking investigation and a slate of firings. Even as recently as Monday, former employees were lobbing bombs at Hegseth. Zoom in: Throughout it all, support from MAGA hasn't wavered, and Trump told The Atlantic that he had a "positive talk" with his Defense secretary. But the same can't be said of others. Waltz drew more ire over Signalgate 1.0 for having the number of The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. MAGA media has also been quick to throw barbs at Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.), who are largely supportive of Trump but historically have more interventionist tendencies or fall out of line on one particular government nominee. What they're saying: Hegseth's survival shows that loyalty to MAGA and Trump – and fights with their enemies – will be repaid in times of need. But Trump's battle-hardened base has a good nose for those who haven't always been by its side. "We see the same old D.C. playbook being used against you. We don't believe it. We think it's completely fake, and we know it's just to take you out on transparently pretextual grounds. So now, you have the backing of the president's entire movement, because he wants you, and also you have the extra validation of the people that we hate attacking you," the Conservative Partnership Institute's Rachel Bovard said. "It goes to skin in the game," she added of more recent MAGA converts. "Because I think, there's this part of MAGA that's like, 'Look, we've been out here beating these drums, and a lot of us have taken punches in the face, arrows to the back, the mainstream media shames us,' that kind of thing. "And if you weren't part of that, and you were just staying between the velvet rope lines, and now all of a sudden, you are going to say the right things to ascend to the right position, you have to prove yourself a little bit."
Boston Globe
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Why Trump hasn't fired Hegseth
Advertisement That should have ended Hegseth's Pentagon misadventures. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Instead, with Monday's annual White House Easter Egg Roll (brought to you by 'This is what the media does,' Hegseth never denied the veracity of The New York Times story about the second Signal group chat. And he certainly doesn't need the media to ruin his already- Advertisement Last week, Hegseth fired three high-ranking staffers — senior adviser Dan Caldwell, deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to the deputy defense secretary. All three were considered loyalists, but now Hegseth is smearing them without evidence as malcontents and leakers of classified information. In a withering essay for Politico, Trump 'has a strong record of holding his top officials to account,' Ullyot wrote, adding that 'it's hard to see' Hegseth 'remaining in his role for much longer.' Don't count on it. In his first term, Trump regularly kicked to the curb anyone who refused to obey him without reservation — that's how he burned through multiple chiefs of staff, attorneys general, and defense secretaries in four years. This time, the president assembled a Cabinet whose members have never seen a line they won't cross, or a questionable command from their boss that they would refuse. Hegseth disgracefully personifies those troubling traits. But with a history of accusations of sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement, and public intoxication, Hegseth was always a terrible choice as defense secretary. Trump fought hard to get him confirmed, including reportedly Now Hegseth's demeanor and inexperience has the Pentagon in a state of dysfunction. But on Monday Trump insisted that Hegseth is 'doing a great job,' while the White House denied reports that there's a search for his successor after only three months. Advertisement Trump's obstinacy is twofold. He doesn't want to validate critics who rightfully denounced Hegseth's nomination and have only gotten more vociferous with each major screwup. Then there's Trump's other obsession. To this very insecure man, admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness. It's as bad as an apology, which is something Trump rarely does. Instead of owning a problem and moving swiftly to rectify it, he triples down on the error even when it means digging the country into a deeper hole. The president expects the same from his Cabinet. Hegseth wouldn't be so wrong and strong without Trump's direction and approval. That's why he's still in one of the world's most important positions. He's following his boss's blueprint — attack the media, drag his critics, and wait for the storm to blow over. That mostly worked during Signalgate 1.0. But after its very unsurprising sequel — and whatever else has yet to be revealed — it can't be amplified loudly enough that the longer the indefensible Hegseth remains as defense secretary, his presence puts at risk the security of this nation and its allies — if we still have any. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Signalgate 2.0' is ‘indefensible': Former NATO chief
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis on Monday called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's reported sharing of military information in a group chat with family members 'indefensible.' 'He's a former major in the U.S. Army. He was trained throughout his time as a junior officer to protect and guard the nation's secrets. He's got to know that he has failed to do that,' Stavridis told CNN's Boris Sanchez on 'CNN News Central.' 'And let's face it, Boris, if Signalgate 1.0 was a release to a group of high-ranking officials, which it was, and got leaked inadvertently to a member of the media, so we saw exactly what was on it. Here we are at Signalgate 2.0, where evidently, if the reporting is correct, very similar level, but now it's going to unclassified individuals who lack the need to know any of this. So, it's gone from outrageous to truly egregious. And it's conduct that, frankly, is indefensible,' he added. Last month, The Atlantic reported that top Trump administration officials had discussed sensitive military information in a Signal chat, with Hegseth sharing details of an upcoming attack on Houthi targets in Yemen. The magazine's Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in that chat, which was largely made up of the leaders of defense and national security agencies. This week, The New York Times reported that Hegseth had shared similar information in a second chat around the same time, this one including his wife, brother and personal attorney. Hegseth has insisted he didn't share classified information in either chat. In an interview Tuesday morning on Fox News he argued the messages in the second chat were 'informal' and 'unclassified.' 'I look at war plans every single day. What was shared over Signal, then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordination for media coordination and other things,' he said Tuesday on Fox News. 'That's what I've said from the beginning.' Sean Parnell, the Department of Defense's chief spokesperson, said in a statement in the wake of The New York Times report on the second Signal chat that 'the New York Times — and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage — are enthusiastically taking the grievances of disgruntled former employees as the sole sources for their article.' The Hill has reached out to the White House and Department of Defense for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
‘Signalgate 2.0' is ‘indefensible': Former NATO chief
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis on Monday called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's reported sharing of military information in a group chat with family members 'indefensible.' 'He's a former major in the U.S. Army. He was trained throughout his time as a junior officer to protect and guard the nation's secrets. He's got to know that he has failed to do that,' Stavridis told CNN's Boris Sanchez on 'CNN News Central.' 'And let's face it Boris, if Signalgate 1.0 was a release to a group of high-ranking officials, which it was, and got leaked inadvertently to a member of the media, so we saw exactly what was on it. Here we are at Signalgate 2.0, where evidently, if the reporting is correct, very similar level, but now it's going to unclassified individuals who lack the need to know any of this. So, it's gone from outrageous to truly egregious. And it's conduct that, frankly, is indefensible,' he added. Last month, The Atlantic reported that top Trump administration officials had discussed sensitive military information in a Signal chat, with Hegseth sharing details of an upcoming attack on Houthi targets in Yemen. The magazine's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in that chat, which was largely made up of the leaders of defense and national security agencies. This week, the New York Times reported that Hegseth had shared similar information in a second chat around the same time, this one including his wife, brother and personal attorney. Hegseth has insisted he didn't share classified information in either chat. In an interview on Fox News Tuesday morning he argued the messages in the second chat were 'informal' and 'unclassified.' 'I look at war plans every single day. What was shared over Signal, then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordination for media coordination and other things,' he said on Fox News Tuesday. 'That's what I've said from the beginning.' Sean Parnell, the Department of Defense's chief spokesperson, said in a statement in the wake of The New York Times report on the second Signal chat that 'the New York Times — and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage — are enthusiastically taking the grievances of disgruntled former employees as the sole sources for their article.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Pete Hegseth's Pentagon Crisis Is So Much Worse Than You Think
The past three months have shown that if a problem surfaces within the Trump Administration, it is almost invariably worse than it seems. Few examples better illustrate this than the current troubles of our Defense Department Ken: Pete Hegseth. (Proud of yourselves, Princeton?) Not only did Hegseth's role in Signalgate 1.0, in which he recklessly shared top secret information that put U.S. troops at risk, lead to Signalgate 2.0, in which he did the very same thing in the very same really dumb and dangerous way, but these two transgressions have occurred alongside multiple other examples of scandal and chaos within the defense department that all can be traced to the blundering of Hegseth himself. Therefore, it is appropriate that these scandals might collectively be called 'Hegsethgate.' It has gotten so bad that NPR reports that the White House is already looking for his replacement. (Secretary of Defense Laura Loomer anyone?) One former senior Pentagon official even penned a bombshell editorial Sunday describing 'chaos' and 'dysfunction' at the Pentagon since Hegseth's arrival. The president said on Monday that Hegseth is 'doing a great job.' But as any follower of Trump knows, when he says he's got your back, check for knives. He could be dispatched by the swift blow the executioner's Truth Social post the moment Trump feels the Secretary of Defense is a drag on his 'popularity.' Clearly he should be. Hegseth should never have been nominated, never confirmed and now he himself has left no doubt that he should be fired. More importantly, however, Hegseth's glib goatf--kery and all that goes with it is actually just one of a series of alarming developments during President Trump's first 100 days that, taken together, represent a deepening and unprecedented national security crisis for the United States. At every level of the Trump national security apparatus there are developments that suggest that America's standing as a superpower is in jeopardy, our safety and that of our allies is at risk, and that day-by-day as we become weaker, our enemies and rivals are being made stronger by the actions of the president and his team. Just this past weekend, the New York Times reported that Trump's team was planning a 'drastic overhaul' of the State Department via executive order that would do serious damage to our ability to advance and defend our interests worldwide. While the Secretary of State has taken to social media to say that the Times report is a 'hoax,' there is no reason to believe he is telling the whole truth. The steps enumerated in the draft executive order (which I've read) include eliminating current regional bureaus and replacing them with four super-bureaus covering larger regions of the world, getting rid of or shrinking all or most programs that promote democracy, international institutions, combat climate change, support women's issues, and advance U.S. public diplomacy (including valuable cultural diplomacy initiatives and much of what was good about the Fulbright Program). Could Rubio be right and the document be an inaccurate reflection of the final White House plan to remake the oldest cabinet department, the one responsible for our foreign policy? Sure. Might the document have been a trial balloon? Possibly. But will big changes be coming? Of course. While the State Department bureaucracy is too large and could use some reorganizing, nearly everything announced, planned or leaked by the Trump administration is worrisome. Not only will the steps dramatically reduce our ability to shape and anticipate global developments, they will make it much harder for American companies and individuals abroad to have the support of their governments as the companies and citizens of other countries get from theirs. Further, Trump administration actions have already created openings for our rivals, like China and Russia, to make gains internationally. China is already offering aid programs to replace those once offered by the U.S.—thus strengthening their influence and underscoring how unreliable we have become. In addition, one of the steps described in the NY Times article about the draft EO is eliminating or vastly reducing the US diplomatic presence (including many embassies) around the world and especially in sub-Saharan Africa. This is profoundly short-sighted. It will be greeted by toasts and laughter in Moscow and China. It will not only create opportunities for them but it will dramatically reduce the cost of their competition with us. Another vital element of our national security establishment is the National Security Council. I've written two histories of the NSC and met with nearly every one of our national security advisors who was alive in my lifetime. I can honestly say that the current NSC, led by Mike Waltz, represents the absolute nadir of influence the organization has had since the 1960s. (Which is when it became an important organization.) I said as much to the New York Times in an article about the weakness of the NSC under Waltz just the other day. The headline of the article described the situation we are in accurately, saying 'Under Trump, National Security Guardrails Vanish.' A sign of the weakness of the NSC is that Waltz himself was nearly fired for being the man behind Signalgate 1.0. His influence has waned so much that when Laura Loomer, a right wing crackpot with zero national security experience, suggested Trump fire several NSC staffers, he did. Which is saying something since Trump seldom listens to advisors like Waltz, Rubio or Hegseth. The problems go deeper. Far too deep to be covered in a single article. Attacking alliances like NATO hurts us. Cutting aid to Ukraine hurts us. Pulling out of international organizations and ignoring international treaties hurts us. Undercutting the trust we have built around the world has been a devastating blow, depriving us of what I would consider our number one strategic advantage. To add insult to injury, top Trump national security officials are saying and doing damaging and sometimes even crazy things on a daily basis. To offer just one example, see the comments this past week by White House counterterrorism chief Sebastian Gorka saying that anyone who criticized Trump's rendition of scores of people to an El Salvador concentration camp without benefit of due process was themselves supporting terrorists and therefore subject to prosecution. For those of you who are not national security professionals, let me summarize by saying: Lunacy, chaos, ignorance and incompetence are like sulfuric acid eating away at the foundations of our national strength. We grow weaker and more at risk daily. Our enemies and rivals grow stronger at our expense. The team in place to protect neither realizes that we have a problem nor that they are a central part of that problem. In 1838, a 29 year-old Abraham Lincoln anticipated the origins of this crisis when he said in a speech in Springfield, Illinois, 'At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.' He was right.
