Hegseth Blasts Media
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lashed out at the media and “disgruntled former employees” on Monday as the media doubled down on the Signal controversy.
Hegseth stood firm in statements to reporters at the White House for the traditional Easter Egg Roll. He refuted recent reports of a second Signal app discussion in which he disclosed intelligence about Yemen attacks. He assured reporters that he and President Donald Trump are in complete agreement.“What a big surprise that a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hoax,” Hegseth said, responding to new reporting from The New York Times.
then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations,” Hegseth continued. “Not going to work with me, because we’re changing the Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of war-fighters. And anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn’t matter. So I’m happy to be here at the Easter Egg Roll with my dad and my kids.”
Asked if he had spoken to the president, Hegseth said he had.
“And we are going to continue fighting. On the same page all the way,” Hegseth said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied a report from NPR that Trump is looking to replace Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.
The White House has been embroiled in a dispute about information security when The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, seemed to be inadvertently added to a group chat with multiple key Trump officials planning a strike on the Houthis on Signal.
In April, a similar scandal occurred when Hegseth, according to the New York Times, allegedly discussed specifics of a March military operation against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen in another Signal messaging conversation with his wife and brother.
On Monday, NPR reported that despite these concerns, “The White House has begun the process of looking for a new secretary of defense, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly.”
The NPR story was revised to reflect that Leavitt had called it “fake news.”
“This @NPR story is total FAKE NEWS based on one anonymous source who clearly has no idea what they are talking about,” the White House spokeswoman wrote. “As the President said this morning, he stands strongly behind @SecDef.”
The White House’s official “Rapid Response” account on X shared a post slamming the report as well, claiming, “Lies from NPR — which, as we all know, is a Fake News propaganda machine.”
This is the second time recently that Trump has clarified that he’s standing by Hegseth, as some Democrats have called for him to resign because of a leaked Signal chat that contained information about a military strike in Yemen.
Last month, the president discussed the controversy following Hegseth’s accidental transmission of details about the strike to members of the administration in a Signal chat, which also included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Goldberg published the full messages.
After several Democrats in Congress called for Hegseth to step down because of the scandal, reporters asked Trump if he thought Hegseth might want to resign.
“Hegseth is doing a great job, he had nothing to do with this. Hegseth. How do you bring Hegseth into this?” Trump replied.
Trump also acknowledged that his White House national security advisor, Mike Waltz, took responsibility for mistakenly adding Goldberg to the Signal chat.
“Mike Waltz … he claimed responsibility, I would imagine. It had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike, I guess, I don’t know, I was told it was Mike,” Trump said when asked about the investigation.
Trump again played down the controversy over whether or not Hegseth shared secret information that could have put the operation at risk by focusing on the mission’s success.
“There was no harm done because the attack was unbelievably successful that night,” Trump said.
Former Capitol Police Chief Delivers Devastating Public Rebuke to Pelosi Over January 6 Claims
A stunning public confrontation has erupted between two of the most prominent figures from the January 6 Capitol riot, revealing previously undisclosed details about the security failures that preceded one of the most traumatic days in American political history. The explosive exchange has reignited debates about accountability, leadership failures, and the complex web of decisions that left the nation’s Capitol vulnerable to attack, while simultaneously exposing the ongoing political battles that continue to shape how Americans understand that pivotal day. 
The Catalyst: Trump’s DC Crackdown Sparks Old Wounds
The confrontation began when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a sharp attack on President Trump’s comprehensive federal law enforcement initiative in Washington D.C., which included seizing direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard for street patrols. Pelosi’s criticism went beyond the immediate policy implications to draw direct parallels with Trump’s actions during the January 6 Capitol riot.
“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi declared in a statement that immediately garnered national attention. “Now, he’s activating the D.C. Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration — just to name a few blunders.”
Pelosi’s statement represented more than routine political opposition; it was a deliberate attempt to frame Trump’s current law enforcement initiatives through the lens of his alleged failures during the Capitol riot. By invoking January 6, Pelosi sought to raise questions about Trump’s commitment to law enforcement and public safety, positioning herself as a defender of institutional security against presidential overreach.
The former Speaker’s decision to make this comparison proved to be a significant tactical error, as it provided an opening for someone with intimate knowledge of the January 6 security preparations to challenge her narrative directly and publicly.
Steven Sund’s Devastating Response: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s response to Pelosi was swift, comprehensive, and devastating in its specificity. Sund, who resigned in the immediate aftermath of January 6, used his unique position as the person responsible for Capitol security to systematically dismantle Pelosi’s characterization of events.
“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund began his statement, immediately establishing a tone of moral authority and calling into question Pelosi’s truthfulness. This opening salvo suggested that Sund viewed Pelosi’s comments not as mere political rhetoric, but as a fundamental misrepresentation of historical facts.
Sund’s statement revealed previously undisclosed details about his efforts to secure National Guard support in the days leading up to January 6. According to his account, on January 3, 2021—three full days before the riot—he formally requested National Guard assistance through proper channels. This timeline detail is crucial because it directly contradicts narratives that suggest security officials were caught off-guard by the potential for violence on January 6.
The former chief’s revelation that his January 3 request was “shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms” represents perhaps the most explosive element of his statement. This claim suggests that the security failures of January 6 were not the result of poor planning or inadequate intelligence, but rather of deliberate decisions by officials operating under Pelosi’s authority to reject enhanced security measures.
Legal Constraints and Administrative Roadblocks
Sund’s explanation of the legal framework governing National Guard deployment reveals the complex bureaucratic structure that may have contributed to the January 6 security failures. His citation of federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970) provides specific legal grounding for his claim that he was “prohibited from calling them in without specific approval.”
This legal constraint is significant because it suggests that even if Sund had possessed perfect intelligence about the coming violence, he would have been powerless to act without authorization from congressional leadership. The law’s requirement for specific approval creates a chain of accountability that leads directly to House and Senate leadership, including Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker.
Sund’s account of Pentagon involvement adds another layer of complexity to the pre-January 6 security preparations. His claim that “Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support” on January 3, but that he was “forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority,” suggests that federal military officials were prepared to provide assistance but were prevented from doing so by congressional restrictions.
