President Trump said he believes Secretary of War Pete Hegseth when he says he didn’t order military forces to leave no survivors in a strike on a boat from Venezuela that was thought to be involved in drug trafficking.
“He said he did not say that, and I believe him 100%,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, again reaffirming his support for Hegseth while downplaying Democratic talking points that Hegseth should resign.
A senior adviser to Hegseth says the forthcoming Pentagon inspector general report on the so-called “Signalgate” matter does not conclude that Hegseth shared classified information while texting about planned strikes against Houthi targets — and instead is expected to fault improper cellphone practices by former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Navy Reserve Commander Tim Parlatore, an attorney and adviser to Hegseth, told Just the News, No Noise on Wednesday that the report by Pentagon inspector general Steven Stebbins — which has been sent to Congress and is expected to be released publicly on Thursday — “totally exonerates” Hegseth.
Parlatore also said the report details broader reliance on the Signal messaging app among national security officials during the Biden administration, the outlet reported.
“You’re going to see that it totally exonerates Pete Hegseth,” Parlatore said. “There is no classified material in those texts. Everything he declassified — that he has within his authority to declassify.”
“Classified information — did he violate that, did he put out classified information? And the answer is no. Totally exonerated,” he added.
“There is a tiny little section in there that is really untethered from the rest of the report where the investigator states their opinion that having this information out there on an unclassified could have endangered the troops,” Parlatore also said. “But the problem is it is completely untethered from the rest of the report. It doesn’t cite to a single source, not to a single document, not to a single interview, because it is not something that the IG was investigating.”
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and a frequent critic of President Trump, published a story in March titled, “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.”
According to the article, Goldberg was mistakenly added to a Signal group chat by a user identified as “Mike Waltz,” who was serving as national security adviser at the time. T
he chat included War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, and other national security officials, Just the News added.
Messages attributed to Hegseth, sent shortly before U.S. military action, reportedly contained details about planned March 15 strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen.
The strikes were later carried out as part of Operation Rough Rider, a campaign in which U.S. Central Command said more than 800 targets were hit over several weeks earlier this year.
Multiple news outlets, citing anonymous sources, reported Wednesday that the Pentagon inspector general’s review found Hegseth had violated military regulations.
Parlatore said the watchdog’s report does not conclude that Hegseth shared classified information, but he noted that it includes new findings related to former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the broader use of the Signal messaging app during the Biden administration.
“That’s actually another big part of this report — is it talks about how the use of Signal, it’s not a Pete Hegseth issue, it’s not a Trump administration issue, it’s a whole-of-government issue,” Parlatore said. “The use of Signal has proliferated ever since 2020.”
Parlatore added: “This report actually notes that the former secretary, Lloyd Austin, actually used to bring his personal cell phone into the office, into the SCIF, in violation of the law. And that was something that was passed down to Secretary Hegseth when he took over, and he said, ‘well, I’m not going to do that,’ and he wanted to do it a different way because he wanted to comply with the law.”
Parlatore stated on Wednesday that when Hegseth learned about Austin’s alleged cell phone practices, he expressed a desire not to follow the same path.
He went on to say that Hegseth tasked his Pentagon team with finding him a secure way to use the app while in a secure setting that also complied with the law.
“I don’t want to do what Lloyd Austin did. I don’t want to break the law. Give me something that’s legal and secure,” Parlatore said when characterizing Hegseth’s thinking.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT: The Clintons Referred to the DOJ After Refusing Epstein Testimony.
The pressure campaign surrounding the Epstein files just hit a whole new level.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have now been officially referred to the Department of Justice for potential arrest after they refused to sit for their scheduled depositions before the House Oversight Committee. Their October testimony was delayed over “scheduling conflicts,” and they’ve since continued to stonewall investigators demanding answers about their long-documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Lawmakers say the refusal is unacceptable — and that no one gets to duck a lawful subpoena, especially not two of the most politically connected figures in modern history.
The referral is now in DOJ hands, and if they choose to act, this could become one of the biggest accountability fights Washington has seen in decades.
Democrats opened Pandora’s box with the Epstein files.
Now the fallout is landing squarely on their own icons.
RELATED:
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) has managed to tick off half her own party, sparking a House vote Monday night to rebuke Rep. Chuy García (D-IL) for engineering a glide path for his chief of staff to take his seat.Gluesenkamp Perez is blasting García for what she calls “election subversion,” a charge that’s infuriated Democrats who say she’s torpedoing party unity at the worst possible time.
One House Democrat griped to Axios that “people were extremely frustrated last week” when Gluesenkamp Perez forced the vote just as the House cleared a government funding bill most Democrats detested.
A senior Democrat piled on, telling Axios lawmakers are “very pissed” the flap is creating fresh infighting right before an expected vote on releasing the Epstein files.
Leadership plans to smother her resolution with a motion to table, lawmakers said. The two-page measure scolds García for dropping his reelection bid right before Illinois’ filing deadline, clearing the field for his chief of staff, Patty García, who is now the lone candidate on the primary ballot.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he “strongly” backs García and dismissed Gluesenkamp Perez’s move as a “so-called motion of disapproval.”
“Representative García’s actions are beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the United States Constitution,” the resolution declares.
García’s fellow Illinois colleague, Jan Schakowsky, erupted in support for her longtime pal after Gluesenkamp Perez filed the resolution, screeching on the House floor.
His office rushed talking points to colleagues on Monday, insisting he “followed all requirements and deadlines under Illinois law” and warning that the vote “creates distraction and divisiveness among Democrats.”
But not everyone is falling in line. Several moderates told Axios they might buck leadership and back Gluesenkamp Perez when the procedural vote hits the floor.
Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), a close ally of Gluesenkamp Perez, made his own feelings clear, noting he announced his retirement months before his state’s deadline.
“If I know I’m going to get done then I should get done so that there is time and space for people to make the decision to offer their name. … Every day that I now wait is taking time away from someone else,” he said.
In a fiery Senate showdown that left the chamber buzzing, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana took direct aim at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer during a heated debate over proposed Trump-era spending cuts. The tense exchange, which some aides later described as “the moment Schumer froze,” quickly became the talk of Capitol Hill — a verbal sparring match that highlighted growing divisions not just between parties, but within the Democratic ranks themselves.
The confrontation began as the Senate reconvened to discuss a revised federal spending plan that included partial restorations of Trump-era budget caps. Kennedy, known for his sharp wit and southern drawl, took the floor and immediately challenged Schumer’s leadership on fiscal responsibility. “Mr. Leader,” he said, turning toward Schumer, “you keep saying we can’t cut a penny without hurting people, but the American people are already hurting because Washington won’t stop spending.”
Schumer, initially smiling, attempted to respond with statistics about job growth and social investment. But Kennedy interrupted with his trademark humor. “Chuck, you could balance this budget if you just stopped paying consultants to tell you how to spend more,” he quipped, drawing laughter from Republicans and awkward silence from several Democrats. Reporters in the press gallery noted that Schumer paused for several seconds — long enough for Kennedy to add, “I’ll take that silence as agreement.”
What followed was an unusually candid back-and-forth between two of the Senate’s most recognizable figures. Schumer defended Democratic spending priorities, arguing that the proposed cuts would “cripple essential services, harm working families, and roll back progress made since 2020.” Kennedy countered that the nation’s $35 trillion debt was “a bipartisan monument to cowardice” and accused Democrats of “treating taxpayer money like Monopoly cash.”
At one point, the Louisiana senator cited statements from former President Donald Trump advocating for targeted spending reductions to protect Social Security and defense while trimming bureaucracy. “Even Trump got this part right,” Kennedy said. “You don’t fix Washington by pouring more syrup on bad pancakes.” The jab elicited chuckles across the chamber — even from a few Democrats who tried to hide their smiles.
For several minutes, Schumer appeared visibly frustrated. He shuffled his papers, attempted to pivot to infrastructure funding, and eventually yielded the floor without his usual closing remarks. Aides later downplayed the moment, saying the Majority Leader “simply wanted to move debate forward.” But within minutes, clips of the exchange flooded social media under the tag
Political commentators quickly seized on the spectacle. Conservative outlets praised Kennedy for “slicing through Washington doublespeak,” while liberal pundits accused him of “grandstanding over substance.” Yet even some Democrats privately admitted that the senator’s performance was, in one staffer’s words, “a masterclass in Senate theater.”
As the debate closed, Kennedy summed up his case in one final soundbite: “We don’t need more speeches about compassion — we need receipts for how you’re spending our money.” The chamber fell quiet. Whether or not Schumer truly “froze,” the moment captured a growing public frustration with both parties’ handling of the nation’s finances — and reminded Washington that sometimes, one sharp tongue can silence an entire room.