WSJ pundits demolish right-wing talking points defending Hegseth: “It all comes back again to this basic point that something's wrong at the top levels”
Editorial board member Kim Strassel: “The president's going to need to engage there, hopefully sooner rather than later, to get this stuff sorted out."
Published
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch - 4/22/25
Citation
From the April 22, 2025, edition of the Wall Street Journal's Potomac Watch
KYLE PETERSON (HOST): Kate, maybe it's just me, but I detect a bit of franticness in Pete Hegseth's voice there. It's hard not to wonder whether this Fox & Friends interview was aimed at one particular occupant of the Oval Office who is a cable TV watcher.
...
KATE BACHELDER ODELL (WSJ EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER): There's the story in The New York Times and elsewhere, including our pages, saying that Hegseth was running that Signal chat with personal associates around the same time as the original Signal chat that gained national attention when a journalist was mistakenly added to it. One of the main problems, I think, is that originally when that Signal story broke, the thing to do was to own the mistake and cop to it and say, “We shouldn't have been exchanging information on Signal like that and we're going to tighten it up." And instead, what the administration did then was basically launch a multi-day war over what a war plan is and whether it was on the Signal thread. And so I think that has invited this second story and also given the administration the assumption that they can just shoot their way through anything and claim it's all a media hoax and that it will all die down. And I think this story is not going to die down because it gets at larger questions about accountability in the secretary of defense's office and whether this is going to cost something to Trump's agenda for the military.
...
PETERSON: For the record, here is a statement put out by these three linked aides on the Twitter account of Dan Caldwell. It says, “We are incredibly disappointed by the manner in which our service at the Department of Defense ended. Unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on the way out the door." They say, "We understand the importance of information security. We still have not been told what exactly we were investigated for, if there is still an active investigation, or if there even was a real investigation of leaks to begin with." Kim, Caldwell also told a podcaster that he thinks this is about policy differences. He said, “I was out there advancing things that a lot of people in the foreign policy establishment didn't want." And so, obviously, sitting here, we don't know what the Pentagon investigated or didn't investigate. There seemed to be some doubt, even in Pete Hegseth's mind. In that clip that we played from Fox & Friends, he's saying maybe they'll be cleared, maybe not. We don't think that's going to be the case, but it does not give the impression of professionalism and competence at the top of the Pentagon.
KIM STRASSEL (WSJ EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER): Yeah, amid all the swirl that's going on out there. Because there's a lot of different elements to this, as Kate was just pointing out. Let's keep one thing in mind. I think it should be a guiding principle throughout all this that while we may not know the ins and outs of the disputes, something is wrong at the moment at the senior level of the Department of Defense and in the realm of political appointees. So this is not a story about the press pouncing. This is not even necessarily a story about people who were inside the Pentagon that are now out to get Donald Trump. I mean, let's remember, these are people that Hegseth brought in with him and now have been dismissed.
So I think this is just important because you can't necessarily go pointing your fingers somewhere else. And the reason that that matters is because Donald Trump, as president of the United States, rightfully should have an expectation, especially at this point in the game, early in his administration, that things should be running on full cylinders. And if they're not, he needs to take action to figure out what's going on.
I think the question that we don't know here the answer to is how much of this has to do with policy disputes? Is there some big disagreement about the way in which the Pentagon is going about its business? And I don't put that beyond the realm of possibility, because Donald Trump has surrounded himself in this administration, not just with some of the more hawkish defense people of the type he had in his first administration, but a lot more America first, bordering on isolationist types, and they're all in this mix and swirl together. And I'm sure that there is some fallout all coming from that, and that might take just a little bit more clear leadership from the very top about what direction things are going, or it could be a basic question of management and the ability to manage. And there were certainly some question marks around Pete Hegseth when he was put into this big of a role. The Pentagon, far more than any other agency in Washington, is a vast and sprawling organization, and there were some concerns, among even those who want to see Donald Trump succeed and do well, about putting someone that was so unfamiliar with that kind of organizational challenge at the top. So I think we still need to sort out what some of that is, but it all comes back again to this basic point that something's wrong at the top levels. And I think the president's going to need to engage there, hopefully sooner rather than later, to get this stuff sorted out.
...
PETERSON: Kate, how do you read these news reports about a second Signal chat thread? The analysis of it, this is from a Wall Street Journal story, it says that it was a team huddle, was the name of the chat, included 13 people including Hegseth's brother, a Department of Homeland Security liaison, as well as Hegseth's personal lawyer. Reportedly, this chat began about the time of Hegseth's confirmation and was used in part to craft strategies ahead of his appearance on Capitol Hill. And so, Kate, the first chat thread, the one involving US officials, that also erroneously included the Atlantic editor-in-chief, we have seen some of the contents of that chat thread. We have not seen the contents of the second chat thread. There's other news reports saying that it included similar information. And on the one hand, if it was in one Signal chat thread, I'm not sure how much more national security damage is done by it being in a second chat thread. On the other hand, it's one thing to make the defense that Pete Hegseth has made so far, that the Signal app was used for purposes of coordination between government officials who were trying to speak candidly to one another, including the vice president, the CIA director. It raises more questions though about why similar information would be shared on a Signal chat thread with your personal lawyer.
BACHELDER ODELL: Well, I think the Signal story, the larger question that it raises and the reason why it might not disappear as fast as the administration would like is because it bears on questions of accountability. I mean, Hegseth, when he appeared before the Senate for his confirmation, he talked about how his calling card was military accountability, at every level, and leadership. He made good on that statement. He has fired multiple top general officers in the Pentagon, which is his prerogative to do as the civilian head, but he has made that an issue and said that everybody must be accountable to a standard. Also, to the extent that voters vote on these issues at all, one of the most potent themes in the election was the Biden administration's complete failure to hold anyone accountable for the debacle in Afghanistan that cost the lives of 13 Marines. And so, now, to have the secretary of defense trying to just bluster and fight his way through what looks like an obvious accountability issue is going to be difficult for him.
The second issue I'd raise very quickly is just, if you remember, his confirmation was a close-run thing. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis was on the fence until the last minute and decided to vote for him. A number of senators were reluctant to vote for him. And since Hegseth has gotten to the Pentagon, he has not done a lot to show those senators, who have real concerns about America's leadership in the world, that he shares that worldview or will do anything about it. He has staffed the place with a lot of these new isolationists who are occasionally leaking, “Hey, maybe we won't run NATO command anymore" or “we will cancel our plans to upgrade our forces in Japan." And so it has not inspired a lot of goodwill with some of the members of Congress who went out on a limb to support him. So those two core issues, I think, are why this is going to be a longer run thing and not just going to blow over from one media interview on Fox & Friends.