Spyke

Pete Hegseth denies texting war plans to journalist

Summary

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied allegations that he texted classified war plans to a Signal group chat that mistakenly included The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

The National Security Council confirmed the chat’s authenticity but called the inclusion of Goldberg an inadvertent mistake.

Lawmakers from both parties demanded investigations, with former CIA Director Leon Panetta warning of potential espionage violations.

Hegseth dismissed Goldberg as a "deceitful" journalist. Trump denied knowledge of the incident.

Pete Hegseth denies texting war plans to journalisthttps://www.newsweek.com/pete-hegseth-denies-texting-war-plans-journalist-2049883Open linkView original on lemmy.world
sh.itjust.works

Ah yes - the classic Trump approach.... just yell Fake News as loud as possible.

251
aaronreply
lemm.ee

I'm seriously hopeful that the people who have historically given into this lie are wising up.

46
lemmy.world

Don’t hold your breath. The Repubs will just say they haven’t read the news.

20
aaronreply
lemm.ee

While acknowledging that Trump voters are emotional and fear-prone, they're not entirely stupid and generally not cultists, probably, maybe. Can we have some sliver of hope? The ones I know are certainly not stupid but are tragically misinformed and savants of confirmation bias. I've also noticed that they care a great deal. It seems more like a target misalignment problem than a broken turret.

2
lemmy.world

The ones I know are certainly not stupid but are tragically misinformed and savants of confirmation bias

Can you please define "stupid"? Because this feels like a very apt definition of the word you're trying to use

11
anomnomreply
sh.itjust.works

I think he means there are some otherwise intelligent people voting against their self interests because the echo chambers and media they are exposed to have convinced them to.

Smart people can be misinformed too. Finding a way for them to be informed could help those ones (I wish I knew some of them, because I think I could help, but the trumpets I know are the cultist ones with really screwed up morals).

6
lemmy.world

A smart person is impossible to dupe twice. This is Trump second term, anyone voting for him a second time after the first one does not deserve to be called "intelligent". They are as stupid as they come and they can only blame themselves for that, especially in an era where information are abundant and vary.

5
aaronreply
lemm.ee

The only characteristic of stupidity is being misinformed? Everyone is misinformed to some extent. There are myriad aspects to intelligence. We're all imperfect monkeys.

2
lemmy.world

Nobody is denying that we are all imperfect monkeys nor is stating that being misinformed is the only characteristic of being stupid. I'm simply sayig that making mistakes is human, perservering in being mistaken is diabolical, as we say here in Italy. They knew the man from the previous administration and they actively choose to support him still after they saw what he was able to do with January 6th, besides all other misdees he achieved between 2016 and 2020. They are either morons and idiots or bad people, no inbetween left imho. If you still believe they are capable of changing without receiving an heartfelt apology from them, buddy, I've got a coliseum to sell to you, contact me in private

1
aaronreply

I understand the rage completely. As an American, I have lost hair for it. The tiny optimist in me believes that these people have a limit. They will never apologize for anything, but we can hope that they'll trend more toward sanity once they discover how fucked Trumpism is. Many of them are fucking idiots, but a lot of them aren't.

1

Also, start with talking bad of media that was involved (see Orange's first comment).

12
lemmy.world

He knows they have the screenshots and the NSC confirmed it, right?

https://x.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1904221405618577650

NSC statement:  "At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our servicemembers or our  national security." - NSC Spokesman Brian Hughes

The Trump administration does not deny this Signal group chat about the war planning for the Yemen strikes is real. Trump’s top national security advisers added reporter

@JeffreyGoldberg

@TheAtlantic

to the war planning text chain on non-government social media app, perhaps breaking secrecy laws. Read this shocking story below.

150
lemmy.ml

Pro tip: if you change the x.com to xcancel.com you can make the link use a twitter mirror and not give Musk revenue if people click on the link

106
lemmy.world

A lot of people assume this is the correct way to speak because it's chronologically correct, but the general consensus in the trans community is that she was always Chelsea Manning, and always was a woman, and the time that she spent using the other name and gender need not be reflected upon. I do not know how Chelsea Manning personally feels about this, and every individual is entitled to their own respect, however the general etiquette when you do not know is to NOT deadname or misgender them, regardless of what era of their life you are referring to.

This is not an attack. Just a PSA.

Have a peaceful evening.

13
p3nreply
lemmy.world

I respectfully disagree with that consensus.

Her legal name was Bradley Manning when she was charged and tried: https://web.archive.org/web/20110726100828/http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/444.html

When referring to legal proceedings it only makes sense to use someone's legal name during those proceedings. Court documents do not get retroactively updated when someone changes their name.

Ultimately, what is disrespectful to Chelsea Manning is entirely determined by Chelsea Manning not the Lemmy Community, Military Community, Trans Community, or any other group.

Nobody gets to be offended for me, and I am the sole determiner of what is respectful and disrespectful to me.

-1

You are entitled to disagree, and as i said before, I do not know Chelsea Mannings' stance on the matter. Some trans people do refer to their past tense selves with their previous names, or even do not change names after coming out or transitioning. You are correct that court documents will not be altered.

The point that I am making is that, in general, it is considered disrespectful and quite rude to dead name and misgender someone unless they have given you express permission to do so. It's really not a matter of being technically correct, it's just a matter of being kind.

Unless you are friends with Chelsea (which I am not), or unless you are directly quoting something out of the court document (and even then, you can just say "Manning"), there's no need to use the name that she used to go by, and there's no need to use he/him pronouns. We're talking about Chelsea Manning right now, but this goes for any trans person that you are not personally acquainted with. Another example would be to say that Caitlin Jenner is an Olympic Medal winner, regardless of what she looked like or what name she won those medals under, or what category she won them in.

Again, not an attack. I'm just making noise.

Hope your night is going well.

(But fuck Caitlin Jenner, she's a bad person)

2

That's still deadnaming and misgendering tho, as I understand it as a cis guy myself. I encourage you edit your original response with her current name and gender

4

All that is true. In addition, those communications are subject to records retention laws, so using signal and flagging them to be deleted is illegal in itself.

23

These dipshits can't get their thumbs out of each other's butts long enough to get their story straight. I'd laugh if I thought there would be any real consequences for this nonsense.

Only 46 months to go...

7
chetradleyreply
lemm.ee

He's in a really unique position in that he can claim to not remember doing something awful, and most likely be telling the truth.

18
jordanlundreply
lemmy.world

To be clear, Hegseth (the guy with a history of getting blackout drunk) isn't the same as Michael Waltz, the guy who invited Goldberg to the chat.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/03/jeffrey-goldberg-group-chat-broke-internet/682161/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Waltz

Waltz, unlike Hegseth, is not a random idiot, he definitely knows better.

"Waltz received four Bronze Stars while serving in the Special Forces during multiple combat tours in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa. He served in the Bush administration as a defense policy director in the Pentagon and as counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney."

As far as Hegseth (or any of the rest of them for that matter) was concerned, the list was all vetted and pre-approved people.

The fact that NONE of them actually vetted the list before saying anything speaks volumes.

They went down the line asking "Hey, who else in your department needs to be a contact on this?" and they all sounded off one by one, except Goldberg.

Nobody thought to ask "Hey, J.G., we haven't heard from you yet. In fact, wait, who is J.G.?"

44
lemmy.world

Waltz, unlike Hegseth, is not a random idiot, he definitely knows better.

I'm pressing X to doubt so hard rn

18
Sauerkrautreply
discuss.tchncs.de

That was ages ago. Each covid infection causes brain damage, each person has had covid 4 to 8 times by now, and older people are hurt the most by covid... So even if the guy was smart 30 years ago, we can't assume he is smart today

-1
teftreply
lemmy.world

Why do you think everyone has had covid a bunch of times? As far as I’m aware i’ve never had it and I’m sure there are billions more on the planet who haven’t.

14

This makes me wonder if this was part of a ploy to let the public know how messed up things are in a “blink twice if you need help” kind of way. Or did Waltz feel these people are undeserving of their cabinet appointments and so managed to lift the veil so we can all see it? Is he mad that he wasn’t considered for the Secretary of Defense position? Is this his way of being Jim from The Office and looking into the camera?

5
D_Creply

6 years, wow. Nice one. Keep it up.

13

Lmfao

The editor in chief of The Atlantic wrote an op-ed on the whole episode, and they have corroborated and confirmed from multiple sources that he was, indeed, inadvertently shown data that is considered SCI in a Signal group chat that was likely conducted through the personal devices of administration officials.

There is no debate here. That happened. This is like rear ending someone in your car and totaling both vehicles and just refusing to even acknowledge that you even felt anything.

74

It's like the "We're all trying to find the guy who did this" skit with the guy in the hotdog suit and the hotdog car.

37

I agree with your position, but think it's even worse than the situation depicted in your analogy because of the security implications and the accountability implications. I don't know how to represent those in your analogy, though. Lol

9
lemmy.world

Even if everyone in the chat had a need-to-know, you do not use insecure 3rd-party software for classified communications. Secure networks already exist for this.

66
sartalonreply
lemmy.world

Not to mention why they are using it in the first place... so they can't be FOIA'd

41
lemmy.ca

Doesn't protect from FOIA, if you use your phone for official communication and it stores records, your phone can be FOIA'd.

7
TechAnonreply
lemm.ee

Isn't the issue that Signal messages aren't stored on the phone and can be set to auto delete after some time? So there's no tracking of official federal business? Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?

10
lemmy.world

Signal messages ARE stored on the phone. They're briefly stored on the signal servers with end to end encryption as well until they are transmitted to all the recipients, at which point signal deletes them from their server. And yes they can be auto-deleted.

Once they are on the phone though, all the encryption benefits are up to the user.

Did they password protect signal? Is their phone itself encrypted at rest? How long after the phone is unlocked and signal opened do the messages remain unencrypted where malware could then access them? How long does the phone remain unlocked once the password is entered but the screen is turned off? Are they even using secure passwords on phones or simple 4 digit pins?

9
TechAnonreply
lemm.ee

I see - thank you. If they delete the messages from their phone there would be no tracking of official government business, right? Also, Gabbard wouldn't disclose if she used a personal phone for this Signal chat or not which is troublesome.

1

Correct, there's no tracking if deleted from the phones which would be a violation.

I don't know, but I imagine the mere fact that it could be deleted with no trace would be a violation of itself.

3

Legally yes. Practically, the people handling the FOIA request do not know about it and do not have access to it, so they will not look at it when responding to a FOIA request. Also practically, if you submit a FOIA request for operational details of military action, the response will be no, and every judge you stand before to challenge that no will side with the government.

6

According to the original article, the messages were set to auto delete after a max of 4 weeks :)

5
wewbullreply
feddit.uk

I think Signal is getting tarred unfairly here. The thing that made that channel insecure was their ineptitude, not verifying who was in the group.

They gave a journalist the encryption key to their secure channel.

There's other, record keeping related, concerns with them using signal for communicating, but I don't think the security of Signal is being called into question when used properly.

1

Correct. Signal is still an excellent app. The problem is that it can have a wide array of contacts that can be added by the slip of a thumb (aka User Error). I’d imagine that secure government software does not happen to have the editors in chief of major news publications saved on there. They probably also have a flag coded in there that alerts you if someone without proper security clearance is added by mistake.

3
Blade9732reply
lemmy.world

We are starting an office pool on how fast He goes into DT's during Congressional questioning. It's only fair that he sits in the chair at least as long as Hillary did.

22

It's adorable you think "fair" matters at all to these people.

If anything, they'll give him breaks to take emergency shots.

18
lemmy.world

These fucking guys only ever lie and deny.

Are we really too stupid and weak as a country to be able to do anything about this?

55
fleetreply
lemmy.ca

Roy Cohn's second rule: Deny everything, admit nothing.

5
lemmy.world

Don't forget Tuli was on the chat too, I sure do feel safe with our inept leaders.

43

Definitely showing her whole anti war schtick was always bullshit. JD Vance was the only one pushing back in that thread, and not for the right reasons.

32
Aaronreply
lemmy.nz

Pete didn't add him, Mike Waltz did. But that's neither here nor there, they all were in the wrong.

30

Yeah, I think this is right. I don't even have the signal app on my phone but carrots got me in to a meeting of the board of Coca Cola. It's definitely carrots.

6
lemm.ee

Sooo Pete didn’t do it, but trump also says that Pete learned his lesson?

US is a joke. A very dangerous joke.

41

Admit it but say it isn't a big deal, but also deny that it ever happened. Let your followers pick whichever version they prefer. Profit!

20

yes, so typical and yet so effective so far.

Phase 1: eat a baby in plain view at a crowded event

Phase 2: get really angry and personally attack anybody who mentions it and their employer

Phase 3: after a few days just roll your eyes and dismiss with "again with that baby thing?"

If nothing serious happens right after phase 1, holding onto this as future political ammo seems to be worthless. I really hope I'm wrong and that the accumulation of these things is enough to turn enough of Trump's base against him but they accumulated a whole fricking lot by now and there is still room for more...

12

You're right Pete. It wasn't texting.

It was RCS through an untraceable encrypted messaging app named Signal

Which is WORSE since records are destroyed

38
airglowreply
lemmy.world

About the technical part, Signal uses the Signal Protocol instead of RCS. (Google also uses the Signal Protocol to encrypt some RCS messages in Google Messages, but the Signal Protocol and RCS are not the same thing.)

4

Well shit you know what I mean ..messaging with data. But thanks for the specifics I knew it wasn't RCS but that's all I could think of

0
lemmy.world

Why is nobody talking about the fact that we are bombing Yemen? Yes, including a random person in a text channel talking classified information is a problem. But, why are we just brushing off the actual chat contents?

37
Revan343reply
lemmy.ca

Because pointing out that America is bombing Yemen is like pointing out that water is wet.

22
lemmy.world

That's not an excuse. There were huge ass protests over the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. Putting pressure on officials to end this bullshit os worthwhile. Shrugging, and saying meh, it is what it is is super unhelpful.

5
reddthat.com

You can protest the bombing of yemen and you will be doing a noble thing and get zero attention and have zero impact.

If you clown on them for inviting a journalist into their secret consequence free war chat - you will recieve lots of attention and potentially play a part in forcing some of these gouls to resign.

9
lemmy.ca

There's a couple reasons -

  1. It wasn't so much "bombing Yemen" as it was, bombing a terrorist organization within Yemen's borders. This is something every American administration has done for decades. That makes it poor political fodder, you can't "one up" the competition with it.
  2. Most Americans would agree that the Houthis, once it is explained to them who they are, need to be bombed. The actual action would be reprehensible to some, but acceptable to most. You can't put pressure on an admin to change their tactics when they feel they have a plurality of support.
  3. The sad and undeniable fact is that in American politics - American lives are simply more important than foreign ones. That's not really unique to American culture, it's not meant as a criticism, it's just a sad reality. Bombing Yemen is pretty low risk for American lives - but sloppy OPSEC put American lives at huge risk so that's where the focus is.

In a perfect world, the fact that America is committing violence in other nations and is not realistically reigned in by International Laws or Treaties would be a point worth getting upset about. But that fact is over 100 years old and has been successfully normalized. The idea of incompetent buffoons operating the Department of Defense like a bunch of frat boys trying to organize a kegger is marginally newer and more impactful on the national psyche.

20

I don't think we're ignoring that, so much as there is an overwhelming amount of bad shit to talk about stemming from this single incident.

And to be honest the bigger issue revealed here isn't the failure to protect classified information or that they're bombing Yemen (In a vacuum at least) right now but the fact that they are violating the law also by using an app that destroys documentation of their conversations. This has implications not only legally or militaristically but also that they know they want to do shit that would be illegal and evil enough that they don't even want to use standard classified channels, not just bombing of Yemen but probably more future evil shit.

11
wewbullreply
feddit.uk

Every president since Carter has bombed Yemen (I think).

9
lemmy.world

That doesn't make it a good thing. Should we just accept that the U.S. military industrial complex is what it is, and shrug it off? Bcz that's what you're suggesting.

1

This is the real waste fraud and abuse. Lockheed Martin testing out it’s ww3 tech on Houthi

1

They're bombing the Houthis rebels who are (were?) fucking with the red sea shipping route to protest Israel, but I'm not sure how much they're still fucking with it today. The Yemen government isn't fully in control of Yemen.

5

CENTCOM shit. If Trump and Elon were genuine, they'd get rid of this true waste of tax payer $s.

2

"You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again...This is a guy who peddles in garbage.

Hegseth then added, "oh wait, that's me."

37
lemm.ee

Disgusting comments about Europe in the group chat. The USA is a pariah state; the sooner we disentangle from it, the better.

35
gprimereply
lemmy.ca

where can one see the actual comments?

6

Here: The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans By Jeffrey Goldberg

The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”

15
sh.itjust.works

He's going with the Shaggy defense? "It wasn't me". I mean, it works for them. It will probably all blow over because no one is going to do anything. But this should absolutely destroy him.

34
rosco385reply
lemm.ee

🎵Journalist caught me on Signal (It wasn't me)

He saw me schemin' on Yemen (It wasn't me)

Even list of ordinance (It wasn't me)

He even caught me on a screenshot (It wasn't me)

He saw the bombs dropping on Sanaa (It wasn't me)

Heard the words the CIA told me (It wasn't me)

Late night host laughter getting louder (It wasn't me)

Shouldn't have drunk that vodka!🎶

14
teftreply
lemmy.world

Ordinance means a rule

Ordnance means bombs

6

House Speaker Mike Johnson to reporters on Monday after news of the messages spread: "I just was with the president in the Oval Office just now. The administration is addressing what happened. Apparently, an inadvertent phone number made it onto that thread. They are going to track that down and make sure it doesn't happen again."

Sounds great, how about we start by following fucking protocol? And not using a chat app on a damn mobile phone to have discussions on this scale?? Huh???

26

Fuck you Pete 'DUI Hire' Hegseth.

You used a non-approved communication application and caused a massive data leak with you and your incompetent morons in office using OpSec that my junior engineers know better and if any one else did what you did, that's be fired and be facing charges.

Fucking pathetic children who can't take any accountability.

21

Prove that the sender of that message doesn't match the cryptographic fingerprint of Hegseth. If he didn't send it, then it wont match.

Signal allows you to verify all your contacts in the group chat.

This is so easy to solve. Jfc

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007060632-What-is-a-safety-number-and-why-do-I-see-that-it-changed

The journalist just has to show the safety number of the person who sent it, and hegseth has to verify it with his device. They're obviously already in each others contacts, or at least are aware of each other's presence in the group chat. Its pretty hard to ignore some random journalist entering the chat since it alerts the entire group.

What makes signal great is, yes, privacy, but also the authentication of your contacts. You know you can't possibly be talking to someone else's device if you have verified their safety number.

19
feddit.org

inadvertent mistake.

Lets give the benefit of the doubt and say it was a mistake. Is that a matter and a position, where such a mistake is tolerable? Or is it something that disqualifies for any position in that domain and demands immediate resignation?

Because if you seriously make a mistake, and you realize the gravity of it, you take responsibility for it. If you instead remain in position, you either don't recognize the gravity of it, which is an even bigger reason to resign, or you indeed acted with intent.

But in this case it did not start with inviting Goldberg. It started with making a chat group on an unauthorized app, likely using unauthorized devices to discuss matters that are explicitly forbidden to be taken out of specific permitted official channels.

19
wewbullreply
feddit.uk

inadvertent mistake

...as opposed to the other kind of mistake.

3
Salehreply
feddit.org

I mean you can do something intentionally and then later realize that it was wrong to do so.

2

That's most mistakes. They're still inadvertantly mistakes.

1

"Wasn't me"

— Pete Hegseth

Ah yes, the classic Shaggy defense. What's that shit conservatives say? We're still in the first year.

18

"Nuh uh" is what you're going with, huh? The screenshots, the validation from your own administration... and your response is "didnt happen"?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"

15
Nay
feddit.nl

I'm not usually an alarmist, but this one has the hair on the back of my neck up...

This feels like a false flag to target journalists spreading "misinformation."

I was reading the Atlantic article thinking 'What a bunch of dumb fucks." Until I read this part:

The Hegseth message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive

Hard stop right there. "This is intentional."

Then Tulsi comes out talking about "aggressively pursuing" journalists., and now P Heggs is just gonna play dumb?

Smells pretty bad, imo.

(False flag may not be the right term here, but I hope my point is still clear enough)

13

and we look indecisive

Ugh. I didn’t want to agree with you but this little flex for the faithful seals it.

7
lemm.ee

I think it was a deliberate leak. A mole from inside the administration is trying to warn us of Trump’s actions before he does them.

7

>Signal is most secure with these new usernames and group chat links, sir, let me arrange this for the whole small group from your account

Ya but… stupidity… hmmm 🤷‍♂️

If someone left their phone unlocked, that’d make sense. (I assume a serious wartime messaging app would make it very difficult to just leave unlocked like that… could be doing lots of biometrics too)

3
lemmy.dbzer0.com

And yet the information was valid and confirmed? The bombs dropped right when Signal User "Pete Hegseth" said they would; NSC confirmed this was a genuine thread. It seems too elaborate to be a false flag event.

6
Nayreply
feddit.nl

I'm not saying it was bad info. And adding a journalist to a "private" signal chat that was probably going to happen either way isn't exactly elaborate.

-1
Nayreply
feddit.nl

I think so...

The attack wasn't the "false flag" (I think I misused that term), that was going to happen anyway. I think adding a journalist to their little group chat about it was.

They knew it would come out, and now they have the pretext to start going more aggresively after journalists spreading "deceitful" information.

I'm not saying I'm right, it just stinks.

0

But the information wasn't deceitful, it was verifiably true. The people this looks bad for is those involved in the group chat, save the journalist. It looks especially bad for Mike Waltz, the user who added the journalist to the chat. I suppose i just don't see how the Trumpists could benefit from this leaking the way it has.

2

It's deny, deflect, and then what? Let's see I didn't do, I did it but her emails, I did it so what? An I missing a step?

11

Pete blames it on his wife who he's going to beat later on. She should have told him that journalists can take screenshots.

11
lemmy.world

I want to see the contents of the text message. Holy shit, what a bunch of dumb fucks.

9

Thank you. Yep, every single one of those motherfucking Russian supporting losers should be shit canned.

1

If he was blackout drunk at the time and he doesn’t remember sending it now, is he culpable when he’s sober? No. Clearly not. The buck stops somewhere.

7

His boss is responsible for this particular drunk monkey being in charge of the grenades.

1

They're saying he didn't share classified war plans and you need to check the word usage with such lies. What probably happened was that they declassified everything that was shared. So what he is saying is now technically correct - the war plans are not classified. So he did not share 'classified' plans. This would also mean Tulsi is not 'lying' when she says that no classified information was shared. Typical obfuscation of facts by words.

6
lemmy.world

No justice without truth, Congress won't impeach and DOJ won't prosecute, we've been here before with Mueller and the insurrection.

3

First reaction from the republicans, This was a mistake, and we all make mistakes. Second round, these messages show how great our officials at doing their jobs and making the hard decisions. The latest , that never happened to begin with, it's a disgraced news outlet and a disgraced journalist. Even their spin doctors are dumb as fuck. Pick one and stick with it you imbeciles...this abc politics

1