During a tense parliamentary hearing on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegses seemed to acknowledge that the Pentagon had a plan in place regarding Greenland and Panama, but he sidestepped repeated inquiries about the use of secure messaging apps to coordinate military operations.
Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee had vigorous exchanges with Hegses, especially from veteran lawmakers who pressed for straightforward answers without any elaborate explanations. Some of the questions were tough to answer directly, which was apparent throughout the session.
A particularly eyebrow-raising moment occurred when Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) asked if the Pentagon had developed plans to assert control over Greenland or Panama if it became necessary.
“Our job at the Department of Defense is to prepare for any emergency,” Hegses insisted multiple times.
While it’s not unusual for the Pentagon to create contingency plans for potential conflicts, his evasive responses sparked interventions from Republican lawmakers.
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) pressed, “Is it your testimony that the Pentagon currently has plans to invade Greenland?”
Hegses continued to provide vague answers about contingency plans, prompting Turner to stress, “I hope that’s not what you meant.”
“We are committed to collaborating with Greenland to address any possible threats,” Hegses replied.
Throughout the session, lawmakers urged Hegses to finally address topics he had avoided, including during a two-day hearing at Capitol Hill. Frustration mounted, with Rep. Sardo Carvajal expressing, “You’re an embarrassment to this country. You’re not fit to lead.”
Some GOP lawmakers even apologized to Hegses for the Democrats’ sharp criticisms, asserting he shouldn’t have to endure such treatment. Hegses responded, stating he was “happy to take the arrows” and was doing his best in a tough situation.
A Signal Chat Question Raises Classified Concerns
Discussions about the use of secure messaging apps to strategize against Yemen’s Houthi rebels sent lawmakers into a flurry of questions aimed at Hegses.
Repeated questioning about whether he had shared classified information and the accountability he might face led Hegses to assert that, due to classification protocols, he couldn’t divulge specifics to lawmakers.
He contended that details regarding the attack in March weren’t classified based on what he had posted, which led Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democratic Marine Corps veteran, to jump in.
“It’s certainly possible to verify if something is classified,” Moulton stated.
“What isn’t classified is that it was a remarkably successful mission,” Hegses responded.
A report from a Pentagon watchdog concerning his use of messaging apps is expected soon.
Moulton inquired whether Hegses would be held accountable if inspectors found classified information on the messaging app. However, Hegses didn’t provide a direct answer, only noting he serves “at the president’s pleasure.”
When pressed about whether he owed an apology to the mother of a pilot whose life was put at risk during a strike mission, his reply was, “I do not apologize for the success.”
Trump’s Speech and Military Politics Discussion
General Dan Kane, chairman of the joint chiefs, was questioned regarding former President Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg and whether it indicated the politicization of the military.
The Department of Defense maintains policies prohibiting military personnel from engaging in political activities while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne were placed behind Trump during his remarks, cheering and booing at various points, particularly in response to comments targeting his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Additionally, a merchandise stand was present selling souvenirs to service members in uniform.
Kane reiterated the military’s need to remain apolitical but claimed he was unaware of what transpired at Fort Bragg.
Policies on Uniforms and Gender Diversity Challenges Hegses
Hegses faced scrutiny over policies affecting women and transgender service members within the armed forces.
He mentioned efforts to eliminate diversity initiatives he deemed unnecessary, arguing for having the most qualified military personnel regardless of background.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) asked if all service members, regardless of gender, are capable of handling their duties, which include combat and drone operations.
“It depends on the context,” Hegses replied, adding that women handle different gear and may operate differently.
In previous remarks, he stated women should not be utilized in “straight” combat. He noted that recruitment of women soared during the Trump administration, emphasizing that military standards must remain high and equitable.
As discussions continued, Hegses acknowledged the expulsion of three female service members related to a ban against transgender individuals serving in the military. He appeared to agree that their accomplishments, as mentioned by Houlahan, would be celebrated until their transgender status was revealed.
Republican lawmakers criticized governmental expenditures related to gender reassignment surgery during this debate.
Democrats Question Military Intentions Toward Greenland and Panama
Former President Trump has frequently expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, an area rich in resources and a long-time US ally, prompting flat denials from Greenland’s leadership.
“Greenland is not for sale,” Jacob Isbosessen, the US representative for Greenland, stated during a Washington forum held by the Arctic Institute.
In an effort to maintain the Pentagon’s discretion, Hegses walked a fine line with Smith, creating some confusion about the military’s plans.
“I don’t think Americans voted for President Trump hoping for a military invasion of Greenland,” Smith asserted.
