Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is facing renewed scrutiny after news surfaced that he used a second encrypted group chat to share sensitive military information about last month’s strikes in Yemen.
Hegseth’s days in the role may be numbered, as the White House has begun looking for a new secretary of defense, an official not authorized to speak publicly told NPR on Monday.
The same official also confirmed to NPR that Hegseth shared details about last month’s strikes in Yemen with his wife and brother in a group chat on his personal phone through the encrypted messaging app Signal, a story first reported on Sunday by The New York Times.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn. and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Morning Edition that he had no independent information to doubt the report. He added that Hegseth’s alleged actions are “not shocking based on the pattern of behavior we’ve seen for a long time now out of the Pentagon.”
The Times, citing four unnamed sources that the paper said had knowledge of the group chat, reported that Hegseth shared flight schedules for jets used in the Yemen strikes.
In March, The Atlantic magazine reported how its editor-in-chief was inadvertently added to a different Signal chat group where Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, national security adviser Mike Waltz and other top administration officials discussed sensitive details about the March strikes in Yemen.
Speaking to reporters at the White House’s Easter egg roll Monday, Hegseth accused the Times of peddling “lies” and “hoaxes.”
“This is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled, former employees and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations,” Hegseth said. “Not gonna work with me. Because we’re changing the Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of warfighters and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn’t matter.”
Two Pentagon officials in Hegseth’s inner circle were fired last week amid a leak investigation.
Himes said the defense secretary is supposed to be “almost perfect” around the clock in their role. He also discussed the Times‘ report on Hegseth’s second group chat and use of the Signal app in government with NPR’s Steve Inskeep.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.Â
Steve Inskeep: Now, the statement from the Defense Department about this quoted in The Times says, listen, nothing secret or classified was discussed here. Not that it was unimportant, but nothing classified was discussed here. If there in fact are again details of what was a forthcoming attack in Yemen, does that strike you as nothing classified, nothing secret, nothing that important?
Rep. Jim Himes: No. I mean, it’s simply not right. This is sort of not subject to debate. What is classified is not at the discretion of the person who is generating the information. There’s very clear standards for what needs to be classified. And in fact, when I had the opportunity to talk to director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard at an open hearing a number of weeks ago, I actually read her the standard and preparations for an attack – and it’s almost ridiculous to have to say this – but especially specific preparations for an attack, timing, weapons systems, etc., are to be classified top secret. I think most Americans, even if they don’t know the Pentagon’s standards for classification, understand that talking in advance in an unsecured spot, whether it’s a Signal chat or a bar about an upcoming attack, could result in tragedy. And we’re very, very fortunate that in this case it didn’t.
Inskeep: We should note, according to The New York Times, his wife was on the chat. She has traveled around with him and attended meetings with him. Other people were on the chat who are in the Pentagon but not necessarily in a position to need to know this information. Was anybody on that chat who strikes you as inappropriate?
Himes: Well, the whole thing is inappropriate, right? I mean, again, we spend millions and millions of dollars a year creating classified and sealed environments in which this stuff is talked about. No, I can’t imagine why his wife, his brother and his personal lawyer would need to know particular aircraft that are to be used in an upcoming attack. This is just sadly reflective of a much larger problem at the Pentagon here. It’s important to remember the context, right? All cabinet secretaries have difficult jobs. But the defense secretary’s job is unique because 24/7 the hundreds of thousands of people in the Department of Defense are doing things like driving aircraft carriers and launching planes off of these carriers and carrying weapons and doing lethal things. And, you know, 24/7 the secretary of defense must be almost perfect in their prudence, in their care, in their ability to make judgments when really awful things are happening. And when you see basic errors, including your wife and your brother, on what should be illegal communication about an upcoming attack, you really need to worry about the national security of the country as a whole.
Inskeep: Isn’t it true, though, and you would know this as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, that a lot of people in the U.S. government find Signal to be pretty good and in fact, people in the CIA have it installed in their computers?
Himes: Well, so Signal is pretty good. That’s exactly the right word. But I’m here to tell you that it’s not perfect. Yes, people in the government use Signal for unimportant – by the way, as do I, for unimportant things, to communicate social plans to my colleagues, for example. But there’s two problems. Number one, it’s not perfect. And there is this whole other system that we spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to to handle precisely these communications. And number two, though, it’s a little esoteric, the government is required and people in senior positions in government are required to keep a record of their communications, which, of course, in Signal is almost impossible to do. This, of course, takes us back to the absolute outrage that we dealt with for half a decade over Hillary Clinton’s emails. One of the charges was that she was breaking the law on records preservation. That’s secondary to the very serious danger that the secretary of defense and Mike Waltz put our pilots in. But it is a thing.
Inskeep: But what do you make of this? Apparently, even as this story was unfolding, the Defense Department was dismissing senior advisers to Hegseth for supposedly leaking information, something they’ve denied. But these very people were on the very same Signal chat that Hegseth himself initiated.
Himes: Yeah. And look, it’s totally we have no idea what’s going on, other than the fact that the most senior advisers to the secretary of defense were fired. We also know that a four-star general who ran the National Security Agency, a military officer, was fired because Laura Loomer had a problem with him. This is a pattern of real trouble at the top of our most dangerous government department.
NPR disclosure: Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, chairs the board of the Signal Foundation.
Transcript:
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, is calling again for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to be fired over a report of a chat in the Signal app. Now, if you weren’t following news over the weekend, you may think, well, that’s an old story from weeks ago. But actually, it’s happened again. In the Signal app, a report that there was a chat in the Signal app started by Hegseth that discussed plans for the U.S. attack on Houthis in Yemen. NPR has not been able to independently confirm this report, which was first reported by The New York Times and appeared to be confirmed by the Defense Department, a second chat on the commercially available app.
Unlike an earlier chat that became public when it inadvertently included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeff Goldberg, this conversation was started by the defense secretary himself. So let’s discuss this with Jim Himes. He’s a member of Congress, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which looks into these matters. Congressman, good morning. Welcome to the program.
JIM HIMES: Good morning. Thanks for having me.
INSKEEP: Do you have any independent reason to believe or disbelieve this report in The New York Times?
HIMES: No, I’m like everyone else, just reading it in the media. But no, not shocking, based on the pattern of behavior we’ve seen for a long time now out of the Pentagon.
INSKEEP: Now, the statement from the Defense Department about this, this quoted in the Times, says, listen, nothing at all that important was discussed here. Nothing secret or classified was discussed here. Not that it was unimportant, but nothing classified was discussed here. If there, in fact, are, again, details of what was a forthcoming attack in Yemen, does that strike you as nothing classified? Nothing secret? Nothing that important?
HIMES: No, I mean, it’s simply not, right? I mean, this is sort of not subject to debate, right? What is classified is not at the discretion of the person who is generating the information. There’s very clear standards for what needs to be classified. And, in fact, when I had the opportunity to talk to director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard at an open hearing a number of weeks ago, I actually read her the standard. And, you know, preparations for an attack, and it’s sort of – it’s almost ridiculous to have to say this, but especially specific preparations for an attack – timing, weapon systems, etc., are to be classified top secret. And look, I think most Americans, even if they don’t know the Pentagon standards for classification, understand that talking in advance in an unsecured spot, whether it’s a Signal chat or a bar about an upcoming attack, could result in tragedy. And we’re very, very fortunate that in this case it didn’t.
INSKEEP: What have you – and I guess we should note, according to The New York Times, his wife was on the chat. She has traveled around with him and attended meetings with him. Other people were on the chat who are in the Pentagon but not necessarily in a position to need to know this information. Was anybody on that chat who strikes you as inappropriate?
HIMES: Well, the whole thing is inappropriate, right? I mean, again, we spend millions and millions of dollars a year creating classified and, you know, sealed environments in which this stuff is talked about. No, I can’t imagine why his wife, his brother and his personal lawyer would need to know particular aircraft that are to be used in an upcoming attack. So, I mean, you know, this is just sadly reflective of a much larger problem at the Pentagon here. I mean, it’s important to remember the context, right? All cabinet secretaries have difficult jobs, but the defense secretary’s job is unique because 24/7, the hundreds of thousands of people at the Department of Defense are doing things like driving aircraft carriers and launching planes off of these carriers and carrying weapons and doing lethal things. And, you know, 24/7, the secretary of defense must be almost perfect in their prudent, in their care, in their ability to make judgments when really awful things are happening. And when you see basic errors, including your wife and your brother on a what should be illegal communication about an upcoming attack, you really need to worry about the national security of the country as a whole.
INSKEEP: Isn’t it true, though – and you would know this as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee – that a lot of people in the U.S. government find Signal to be pretty good and, in fact, people in the CIA have it installed on their computers?
HIMES: Well, so Signal is pretty good. That’s exactly the right word, but I’m here to tell you that it’s not perfect. And so, yes, people in the government use Signal for – by the way, as do I, for unimportant things, you know, to communicate social plans to my colleagues, for example. But there’s two problems – No. 1, it’s not perfect, and there is this whole other system that we spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to handle precisely these communications.
And No. 2, though, it’s a little esoteric, the government is required, and people in senior positions in government are required to keep a record of their communications, which, of course, in Signal is almost impossible to do. This was, of course, takes us back to, you know, the absolute outrage that we dealt with for half a decade over Hillary Clinton’s emails. One of the charges was that she was breaking the law on records preservation. That’s secondary to the very serious danger that the secretary of defense and Mike Waltz put our pilots in, but it is a thing.
INSKEEP: Just about 20 seconds left, but what do you make of this? Apparently, even as this story was unfolding, the Defense Department was dismissing senior advisers to Hegseth for supposedly leaking information, something they’ve denied. But these very people were on the very same Signal chat that Hegseth himself initiated.
HIMES: Yeah, and look, it’s totally – we have no idea what’s going on, other than the fact that the most senior advisers to the secretary of defense were fired. We also know that a four-star general who ran the National Security Agency, a military officer, was fired because Laura Loomer had a problem with him. This is a pattern of real trouble at the top of our most dangerous government department.
INSKEEP: Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, thanks so much.
HIMES: Thank you.
INSKEEP: One disclosure – NPR’s CEO chairs the board of the nonprofit Signal Foundation. We’ll continue to cover this story like any other.
