C-SPAN’s Washington Journal Open Phones features callers clashing over U.S. military strikes: a September 2nd Venezuela operation killed two survivors after one called for help, with Admiral Frank Bradley and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth facing war crime allegations. An Inspector General report reveals Hegseth shared unclassified but sensitive Yemen strike details via the insecure Signal app, angering bipartisan lawmakers like Rep. Don Bacon and Sen. Roger Wicker. Callers—Democrats and Republicans alike—accuse Hegseth of recklessness, unfitness, and potential collusion with cartels, while Trump defends strikes as "combatant" eliminations, hinting at Venezuela-Colombia invasions. Legal experts argue strikes violate maritime law, demanding criminal prosecution over military action, as transparency debates escalate with classified briefings and Pentagon secrecy under fire. [Automatically generated summary]
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watched C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased and you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
It's probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
From the New York Times this morning, the headline, U.S. military's boat strikes planning takes on new significance.
The details could raise questions about who was responsible for a follow-up strike on September 2nd, the commander who ordered it or the defense secretary.
From the New York Times reporting, before the Trump administration began attacking people suspected of smuggling drugs at sea, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved contingency plans for what to do if an initial strike left survivors.
The military would attempt to rescue survivors who appeared to be helpless, shipwrecked, and out of what the administration considered a fight.
But it would try again to kill them if they took what the United States deemed to be hostile action, like communicating with suspected cartel members.
After the smoke cleared from a first strike on September 2nd, there were two survivors, and one of them radioed for help.
The U.S. officials said, and Admiral Frank Bradley, who commanded the operation, ordered a follow-up strike and both were killed.
The military's contingency plans have taken on new significance as Admiral Bradley and General Dan Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to go to Capitol Hill today to answer questions about the attack amid an uproar over the killing of the survivors.
New York Times reports the men planned to present a vigorous defense of what they will assert was a lawful follow-up strike on the survivors.
That moment is just a small part of Mr. Trump's legally disputed campaign of killing people suspected of smuggling drugs at sea as if they were combatants in war.
But it is now the focus of intense congressional scrutiny.
The details of the contingency planning could raise more questions about who was responsible for the second strike, the commander who ordered it or the defense secretary who approved the overall operation.
Many critics, including some lawmakers, have said the follow-up attack could be a war crime.
Listen to President Trump in the White House yesterday when he was asked about the boat strikes in the Caribbean.
unidentified
Mr. President, the boat strikes.
If it is found that survivors were actually killed while clinging on to that boat, should Secretary Hegseth, Admiral Bradley, or others be punished?
I think you're going to find that this is war, that these people were killing our people by the millions, actually, if you look over a few years.
I think last year we lost close to 300,000 people were killed.
That's not mentioning all the families.
Have you seen what happens with the families of not only the people who were killed, but the people that are trying to get their son or their daughter off of this poison that they've been fed?
I think you're going to find that there's a very receptive ear to doing exactly what they're doing, taking out those boats.
And very soon we're going to start doing it on land too, because we know every route, we know every house, we know where they manufacture this crap.
We know where they put it all together.
And I think you're going to see it very soon on land also.
unidentified
So to be clear, do you support the decision to kill survivors after the initial strike?
President Trump yesterday at the White House talking about the survivors of that boat strike, the first boat strike on September 2nd.
Back to the New York Times.
Under the plans Mr. Hegseth had approved, Admiral Bradley interpreted the purported communications between the initial survivors and colleagues as meaning that the survivors were still in the fight rather than shipwrecked and helpless people whom it would be a war crime to target.
The Pentagon's law of war manual says that to be considered shipwrecked, persons must be in need of assistance and care, and they must refrain from any hostile act.
A U.S. Naval Commander handbook says combatants, quote, qualify as shipwrecked persons only if they have ceased all active combat activity.
The Pentagon's defense of its actions rests heavily on the premise that there was a fight in the first place.
In defending the campaign of summary killings at sea as lawful, the administration has relied on Mr. Trump's disputed determining that the United States is in a formal armed conflict with drug cartels and that people suspected of smuggling drugs for them are combatants.
We're going to get to your calls in just a minute on this growing scrutiny of the Defense Secretary over the boat strikes in the Caribbean, as well as a new Inspector General report that has come out today.
And joining us to talk about that is Paul McLeary, who's with Politico National Security reporter.
Paul McLeary, first, who commissioned this report from the Inspector General?
unidentified
This was by Republican and Democrat lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Senators wanted this report done after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the signal app to communicate with other members of the government about strikes in Yemen.
So they demanded that the Pentagon Inspector General carry it out this spring, and they finally released the report that will be later today.
Yeah, the main findings here are that the Secretary of Defense has the authority to declassify information at will, basically, right?
But by using an unregulated and messaging app that's not secure, it's encrypted, but it's not secure, he potentially put the lives of U.S. service members at risk.
There's no real penalty here for him or anything like that, but I does find that he put the lives of people at risk because he texted the time, the location, the weapons being used, the platforms being used to attack these Houthi militants in Yemen.
Headlines today also say that he broke Pentagon protocol.
unidentified
How so?
By using Signal, right?
I mean, there are multiple ways that Pentagon and U.S. government officials can communicate securely with one another.
Signal, while I said it's encrypted and lots of us use it for lots of things, it's not formally approved by the government.
It's not secure, even though it's encrypted.
It can be intercepted, you know, in one way or another.
And it depends what device he used.
I mean, it seems that he used his government cell phone, which a lot of folks have installed Signal on, but they also have them on their laptops and things like that.
So he went out, and everyone did, so did Mike Waltz.
You know, everyone who's on that chat went outside normal government protocol to chat on Signal.
The Pentagon Press Secretary Sean Parnell put out a statement saying the Inspector General review is a total exoneration of Secretary Hagseth and proves what we knew all along.
No classified information was shared.
This matter is resolved and the case is closed.
Do you think that's true after talking to members of Congress and others who are concerned about the use of this messaging app?
unidentified
Right.
I mean, we're going to play a kind of language game here, right?
I mean, the message that Hegset, the information that Hegseth received about the strikes came from General Carrilla at U.S. Central Command.
Carrillo transmitted that message with all that information over a classified, secure communications network in the Pentagon.
Hegseth then took that information from that classified and secure forum and put it on an unclassified and insecure app, Signal.
But Hegseth does have the ability to declassify information.
I don't think he formally did it here, but you can argue that since he has that authority, if he decides it's unclassified, it's unclassified.
So that's how Parnell and the Pentagon can say no classified information was shared.
Although, 10 minutes before he sent it, it was classified information sent over classified means.
There's widespread anger on both sides of the aisle, right?
Don Bacon, the Representative Roger Wicker, the chair of the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are both pretty unhappy with how this whole thing has played out and the kind of the recklessness with which this information was shared.
So they'll be in this meeting today with Admiral Bradley and General Kane asking questions and really putting it to him, right?
I mean, I think that Secretary Hagseth and the Pentagon have put this on Bradley, which as the commander on the ground, it's his responsibility in the end, but he was given orders to do this by Pete Hegseth.
And Hegseth has tweeted and said, you know, said other things publicly that he supports Bradley and his decision, kind of almost taking himself out of the decision-making loop here.
Although Hegseth said he watched the first strike, so he was in the loop the whole time and he gave the orders, but he seems to have really distanced himself from the final result.
CNN with the headline this morning, GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski suggests new leadership is needed at the Pentagon.
Who else has expressed concern and possibly called for the resignation of Pete Hegseth?
unidentified
I mean, many Democrats have, but also, as I mentioned, Don Bacon, the Republican representative, and other folks like Tom Tills, Republican Senator and Wicker, have really, they haven't called for Hegseth to resign, but they also haven't backed him.
And just talking to folks on the Hill, staffers and things like that, there's not a lot of support for Pete Hegseth on Capitol Hill among Republicans or Democrats.
I mean, nominating someone else going through a whole hearing cycle would be quite an ordeal, right?
First, you have to find the candidate, but there's not, and from the beginning, there hasn't been a lot of institutional support for Hegseth.
I mean, the White House expended a lot of political capital to get him through his confirmation hearings after accusations of alcoholism, accusations of abusing women, multiple divorces, you know, things like that.
Hegseth is, and the kind of drama that we saw at the hearing, even before the hearing, has kept up over the past year.
I mean, it's been one thing after another.
And whatever support he did have, some of it has bled away.
It's your turn to tell Washington what you think of this growing scrutiny over the Defense Secretary.
Do you support him?
Should he stay in this position?
Or do you think it's time for him to go?
And what about the concerns from lawmakers across both aisles over the boat strikes in the Caribbean, as well as this new Inspector General report about the signal messaging app?
Let's hear from Steve, who's in Carroll Stream, Illinois.
Democratic Caller, you are up first.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
And I would like to say those boats could not get halfway here because they're speedboats and they've run out of gas.
There's no gas stations like the guy a couple of days ago said in the Gulf of Mexico.
Very good point.
But I'd like to mention, why isn't Hyde Seth being prosecuted for all the rape accusations?
Well, who runs Florida?
Trump's buddies.
They're not going to prosecute him.
He should be.
A guy like that, we don't need that pervert in the office.
That's Steve, Mark, and Hampstead, Maryland, Republican.
Mark, good morning.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
So I think this is going to end up turning out to be just yet another Democrat hoax.
If you look back over the last few years, it seems like there's always an act, and it's usually done by Democrats, and then there's a reaction.
So what you get is you get these six senators.
I don't think they were all senators.
There were a couple senators, a couple of people from the House of Representatives, the six Democrats who made that video a couple weeks ago who ended up in hot water because they were literally telling the troops not to disobey or yet not to obey illegal orders.
And of course, none of them could cite an illegal order that had been made by the Trump administration.
And I think they realized they got out over their skis.
So this is a reaction to that, and it's a distraction because of that tape that came out by those six traders.
These people, what they do is, I mean, I think it's going to turn out to be as legitimate as the Russia hoax and the Bloodbath hoax and the Very Fine People hoax.
Everything Democrats throw at Trump turns out to be a hoax at the end of the day.
Mark, can I jump in, though, and just ask you, because there have been Republicans who have criticized the Defense Secretary over these strikes as well as the use of the messaging app.
So it's not just Democrats.
It seems to be bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill.
unidentified
I did tell Lynn.
Could I get a word in?
I understand there may be a small handful of Republicans who have a problem with this.
The problem is, is you all in the media are going to act like it's a larger majority of Republicans.
What's basically going on is there's a color revolution going on in the United States.
When the Trump administration came in, they were handed phones.
That's what happens when a new administration comes in.
Their phones have the signal app installed.
And who hands them those phones?
It's the CIA.
The very people who, under John Brennan, went after and spied on Trump on the orders of Barry Setoro, who killed American citizens without trial, without finding them guilty of anything.
But Satoru was doing drone strikes on Americans, and the media didn't bat an eye.
Wall Street Journal reporting this morning on the boat strike on September 2nd.
There were two strikes, one to bomb the boat, and when there were survivors, there was a second strike.
The Wall Street Reporter reports this morning that the boat turned around before the strike, which some experts say calls into question the administration's claim that the traffickers posed an eminent threat to the United States.
Now, lawmakers are going to hear from Admiral Bradley, who ordered the strike, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They will get a closed-door classified briefing up on Capitol Hill today.
You can bet reporters will be outside of that room asking questions when these lawmakers come out from that briefing and going in.
Look to the C-SPAN networks for coverage of that.
The New York Times this morning, from the story we read earlier, the focus may turn to plans for survivors in that U.S. boat.
On orders from Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth, the U.S. military has attacked 21 boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing 83 people as part of a legally disputed policy of summarily executing people suspected of smuggling drugs as if they were combatants on a battlefield.
How do all of you feel about this debate?
What do you say?
Milton in Philadelphia, Democratic Caller, good morning to you.
unidentified
Thank you for taking my call.
I'd like to make this point.
All Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and veterans, should be outraged by what Cadet Bonespurs and HASAF has done.
When you go out there and you kill innocent people, I mean, people that's in the water, captives.
Imagine we're supposed to be the country that respects law and order.
Now, eventually, our country is going to get in the war.
What do we say to other countries like North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran?
These other countries, when they capture our soldiers that might be wounded, they could just go in there and kill them.
This is setting a dangerous precedent that other countries could say, well, if America could kill innocent stranded warriors, then they could turn around and do the same thing to our soldiers.
Where's the outrage by Republicans and other people around the country about this?
Because eventually this could come back and really bite our men and women.
And their deaths is going to be on cadet bonespurs and drop HATSAFS.
I spent almost 24 years serving in uniform on active duty.
Pete Hessoff is simply not qualified, nor has he ever been.
The senators, the Republican senators knew this when they confirmed him as Secretary of Defense.
Pete Hetzel is over his head, and he needs to resign for the good of the military and our young men and women who volunteer to go wherever we need them to go in order to protect the American people.
You know, Pete Hegseth, I don't think he's really qualified to be in his position, but he's Trump's yes man, and he will do what Trump orders him to do.
That's my assumption of him.
But this whole idea of Pete Hegseth and Trump's policy of protecting Americans from drugs from Venezuela is a smokescreen.
What Trump wants to do is he really will be invading.
He's going to make good on his promise to invade Venezuela and also probably Colombia.
And Pete Hegseth will be the one that will be the figurehead for this invasion, coordinating it supposedly.
But the real reason is you think that he will be the figurehead.
Let me jump in because the Wall Street Journal this morning has reporting about the president's plans for fighting, combating fentanyl, and going after these alleged drug boat runners.
Here is the Wall Street Journal.
Hegseth ousted Admiral after clash over boat strikes.
Now, this is a different Admiral than Admiral Brett Brady.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shocked official Washington in mid-October when he announced that the four-star head of the U.S. military operations in the Caribbean was retiring less than a year into his tenure.
But according to two Pentagon officials, Hegseth asked Admiral Alvin Hulse to step down a de facto ouster that was the culmination of months of discord between Hegseth and the officer.
It began days after President Trump's inauguration in January and then intensified months later when Hulse had initial concerns about the legality of lethal strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.
Not long after, Hegseth said Hulsey would be retiring.
Hegseth's move, which hasn't been previously reported, sheds new light on a brewing controversy over the legality of the military's campaign in the Caribbean and raises questions over whether concerns of service members about the attacks are addressed.
While Hegseth has dismissed a number of high-ranking military leaders since taking over the Pentagon, the ouster of a commander during an unfolding military operation was an extraordinary move.
Lawmakers and experts noted that to the Wall Street Journal.
John in Illinois, Democratic caller from the military family, it's your turn to weigh in.
All right, moving on to Randy in Kentucky, Republican.
Hi, Randy.
unidentified
Good morning.
Let's see how quick you can hang up on me for saying what people, what I think and other people are thinking is the truth and what's going on.
There are millions, billions, and billions of dollars through COVID that was paid to all these drug dealers and all these traffickers and all these cartels in America, which is still going on.
And I think they were sharing that money and paying off the Democratic Party so that they would continue to say stuff like this that they got arrested or bombed out of the water.
Now they're wanting the Democrats to say, hey, you got to stop this.
I pay you a lot of money to allow this to happen.
So you've got to stop this.
You stop Trump.
You do anything you can to stop this because we've got to keep bringing that line in through there to all these drug people.
And you'll hear all these drug addicts and all these dealers be calling in this morning agreeing with all the Democrats.
You've got to stop this stuff.
You've got to stop it because you're shutting off our money or our lifeline, our trough.
Bob, you got to talk and listen through your phone.
Sarah, Cole City, Indiana, Republican.
unidentified
Good morning, CNN.
Grant, I wanted to tell you something.
Know on Monday, Paygro said that you guys were going to have a segment on about the election in Tennessee, and which me and my husband doesn't talk.
I knew if the Democrat, if the Democrat lady won, you guys would have a full show about it.
But since the Republican won, you know, you had just maybe five or ten minute little segment, a very little segment about it.
So you guys show who you guys really are.
And I just, about talking about Pete Hegseth and them, I'll tell you what, I think he's doing a good job of what Biden's incompetent whole cabinet was, and even Biden.
You guys took up for him when he had dementia, didn't know what he was doing.
You guys took up for him.
So, but hey, people out there, do you know the guy that's his head over the C-SPEN now is from CNN.
All right, Richard, on this September 2nd strike, the New York Times notes that U.S. officials said the military was also weighing whether it could show the full unedited video of the September 2nd engagement with the boat to lawmakers.
And again, on Capitol Hill today, behind closed doors, lawmakers will get a briefing about this boat strike and other actions by the Pentagon and the Trump administration.
It'll be a bipartisan briefing.
The Washington Post this morning front page with the headline, in GOP, vexation grows at Hegseth.
In a classified briefing for lawmakers scrutinizing the Trump administration's killing of suspected drug smugglers around Latin America, top Republicans in the room appeared frustrated that the Pentagon appeared frustrated the Pentagon, facing questions about its legal basis for attacking civilian vessels, sent no lawyers to the meeting, a move multiple lawmakers in the room considered inexplicable.
The Defense Department officials who did attend, those people said, were unable to explain the mission's strategy and scope, even as President Trump openly mused about expanding the campaign to include land targets inside of Venezuela.
Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, the House Armed Services Committee Republican chairman, condemned the secrecy, saying Congress had gotten more information from the Pentagon during the Biden administration, according to two people in the room.
This was a previous briefing and the briefing today.
Again, there will be lawmakers there with Admiral Bradley, who ordered the strikes, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair.