Hegseth’s Other Signal Chat / The Supreme Court’s Deportation Order
28:02 Share

The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America, and Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small. Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority is using Google AI to create smarter tolling systems and improve traffic flow for Texans. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces more questions after the sudden ouster of three top aides in disputed circumstances amid news reports that Hegseth shared sensitive information on a second Signal chat thread. Meantime, the Supreme Court issues a midnight order halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

with a sharp dissent by Justice Samuel Alito. Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with The Wall Street Journal. We are joined today by my colleagues, editorial board member Kate Batchelder-Odell and columnist Kim Strassel. The latest at the Pentagon is the removal last week of three top aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, followed by reports of a second signal chat thread, this one including Hegseth's wife and his personal attorney.

At least one news outlet, NPR, citing an anonymous official saying that the White House now is looking to replace Hegseth. But in public, President Trump standing by him saying he is doing a great job. Ask the Houthis how he's doing. On Tuesday, Hegseth appeared on Fox and Friends and drew a straight line between these two recent controversies.

When you dismiss people who you believe are leaking classified information, and again, the investigation is ongoing and that will take time, and when the evidence produced it will go to DOJ, why would it surprise anybody, Brian, if those very same people

THEIR PARTY. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. THEY ARE GOING TO KEEP LEAKING TO THE VERY SAME REPORTERS WHATEVER INFORMATION THEY THINK THEY CAN HAVE TO TRY TO SABOTAGE THE AGENDA OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE SECRETARY. SO ONCE A LEAKER, ALWAYS A LEAKER. OFTEN A LEAKER. SO WE LOOK FOR LEAKERS BECAUSE WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY AND WE

WE DON'T THINK BASED ON WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD DAY FOR A NUMBER OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE INVESTIGATION. SO IF THEY WANT TO KEEP LEAKING AND PUSHING AND PEDDLING THINGS TO TRY TO SABOTAGE THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. BUT THAT'S HOW LEAKING WORKS IN THIS TOWN. WE'RE FOCUSED ON RECRUITING, ON ROOTING OUT DEI, ON SECURING OUR SOUTHWEST BOARD

on the president's agenda, and it's going very well at the Pentagon, and I'm proud of it. 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. But start with the staff turmoil. Who is out at the Pentagon, and how do we read this?

Well, there have been a number of stories that are cascading at the same time over the past several days in the Pentagon.

One of them is about, to your point, these three aides that the Pentagon fired and removed from the Pentagon. The most consequential of them is Dan Caldwell, who worked with Pete Hegseth for a long time at Concerned Veterans of America and has been in Hegseth's orbit for some time. He's the most consequential of them. He now says that he did not leak any information and he was never hooked up to a polygraph and he didn't turn over his phone. And so there is all this disputing about what happened there.

and whether information was leaked and whether he was responsible for it. There are also two other aides who Caldwell says are in the same position. Then there's a 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, it

The thing to do was to own in 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 kind of 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. For the record, here is a statement put out by these three leaked 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, unquote. 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 and 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. 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 far as the United States, rightfully should have an expectation, especially at this point of 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

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 manager.

So.

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 is going to need to engage there hopefully sooner rather than later to get this stuff sorted out. Hang tight. We'll be right back in a moment. The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America. And Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small.

The Air Force Research Laboratory is partnering with Google Cloud, using AI to accelerate defense research for air, space, and cyberspace forces. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation.

Welcome back. 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, 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 for

ahead of his appearance on Capitol Hill. And so, Kate, the first chat thread, the one involving U.S. 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. 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,

Peg Seth, 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 caused 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 Senator Tom 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 neo-isolationists who are occasionally leaking, you know, 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 and Friends. Kim, how much do you credit these reports that the White House might now be looking for a replacement for Pete Hagseth? NPR in its news story, it cites,

a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. So one anonymous source, President Trump out in public saying that Pete Hegseth is doing a great job. On the other hand, that is the kind of thing that a president might say in public until about five minutes later.

before the official in question is fired. And Trump also is a famously mercurial figure. It could be completely right that President Trump in one moment is thinking about replacing Pete Hegseth, and then two hours later, after speaking to some other people, has changed his mind. Well, you just stole my point, Kyle, because yes, absolutely true. Of course, a White House is always going to say, absolutely no way. We are sticking with our guy right up until the moment where they

throw the guy overboard, decide to move on. And of course they have backup plans. And of course they're looking at other names and they're probably already moving on some of the vetting for some of those possibilities if those people are not already in the mix.

And that is one option the Trump administration would have in front of it, which would be they could take somebody in another position at DOD that had already been confirmed to elevate them because it would save them the process of having to go through more vetting and more confirmation hearings, et cetera. My own advice, if they were going to do this, and I think that comes back to what we've been discussing, is that

If you're going to have a department and it's going to work well, you need people who are all on the same page. I mean, sure. Yes. Have some dissenting voices. Yes. It always sounds great. Team of rivals. Yay team. But no team of rivals on major issues of sort of consequence and the ideological direction of an administration. I mean, again, it's one thing to have someone on.

on the edges saying maybe we should tweak it like this here or do we really want to do that for this reason because they're being cautious but someone who's like I don't think this should be our policy at all and we need to be in a completely different universe from where we are at the moment that is where administrations get trouble

If you look at some of the other administration's departments, that's not happening. And I think that this, again, is notable that the Pentagon is a specific outlier here and a problem. You don't see this happening at Linda McMahon's education department. You don't see this at Doug Burgum's interior department. You know, they've got their team on board and they are marching ahead.

And so, again, my advice, if they were going to do this, is to choose someone potentially from the outside who really is more in keeping with Donald Trump's first term inclinations on foreign policy, which is to speak loudly and carry a big stick.

and make clear that the United States is going to have certain limits and that we're going to have peace through strength. When you have this swirl of voices otherwise, it's where you start to get this mishmash and this dissension and then these problems. Kate, would you care to hazard any nominees, potentially, if President Trump is thinking about

doing this because you have to do two things. You have to meet that test, as Kim suggests, of being on board with the president's agenda while also being a serious figure capable of getting confirmation through the United States Senate. Well, I'm not sure any names I would hazard would appreciate my suggesting them for this job because the mercurialness is one real problem, Kyle. It's a reason that people are reluctant to go into the administration right now. And so I do think

Tom Cotton obviously would be a very serious candidate from the Senate, but seems to have taken himself out of the running for that. There are others that could fill the shoes. Steve Feinberg, the deputy secretary of defense, would fit that portfolio of already having been confirmed, already having done the paperwork and easily. But I think Kim's point about the most important thing, getting a team that's on the same page is really salient. I mean, there are real divisions in the administration right now on Iran, for instance, and

that are coming out into the open, which is, you know, Trump has said Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And he has sent a letter giving them a deadline to negotiate, to dismantle its capability of developing those weapons. And Trump has said multiple times, I'd rather talk and I'd rather do it that way. But I'm paraphrasing, obviously. But if Iran doesn't negotiate, we have credible military capabilities. And that, I think,

has been some of the best of his foreign policy as long as he really is willing to make good on that if Iran fails to negotiate to get rid of their nuclear weapons capacity. But there are others in the administration, and this goes back to what Dan Caldwell was talking about on his media tour this week, that want a deal with Iran so much that

that they are willing to make concessions and get a bad deal, I think, and are afraid of what a military strike on Iran would mean for the United States, and so are trying to talk him out of it. And so this divergence, this friction, it makes it very hard to accomplish what the president wants. I

I think it really is undermining his ability to get a deal in Iran to have these competing factions out there and have Iran think it can exploit those openings to their benefit. I think it's more than just a media intrigue story in Washington. And it really is about the substance of whether his foreign policy is going to succeed. Hang tight. We'll be right back in a moment. The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America. And Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small.

The Department of Defense is working with Google to help secure America's digital defense systems, from establishing cloud-based zero-trust solutions to deploying the latest AI technology. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker. Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast.

From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Welcome back. Let's start with this remarkable order of the weekend by the Supreme Court halting deportations by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act. Recall that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that illegal aliens are due to due process before they are deported under the AEA.

Now there's a case that is pending, but there's the rocket docket. And there's what happened last Friday, an appeal going first to a district court judge who was given something like an hour to respond to it, then to the Fifth Circuit and then quickly up to the Supreme Court, which around about midnight ruled this. The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States.

until further order of this court. That was followed then by a dissent from Justice Alito saying this, it's literally in the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule without hearing from the opposing party within eight hours of receiving the application.

Kim, how do you read this? And where does the deportation effort under the AEA potentially go now that we have this block here from the Supreme Court? Yeah, I have to say the Alito dissent made some really good points. And I think he pointed out some issues that were very concerning is that the majority in the court seemed to act eviscerately.

even though there were some real questions about jurisdiction, about whether or not the lower courts had been given adequate time to work through the issues themselves. Remember, the Supreme Court is meant to be the court of last appeal, not meant to be sort of jumping into things feet first from the minute someone raises an issue. Also raised some very, I think, legitimate questions

concerns about whether or not the court had even bothered to hear from the defendants in this case, i.e. the government, and rather had acted almost unilaterally on the suppositions and claims of the plaintiffs in the case.

That all being said, and I think, again, those are incredibly important legal points and ones that can't be taken lightly because, again, we've been talking a great deal about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the importance of everyone believing in the rule of law. And that also requires the court

to act with certain procedures and meditation on issues and not go jumping around itself. That being said, I think that what that decision by the majority strongly hinted at, which ought to be concerning to the White House,

And a reason for it, too, to give pause is it suggested a Supreme Court that is not confident that this administration is listening to its rulings. And it felt the need to somehow repeat it or say it again or make it even more clear. And that is a little bit of a moment for all sides to sort of step back and try to back away from what has been a little bit of a showdown shaping up over this deportation question.

my view, and I keep saying this to all concerned, is we have the world's most amazing legal system and protections. And if the administration has the rock solid cases that it claims that it has,

with regards to these individuals and their right to toss them out of the country on the grounds that they are terrorists. They should have zero concerns about going into the court system, making those claims, and knowing that they will prevail. And

Some of the suggestions that it needn't follow that procedure and that it's going to ignore that question of the courts, I think, is problematic, both in terms of actions and precedent, but it undermines, in my mind, their own claims that they are on very solid legal ground here.

To fill in a bit more of the factual claims here, this case is on the Supreme Court's docket as AARP versus Trump. And no, that is not the Association of Retired Persons. AARP is the initials of a Venezuelan national. According to this court filing, which is one side of the story, he fled Venezuela because he and his family were persecuted in the past.

He is seeking asylum. His next hearing is scheduled for April 28th, 2025, so a matter of days away. Ice has accused AARP of having, quote, tattoos and associates that indicate membership in the Trenda Aragua gang. The filing says that he has a number of tattoos, including a clock that shows the date and time of his son's birth, a cross, and the Virgin Mary. He says none of them are related to this gang, and he vehemently denies any connection with

to TDA. And again, that's one side of the story. I take those points in Alita's dissent. And I think that Kim is right here, that there are some real questions about what the Supreme Court, which is an appeals court, is reviewing if there's no lower court decision.

On the other hand, I think what the majority might say in reply is we have a claim here that the Trump administration is moving swiftly to deport some people who, at least in the view of the Supreme Court, the majority perhaps have not had due process. Here again is a piece of the filing by AARP and the other migrants that are part of this class.

It says, "Applicants have learned that officers at the detention center have distributed notices under the Alien Enemies Act in English only that designate Venezuelan men for removal. They have told the men that removals are imminent and will happen today." And so, Kate, I would, again, second Kim that I think the majority would say that the Trump administration has not

earned their forbearance and their trust on this issue because we have an outstanding case here of a guy who was deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration. The Trump administration acknowledged that he was deported erroneously. The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to try to facilitate his return. And the Trump administration's response has been essentially to throw up its hands.

and say, we're not the president of El Salvador. We have no power over the release of this guy from prison. And so I think the prospect that the Supreme Court was weighing here was if there was another deportation flight by people who have not

had a real shot at due process here, who else might be in that batch? Right. I mean, I think you laid out what the countervailing issues are. I completely agree with Kim that it's so odd that if the administration thinks it has such a rock-solid legal case, why it isn't behaving that way, why it thinks it can get away with doing almost nothing to facilitate the return of somebody that it didn't mean to deport, even though

It seems quite clear that on the law, they would be able to deport him if they go through the normal due process that he is entitled to. I was really struck in this midnight order. I'm glad I don't have to be up that late thinking about these things. But I was really struck by Alito's point about that. We were talking about just how turbocharged some of these fights have become when, you know, he says in his dissent that when the applicants went to a district court on Good Friday and insisted on a ruling in 45 minutes...

And then they didn't get one. And after 133 minutes, they filed a notice of appeal. This is the kind of politics that we have right now in a country that's so polarized where everybody goes running to the courts. And I think the administration should really be playing a much longer game than the provocations that they're currently doing with the courts.

because there are going to be a number of really crucial constitutional issues that could come before the court in the next two years. And they don't want to pick a fight on something that the president, if he just complies with the courts, goes through the normal process, will probably prevail on anyway. Thank you, Kate and Kim. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at pwpodcast at wsj.com. If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button. And we'll be back tomorrow with another edition of Potomac Watch.

The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America, and Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small. The Department of Defense is working with Google to help secure America's digital defense systems, from establishing cloud-based zero-trust solutions to deploying the latest AI technology. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation.