Pentagon

Nearly two months after President Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell public unrest over immigration raids, the Pentagon on Wednesday announced that it was withdrawing more than a thousand troops.

The departure of about 1,350 members of the National Guard, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents just the latest rollback of troops from L.A. this month since more than 5,000 National Guard members and Marines were deployed to the city in June.

Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, said that approximately 250 California Guard members would remain in L.A. to protect federal agents and buildings.

“We greatly appreciate the support of the more than 5,000 Guardsmen and Marines who mobilized to Los Angeles to defend Federal functions against the rampant lawlessness occurring in the city,” Parnell said in a statement.

Mayor Karen Bass, who had dubbed the deployment an “armed occupation,” was quick to celebrate the troops’ departure.

“Another win for Los Angeles,” Bass said on X on Wednesday night. “We will continue this pressure until ALL troops are out of L.A.”

The troops’ presence in Los Angeles — and their role of protecting federal agents conducting immigration raids — was fiercely contested. President Trump said the troops were necessary to maintain order as the administration ramped up its immigration raids and protesters covered downtown buildings in graffiti, set Waymos on fire and clashed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

But many of California’s key Democratic leaders said there was no need for federal troops in the city: Local law enforcement could handle the protesters, they said, and the presence of federal troops in highly militarized gear only inflamed tension in the region. They also argued that federal officials had deployed the troops illegally.

Just a day after the first convoys of National Guard troops rumbled into to L.A. on June 8, Gov. Gavin Newsom sued federal officials, saying that the deployment exceeded federal authority and violated the 10th Amendment in an “unprecedented usurpation” of state power. Newsom also complained that the deployment had diverted the California National Guard from critical duties such as combating wildfires and interrupting the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and across California.

His office released a statement responding to the latest drawdown Thursday.

“President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular,” the statement said. “The President must do the right thing to end this illegal militarization now because the economic and societal impacts are dire. The women and men of our military deserve more than to be used as props in the federal government’s propaganda machine.”

Over the weeks, as the L.A. protests subsided, the troops did not appear to have a clear role and many appeared to be bored. By July, a source within Newsom’s office with knowledge of the military operation told The Times that only about 3% of the troops were taking part in daily missions.

“There’s not much to do,” one Marine told The Times as he stood guard earlier this month outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood.

The majority of National Guard members were left largely milling about the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos in an operation that the Pentagon had estimated would cost about $134 million.

On July 15, the Pentagon withdrew nearly 2,000 California National Guard soldiers from L.A. and on July 21 it withdrew 700 active-duty Marines.

More than a month after President Trump made the fiercely contentious decision to send about 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, those troops will begin withdrawing from the city, Pentagon officials said Monday.

The decision comes a week after the Pentagon announced that half of the almost 4,000 National Guard soldiers deployed to the Los Angeles area would be released from duty. The Marines and National Guard were sent to the city in early June amid widespread federal immigration raids and fiery protests against the raids, with the Trump administration vowing to crack down on “rioters, looters and thugs.”

While the president contended that he had “saved Los Angeles,” local and state officials ferociously denounced the extraordinary deployment of military troops to the streets of an American city.

Advocates and California politicians also argued that the heavy-handed spectacle would be incendiary, potentially putting both the troops and protesters at risk.

In recent days, the troops have been largely fighting tedium, without much to do.

The sometimes volatile protests, which erupted in downtown Los Angeles and other parts of the region in mid-June, have since wound down. The troops have been tasked with guarding federal buildings, and some have accompanied immigration agents on tense enforcement actions.

Speaking on behalf of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell seemed to acknowledge the quiet in a statement Monday.

“With stability returning to Los Angeles, the Secretary has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated,” Parnell said. “Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law. We’re deeply grateful for their service, and for the strength and professionalism they brought to this mission.”

News of the Marines’ withdrawal, which was first reported by the New York Times, broke minutes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass finished a Monday morning public appearance with veterans’ groups, where she decried the “inappropriate” presence of military forces on L.A. streets.

“This is another win for Los Angeles. As we said this morning — the way to best support our troops is to have them do what they enlisted to do, not to protect two office buildings,” Bass said in response to the withdrawal.

Roughly 2,000 National Guard troops remain in the region, according to U.S. Northern Command.

The Trump administration said about half the troops deployed to help enforce immigration raids would leave the city.

United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered the withdrawal of 2,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles, roughly half the federal troops deployed to the city, the Pentagon said.

President Donald Trump ordered some 4,000 National Guard and 700 Marines into Los Angeles in early June to help enforce federal immigration raids amid widespread protests.

According to Department of Homeland Security figures, cited by NBC Los Angeles, the raids have led to the arrest of 2,792 undocumented immigrants.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell on Tuesday confirmed the release of 2,000 California National Guardsmen “from the federal protection mission”. He claimed the move was because “the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding”.

Mayor Karen Bass described the withdrawal as a “retreat”, crediting the success of peaceful protests and legal actions.

“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong,” Bass said.

“We organised peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court. All of this led to today’s retreat,” the Democratic mayor said.

She referred to a lawsuit the city joined that led to an order from a federal judge barring immigration officers from detaining people based solely on their race or for speaking Spanish.

Federal troops deployed to Los Angeles are authorised to detain people who pose a threat to federal personnel or property, but only until police can arrest them.

Military officials are not allowed to carry out arrests themselves.

Responding to the withdrawal of some of the troops, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, said that “thousands of members are still federalised in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state”.

“End this theatre and send everyone home,” he added in a post on social media.

Despite legal challenges, a US appeals court has let Trump retain control of California’s National Guard, the first to be deployed by a US president against the wishes of a state governor since 1965.

Newsom’s office said in late June that California National Guard firefighting crews were “operating at just 40 percent capacity due to Trump’s illegal Guard deployment”, as fires were “popping up across the state” months after devastating fires tore through Los Angeles.

Originally a part of the Mexican empire, Los Angeles continues to have a large population of people with Central and South American origins. The Californian capital is also one of several so-called “sanctuary” cities in the US, offering protection from deportation to hundreds of thousands of undocumented people living there.

Trump has promised to deport millions of people in the country without documentation and has executed raids at work sites, including farms that were largely exempted from enforcement during his first term. The administration has faced dozens of lawsuits across the country challenging its tactics.

Trump has also increasingly turned to the military in his immigration crackdown.

In addition to sending troops to Los Angeles, thousands of active-duty troops have been deployed to the border with Mexico, and the Pentagon has created military zones in the border area.

The zones are intended to allow the Trump administration to use troops to detain migrants without invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act that empowers a president to deploy the US military to suppress events such as civil disorder.

A recent poll showed support for immigration in the US has increased since last year, while backing for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants has gone down.

July 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration has recalled 2,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles, where they were deployed by President Donald Trump last month to quell anti-raid protests and to protect immigration law enforcement arresting migrants.

“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement, The Hill and ABC News reported.

“As such, the secretary has ordered the release of 2,000 California National Guardsmen (79th IBCT) from the federal protection.”

Trump, who campaigned on mass deportations while using derogatory rhetoric and misinformation, has been conducting a crackdown on immigration since returning to the White House.

On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents began conducting raids in Los Angeles, sparking protests in the city.

In response, Trump deployed some 2,000 California National Guardsmen, later increasing the number to more than 4,000, as well as hundreds of U.S. Marines, attracting the anger of local politicians.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and a Trump critic, filed a lawsuit accusing the president of violating the Constitution by taking over the California National Guard, “which has needlessly escalated chaos and violence in the Los Angeles region,” his office said in a statement.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, celebrated the Pentagon move on Tuesday as being a result of the city’s protest against the deployment.

“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong. We organized peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court — all of this led to today’s retreat,” she said in a statement.

“My message today to Angelenos is clear — I will never stop fighting for this city. We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in LA, but throughout our country.”

WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks.

The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the U.S. military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States.

The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon’s senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants.

Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania.

The men also would have been obligated to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks.

But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary.

Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers.

But, by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge’s ruling.

The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Donald Trump.

“Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the ‘families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.’ The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,” Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote.

Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Trump.

In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote, “The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred.”

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

July 8 (UPI) — The Department of Defense’s announcement that it would end a weather-data sharing program surprised some climate watchdogs but forecasters assure it does not heighten risks.

The department announced the termination of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program late last month, citing cybersecurity concerns. The program is slated to end on July 31.

The Department of Defense has been monitoring meteorological data using satellites for more than 60 years, though during the first decade of the DMSP it was kept classified. It is currently operated by the U.S. Space Force.

Three DMSP satellites remain in operation, with the newest satellite having launched in 2014. These microwave satellites capture data through the clouds that is used for weather prediction, including tactical weather prediction used by the U.S. military.

“We and other countries have microwave satellites up there. There’s many of them up there,” Clifford Mass, professor of atmospheric and climate science at the University of Washington, told UPI. “It’s one of the most important sources of data for all weather prediction. It’s like a cat scan of the atmosphere.”

A network of satellite systems, including those that are part of the DMSP, take readings of large portions of Earth from low-earth orbit. DMSP satellites are in low-earth polar orbit and can scan an area of about 1,600 nautical miles, covering the entirety of the planet about every 14 hours, according to the U.S. Space Force.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is among the agencies that uses data from the DMSP. Kim Doster, communications director for NOAA, told UPI in a statement that the DMSP is a “single dataset in a robust suite of hurricane forecasting and modeling tools in the [National Weather Service] portfolio.”

Other sources of data used by NOAA and the National Weather Service include geostationary Earth-observing satellites, polar orbiting satellites, ground-based weather radar and other microwave satellite systems such as the Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder.

“In particular, the Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder, currently flying on NOAA’s [Joint Polar Satellite System], provides the richest, most accurate satellite weather observations available,” Doster said. “NOAA’s data sources are fully capable of providing a complete suite of cutting-edge data and models that ensure the gold-standard weather forecasting the American people deserve.”

Erin Sikorsky, director of The Center for Climate and Security, told UPI she remains concerned about ending the DMSP. It is not about ending the program alone but about ending the program in combination with staffing reductions at NOAA and peeling back climate change mitigation policies.

“For me, it’s looking at the broader pattern of risky actions we’ve seen from the administration when it comes to weather and climate data since they took office in January,” Sikorsky said. “If this was an isolated incident — I’d be less concerned. But the fact that this also comes at a time when we’ve seen the shutdown of climate.gov and the U.S. Global Change Research Program and other cuts to NOAA staffing. It all kind of adds up to a picture of blinding ourselves to critical information about climate hazards in a way that puts Americans at risk.”

Sikorsky’s concerns also stem from a lack of clarity about the decision to end the program. The Department of Defense’s reasoning being a cybersecurity threat is vague, lacking more detailed information.

U.S. Space Force did not respond to requests for comment.

“It caught everybody off guard in the weather community,” Sikorsky said.

Mass explained that there are a number of redundancies in the U.S. government’s weather data systems, with multiple agencies carrying out overlapping functions.

“They’re basically running three redundant numerical weather prediction enterprises, run by the U.S. government,” Mass said. “It’s an interesting question about whether we need so many different groups doing the same thing. NASA runs numerical weather predictions as well. The EPA does.”

Redundancy can be, and often is good for ensuring there is a reliable and consistent flow of data. It is also a source of inefficiency, according to Mass. However, the Trump administration’s goal of reducing government inefficiency does not appear to play into the decision to end the DMSP.

“It has nothing to do with the Trump administration’s attempts to reduce government waste,” Mass said. “The DOD decided they had a security issue. This is a DOD problem. They decided to shut it down very abruptly and they didn’t talk to anybody about that.”

The cybersecurity threat may be the result of an outdated operating system, Mass adds. Meanwhile satellite launches are becoming more frequent, less costly and advancements continue to be made in satellite technology.

“There’s all of these new generations of satellites that are going up. It turns out that Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites might be very useful for further weather observation,” he said. “Having a lot of satellites in low-earth orbit, seeing how those signals are bent by the earth’s atmosphere, it might be possible to get vastly more observations. Having all of the satellites up there is very useful for weather predictions.

July 2 (UPI) — The Pentagon is establishing a fourth military defense zone along the U.S.-Mexico border, where American soldiers can apprehend noncitizens on charges of trespassing, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman Sean Parnell said Wednesday, amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The fourth National Defense Area will be controlled by the U.S. Navy and encompass approximately 140 miles of federal property along the U.S.-Mexico border near the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona.

The announcement comes a week after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the establishment of a 250-mile NDA along the Rio Grande River in Texas’ Cameron and Hidalgo Counties, which is to be controlled by the U.S. Air Force.

The first NDA was established on April 21, spanning 170 miles along the New Mexico border, followed by the second erected on May 1 in West Texas, covering 63 miles between El Paso and Fort Hancock.

The NDAs are zones where U.S. military personnel can temporarily detain alleged trespassers, in this case, those who are seeking to enter the United States via Mexico, and transfer them to appropriate law enforcement authorities.

The authorization for their creation comes under President Donald Trump‘s April 11 memorandum directing the U.S. military to seal the southern border to repel an alleged “invasion” of immigrants trying to enter the country. And the military’s ability to perform immigration law enforcement duties follows a March 20 order from Hegseth to become involved in border operations.

Parnell announced the creation of the fourth military buffer zone during a regular press conference Wednesday while updating reporters on the military’s immigration activities.

He said there are approximately 8,500 U.S. soldiers performing duties with Joint Task Force Southern Border, and since March 20, days after the task force was formed, they have conducted more than 3,500 patrols.

The militarization of the U.S. southern border is part of Trump’s plan to crack down on immigration after having been elected following a campaign during which he often spouted derogatory rhetoric and misinformation about immigrants while vowing to conduct mass deportations.

According to Parnell, the relationship between the military and Customs and Border Protection “yielded exceptional results between June 28 and June 30 with zero gotaways across the entire southern border.

“We have made incredible progress and will continue to work toward achieving 100% operational control of the border,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Friday that the USNS Harvey Milk will be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a slain gay rights activist who served during the Korean War.

In a video posted to social media, Hegseth said he was “taking the politics out of ship naming.”

The ship’s new name will honor Navy Chief Petty Officer Oscar V. Peterson, who was awarded the highest military decoration posthumously for his actions during the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea in the Pacific.

The decision is the latest move by Hegseth to wipe away names of ships and military bases that were given by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which in many cases chose to honor service members who were women, minorities, from the LBGTQ community and more.

It follows earlier actions by Hegseth and President Donald Trump, a Republican, to purge all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion in the military and elsewhere.

Hegseth’s announcement comes during Pride Month — the same timing as the Pentagon’s campaign to force transgender troops out of the U.S. military.

“We’re not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists,” said Hegseth, who earlier this month ordered Navy Secretary John Phelan to put together a small team to rename the USNS Harvey Milk replenishment oiler.

He said Peterson’s “spirit of self-sacrifice and concern for his crewmates was in keeping with the finest traditions of the Navy.”

When Hegseth announced the decision to rename the ship, officials defended it as an effort to align with Trump and Hegseth’s objectives to “re-establish the warrior culture.”

Peterson served on the USS Neosho, which also was an oiler. The ship was damaged during the Battle of the Coral Sea, and even though Peterson was injured, he managed to close the bulkhead stop valves to keep the ship operational. He died of his wounds.

The Navy in 1943 named an escort ship after Peterson. The USS Peterson served for more than two decades and was decommissioned in June 1965.

The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights.

Harvey Milk, who was portrayed by Sean Penn in an Oscar-winning 2008 movie, served for four years in the Navy before he was forced out for being gay. He later became one of the first openly gay candidates elected to public office, in San Francisco. He was assassinated in 1978 by a disgruntled former city supervisor.

Baldor writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s top leaders doubled down Thursday on how destructive the U.S. attacks had been on Iran’s nuclear facilities and described in detail the study and planning behind the bombing mission.

In a rare Pentagon news briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, worked to shift the debate from whether the nuclear targets were “obliterated,” as President Donald Trump has said, to what they portrayed as the heroism of the strikes as well as the extensive research and preparation that went into carrying them out.

“You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated — choose your word. This was an historically successful attack,” Hegseth said in an often combative session with the media.

He said once more an early assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, a part of the Defense Department, was preliminary and that the report acknowledged there was low confidence and gaps in information. Hegseth scolded reporters for “breathlessly” focusing on that intelligence assessment and said such stories were just attempts to undermine the Republican president.

That intelligence report said that while the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities did significant damage, the sites were not totally destroyed and that Tehran’s program was only set back by a few months.

U.S. stealth bombers dropped 12 deep penetrator bombs on Iran’s Fordo uranium enrichment site and two on Natanz, a U.S. official told The Associated Press. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss military operations.

Despite the sheer tonnage of weaponry used on Fordo, the DIA report said the sites were not totally destroyed.

At the briefing, Caine described the 15 years of study by two Defense Threat Reduction Agency officers to create a bomb that could penetrate the Fordo nuclear facility being built deep underground by Iran.

Over time, he said, the department had many people with Ph.D.s working on the program, “doing modeling and simulation that we were quietly and in a secret way the biggest users of supercomputer hours within the United States of America.”

The pilots of the bombers involved in the weekend strikes described the flash after the bomb drop as “the brightest explosion they had ever seen,” Caine said.

At the briefing, Hegseth responded to some questions by personally attacking the reporter or the press as a whole.

Asked repeatedly whether any of the nuclear material was moved out of the Iranian facilities, Hegseth acknowledged that the Pentagon was “looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where.

“I’m not aware of any intelligence that says things were not where they were supposed to be” or that they were moved, Hegseth said.

Copp and Baldor write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker and Chris Megerian contributed to this report.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth says US strikes have ‘devastated the Iranian nuclear programme’ while avoiding Iran’s troops and civilians. The Pentagon chief praised President Donald Trump’s commitment to ‘peace through strength’ for halting Tehran’s perceived nuclear ambitions.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions at a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.

Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded “yes” or “no” answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.

In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.

“Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,” Hegseth said several times.

It is not unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later.

“It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?” said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio).

As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, “I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.”

“We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,” Hegseth responded.

Time and again, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over.

“You’re an embarrassment to this country. You’re unfit to lead,” Rep. Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat’s voice rising. “You should just get the hell out.”

GOP lawmakers on several occasions apologized to Hegseth for the Democrats’ sharp remarks, saying he should not be subject to such “flagrant disrespect.” Hegseth said he was “happy to take the arrows” to make tough calls and do what’s best.

Questions emerge on Signal chats and if details Hegseth shared were classified

Hegseth’s use of two Signal chats to discuss details of the U.S. plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen with other U.S. leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers.

Hegseth was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did.

Hegseth argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers.

That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity.

“You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified,” Moulton said.

“What’s not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission,” Hegseth responded.

A Pentagon watchdog report on his Signal use is expected soon.

Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app.

Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves “at the pleasure of the president.”

He was asked if he would apologize to the mother of a pilot flying the strike mission for jeopardizing the operation and putting her son’s life at risk. Hegseth said, “I don’t apologize for success.”

Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg raises Democratic concerns about politics in the military

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared along with Hegseth, was questioned about Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg this week and whether the military was becoming politicized.

The Defense Department has a doctrine that prohibits troops from participating in political activity while in uniform. Members of the 82nd Airborne Division were directed to stand behind Trump at Fort Bragg, and they booed and cheered during his incendiary remarks, including condemnation of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

There also was a pop-up MAGA merchandise stand selling souvenirs to troops in uniform.

Caine repeatedly said U.S. service members must be apolitical but that he was unaware of anything that happened at Fort Bragg.

Hegseth is pressed about policies on women in uniform and transgender troops

Hegseth got into a sharp debate about whether women and transgender service members should serve in the military or combat jobs.

He said he has worked to remove diversity programs and political correctness from the military. He said he has not politicized the military but simply wants the most capable troops.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) demanded to know if Hegseth believes that both men and women can pull a trigger, cause death, operate a drone or launch a missile.

“It depends on the context,” Hegseth said, adding that “women carry equipment differently, a 155 round differently, a rucksack differently.”

Hegseth, who has previously said women “straight up” should not serve in combat, asserted that women have joined the military in record numbers under the Trump administration. He said the military “standards should be high and equal.”

He also was asked about three female service members — now being forced out as part of the Pentagon’s move to ban transgender troops.

Hegseth agreed that their accomplishments — which Houlahan read out — were to be celebrated, until he learned they were transgender.

Republican lawmakers jumped to his defense, criticizing any Pentagon spending on gender transition surgery.

Democrats ask about plans for action against Greenland and Panama

President Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a U.S. ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland’s leaders.

“Greenland is not for sale,” Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s representative to the U.S., said Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute.

In an effort not to show the Pentagon’s hand on its routine effort to have plans for everything, Hegseth danced around the direct question from Smith, leading to the confusion.

“Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don’t think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland,” Smith said.

Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. AP writer David Klepper in Washington contributed to this report.

California’s two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California.

“A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them,” Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. “That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable.”

California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power.

Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation.

The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about “the scope of the Marines’ mission and duties.”

Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening.

Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to “restore order” and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday.

The notification, the senators said, “did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment.”

The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom’s objection.

The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965.

Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,” but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state’s governor.

Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries.

“It was heading in the wrong direction,” Trump said Monday. “It’s now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.”

On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings.

“This is just absolutely unnecessary,” Bass said. “People have asked me, ‘What are the Marines going to do when they get here?’ That’s a good question. I have no idea.”

On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment.

May 24 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is further restricting media access to areas of the Pentagon, as he seeks to cut down on unsanctioned leaks of military information.

“Updated security measures for resident and visiting press are needed to reduce the opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures,” Hegseth said in a memo issued earlier this week.

Reporters will now be required to have an official escort with them in more areas of the Pentagon, including the hallway where Hegseth’s office is located.

“They [media] are required to be formally escorted to and from those respective offices,” the memo reads.

Journalists in the Pentagon will also be required to sign a pledge to protect “sensitive information.”

Reporters may not move freely inside the Defense Department headquarters “without an official approval and escort from the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.” That role currently belongs to Hegseth’s assistant for public affairs and senior advisor, Sean Parnell.

Parnell earlier in the week was tasked with leading a panel conducting a “comprehensive review” of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Hegseth has taken aim at the media following a series of Defense Department leaks and missteps.

In March, the Defense Secretary came under fire for accidentally adding a journalist to a Signal chat, sharing classified information about U.S. bombings of Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Defense Department officials were later successively put on leave in April, including deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick. Chief of staff to Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Colin Carroll was put on administrative leave at the same time.

A fourth official was implicated in the leak and reassigned days later.

Later that month, Hegseth was found to have reportedly shared classified military information in a separate Signal chat.

“While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally obligated to protect CNSI (classified national intelligence information) and sensitive information — the unauthorized disclosure of which could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger,” Hegseth wrote in the memo.

The Defense Secretary said the “updated security measures” are necessary “to reduce the opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures.”

May 23 (UPI) — The Pentagon is sending an additional 1,115 soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Northern Command announced Thursday.

The troops are being deployed to Joint Task Force-Southern Border to provide sustainment, engineering, medical and operational capabilities, USNORTHCOM said in a statement.

Securing the border has been a top priority of President Donald Trump. On Jan. 20, his first in office, Trump declared a controversial emergency at the southern border, claiming “America’s sovereignty is under attack.”

Two days later, the Defense Department announced the first deployment of some 1,500 troops to the border.

With the announcement Thursday, the deployment grows to some 10,000 troops.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security asked the Pentagon for more than 20,000 National Guard members to support Trump’s crackdown on immigration.