“One of the most troubling things I've seen”

Summary

Deadline: White House — “One of the most troubling things I've seen”

Date: December 4, 2025
Host: Nicolle Wallace, MS NOW

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deeply into growing scandals surrounding the US military’s operations in the Caribbean, specifically the controversial “double tap” boat strike that killed shipwrecked survivors, and the fallout rocking the Pentagon, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged mishandling of classified information (“Signal Gate”). Nicolle Wallace leads a panel of national security experts, lawmakers, and journalists in dissecting the political, legal, and ethical implications, highlighting rare bipartisan condemnation and the mounting pressure for transparency and accountability.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Boat Strike Scandal: Facts, Law, and Outrage

• Two high-ranking military officers, Admiral Frank Bradley and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Kane, testified behind closed doors about the deadly double-tap strike on a drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean (00:57).
• Video Evidence: Lawmakers who saw unreleased video described it as deeply disturbing, depicting US forces attacking shipwrecked, defenseless survivors — a possible violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict.
• No “Kill Them All” Order: Admiral confirmed under questioning there was no explicit order to kill all survivors (02:51).
• Legal Framework: Wallace reads directly from the DoD manual, which explicitly prohibits firing upon shipwrecked individuals (06:43), emphasizing this is “clearly illegal.”

Quote — Jim Himes (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee):

"What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service... Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors." (02:00, 02:32)

Bipartisan Condemnation:

• Republicans and Democrats alike (Mike Turner, Thom Tillis, Rand Paul) called the second strike illegal or a war crime.

"If someone knowingly launched a second missile at that boat, which led to the deaths of the other two, then they have to be held accountable, and they shouldn't be in whatever role they're in." — Senator Thom Tillis (13:14)

Republican Pushback In-Context:

• Notable that prominent conservative news outlets (Newsmax) called the action a war crime, signaling how politically volatile the situation has become (16:56).

2. Accountability Debate: Who Orders, Who Answers?

• Arguments emerged over whether responsibility rests with Secretary of Defense Hegseth or Admiral Bradley; Senators pressed for clarity on the chain of command and whether illegal orders were given or interpreted (14:08, 25:35).
• Lawmakers, military attorneys (JAGs), and experts stress the requirement not to obey unlawful orders — and raise concern over morale and legal liability throughout the chain of command.

Quote — Ret. Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner:

“When you start a campaign of lethal force on a bad premise, with bad legal justification, you end up with bad decisions as you go down the line... Applying rules of engagement for terrorists to survivors clinging to wreckage doesn’t end up well.” (05:30)

Quote — Senator Gary Peters:

“If we're not at war, of course what they did was actually commit murder... And folks involved in that need to be held accountable for it.” (25:35)

3. White House & Pentagon Responses — Shifting Stories, Political Fallout

• Trump’s Response:
  When pressed on releasing the video:

  "Whatever they have, we'd certainly release, no problem." (03:32)
  But also observed trying to shift blame onto subordinates, claiming ignorance about specifics.

• Blame-Shifting Culture:
  Discussion highlights a reluctance at the top (Trump and Hegseth) to accept responsibility, with accusations of “passing the buck” down the chain (10:44, 14:57).

  “The tone is set from the top of the chain of command. And for him to try to shirk accountability and push this on to a commander, I think is something that should be appalling to Republicans" — Ben Rhodes (14:57)

4. Signal Gate Scandal: Mishandling of Classified Info

• Inspector General's Report:
  Confirms Hegseth used personal messaging apps to transmit classified operational details, directly contradicting months of denials by the Trump administration (29:59).
  The IG warns that such behavior risked mission security and the lives of US troops.

  “Hegseth did not comply with Pentagon instruction, which prohibits using a personal device for official business... The secretary's actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed US mission objectives and potential harm to US pilots.” — IG Report summarized by Nicolle Wallace (29:59)

• Lax Attitude at the Top:
  Trump downplays the signal story, displaying ignorance or dismissiveness about digital security.

  "It could be that signal is not very good... There was no harm done because the attack was unbelievably successful that night. Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this." — Trump (36:47)

• Panel’s Consensus:
  Both scandals (boat strike and Signal Gate) reveal a “wanton disregard” for standard military conduct and the welfare of service members, shaking trust inside the ranks and among top commanders (33:27, 34:16).

5. Broader Impact — Pentagon Culture, Morale, and Congressional Oversight

• Morale & Division:
  Military sources report growing divisions within the Pentagon, with some defending Hegseth, others fearful of retaliation for speaking out, and many disillusioned by toxic command climate (19:58, 21:18).
• Bipartisan Congressional Action:
  Lawmakers announce new bipartisan oversight investigations, with several committees demanding video release and transparency from the Department of Defense (23:20, 24:44).

6. Press Freedom at Stake

• The New York Times sues the Pentagon over a new press policy that allegedly violates freedom of speech and due process, further demonstrating the administration’s attempts to limit scrutiny (42:25).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jim Himes (D-CT):

  "One of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress... who are killed by the United States." (02:00)

• Ben Rhodes (Fmr. Deputy NSA):

  "There’s no spin that can describe how people hanging on to a burning boat posed a threat to US Military forces whatsoever. That’s physically impossible." (10:44)

  “It's not what we think about it. It's the fact that these institutions, that they're going to have to rely on, they can't do anything without these institutions. People in them are going to have their own views.” (41:00)

• Senator Gary Peters (D-MI):

  "You're trained... you have a responsibility not to carry out unlawful orders. This appears to certainly be an unlawful order to launch a strike on defenseless folks who are the result of a shipwreck." (27:43)

• Rear Adm. Bill Baumgartner:

  “Trying to apply rules of engagement for terrorists to survivors clinging to wreckage... doesn’t end up well. And I think that we've got confirmation that it doesn't end up well, and it doesn't look good.” (05:30)

• John Heilemann (MSNow Analyst):

  "He's fundamentally just not a serious person... not seriously qualified either in terms of history, experience, intellect, temperament, anything to be the leader of the Pentagon." (32:27)

---

Timeline of Important Segments

• [00:57] Episode tee-up: background on the closed-door Congressional briefing about the boat strike.
• [02:00]–[02:51] Rep. Jim Himes describes the leaked video and the incident’s gravity.
• [03:32] Trump claims willingness to release video, deflects responsibility.
• [05:07]–[06:39] Admiral Baumgartner critiques the entire premise and legal basis of the mission.
• [06:43]–[08:34] Detailed reading of the DoD manual; bipartisan legal concerns aired.
• [09:26]–[09:47] Senators Rand Paul and Mike Turner voice legal concerns.
• [10:44] Ben Rhodes details limits of White House spin and the dangers of expanding executive war powers.
• [13:14]–[14:08] Sen. Thom Tillis calls for accountability, focuses on the chain of command and who ordered the strike.
• [16:56] Newsmax legal analyst calls the action a war crime.
• [17:44]–[19:58] Panel discusses Pentagon internal tensions, morale, and civil-military relations.
• [23:03]–[25:35] Sen. Gary Peters discusses oversight investigations and the clarity of the illegality at stake.
• [29:59]–[33:27] Report on “Signal Gate” dropped; Heilemann and Rhodes analyze pattern of recklessness.
• [36:47] Trump trivializes the scandal, displays ignorance of security protocols.
• [38:22]–[40:57] Heilemann and Rhodes dissect disregard for military law and resulting institutional backlash.
• [42:25] Lawsuit over press freedom at the Pentagon.

---

Overall Tone & Language

• Serious, urgent, and bipartisan anxiety runs throughout.
• Lawmakers, experts, and even conservative outlets use stark, unsparing language: “war crime,” “murder,” “atrocious,” “reckless leader.”
• Discussion is unflinching about institutional and ethical consequences.
• Host and guests show clear concern for rule of law, military morale, and American accountability.

---

TL;DR Takeaway

This was a bombshell episode highlighting how a single military incident — the apparent illegal targeting of shipwreck survivors — has upended political alliances, exposed a Pentagon leader’s reckless disregard for rules and security, and triggered multiple investigations. Bi-partisan voices unite in outrage, likening the events to “war crimes,” and the episode underscores how leadership style and accountability—or their absence—reverberate from the highest offices to the lowest ranks.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're.

[Rand Paul]

Not sure where to start.

[John Heilmann]

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte.

[Nicole Wallace]

Paint, finish and satin or what that.

[John Heilmann]

Clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be.

[Nicole Wallace]

A home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today as President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNow newsletter Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

[Ben Rhodes]

The American people are basically telling the.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

President that they are not okay with any of this.

[Nicole Wallace]

Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at Ms. Now. Project 47.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Hi everyone, it's four o' clock in New York. Two men who have dedicated their lives to military service, to defending and protecting our country, found themselves on Capitol Hill today, testifying. They found themselves there largely due to the actions of a defense Secretary who, during his 10 month tenure as Secretary of Defense, has done little more than seemingly try to embarrass the men and women of the military. Navy Admiral Frank Bradley and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Kane were on the Hill today briefing Congress about that deadly double tap boat strike in the Caribbean. Those meetings were held behind closed doors in front of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who have been demanding answers since the Washington Post story broke. They're demanding answers that Donald Trump's White House and Pete Hagg says have been evasive and reluctant to give, offering varying answers, shifting explanations in just about every news cycle since the first story last Thursday. Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes, telling reporters this after leaving that briefing.

[Nicole Wallace]

What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel who are killed by the United states. Under the DoD manual for abiding by the Laws of Armed Conflict, the specific example given of an impermissible action is attacking a shipwreck.

Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors. People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don't have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Himes, after watching that video, also told reporters that the admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order. That video of the second strike, which Congressman Himes refers to as one of the most troubling things he's ever seen in public service. That's what he said has the Pentagon facing growing pressure to do what he implores there, to release the video to the American people, to the public. Donald Trump was asked about that yesterday about releasing that second strike video. Watch what he said.

You released video of that first boat strike on September 2, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves what happens?

[Senator Thom Tillis]

I don't know what they have, but.

[Nicole Wallace]

Whatever they have, we'd certainly release no problem.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

No problem. So that's Donald Trump agreeing and saying it's, quote, no problem to release with the lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who says this is the most disturbing thing he's ever seen in his career in public service. What he describes as.

Sailors in clear distress, that's his quote. What he describes as an attack on shipwrecked sailors, something we have all learned now is forbidden in the DoD manual spelling out.

War conduct that is acceptable and legal. But all this isn't even the only scandal that engulfs Pete Hegso's Pentagon today because a report by the DoD Inspector General is also out today public, and it concludes that Pete Hegso shared classified information in the now infamous signature signal gate breach. The Atlantic writes that the inspector general's conclusions seem likely to create an impression among the military rank and file that there are two sets of rules, one for the Defense Department's presidentially appointed leadership and one for everybody else. That is where we start today. Staff writer for the Atlantic, Nancy Youssef is here. She covers national security and the Defense Department. Also joining us, former deputy national Security Advisor to President Obama Ben Rhodes is here and retired Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner is back with us. He is the former Commander of the 7th Coast Guard District and also served as chief Counsel of the United States Coast Guard. He's now a member of the former Judge advocates generals or JAGs working group. Admiral, let me start with you.

What do we know now that we didn't know last time we talked on Monday about that second strike?

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, we don't know a whole lot more because actually we haven't seen the video. We now just have the description for more people that have seen the video. But it does still seem that we have shipwrecked survivors.

What's still the same is the whole premise behind the operation, which shouldn't have begun in the first place. This wasn't an armed conflict. We shouldn't have been operating under the laws of armed conflict and striking vessels, particularly with no warning, no opportunity to surrender, you know, and so forth. And it's not the real threat that we're seeing from drugs, which is fentanyl. So those things really haven't changed. We weren't. We didn't have the right campaign to begin with. And when you start a campaign of lethal force on a bad premise with bad legal justification, you end up with bad decisions as you go down the line and trying to apply the laws and rules of engagement that you would normally apply to a terrorist with an RPG or some type of a weapon shooting at you, to two survivors clinging to wreckage of a drug boat, doesn't end up well. And I think that we've got confirmation that it doesn't end up well, and it doesn't look good.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Admiral, we have.

Focused, perhaps disproportionately, on the Trump administration's response to the initial story that thrust this into public view. But I want to try to train our eye back on the act, because that is what the videotape will illustrate. And I think you first brought our attention to the text of the DoD manual that spells out why this is illegal, why Republicans were some of the loudest voices calling this a potential war crime. So let me just read. Read this quote clearly. This is from the DoD manual, clearly. Illegal orders to commit law of war violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows in fact are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Now, the act, which is that after the first strike and the missile that the Post describes as.

Launching from or over Trinidad, striking the boat, engulfing it in flames, left two survivors. Doesn't seem to be in dispute.

Congressman Hunt. Right. I mean, I just want to establish what we know to be true. There's nothing that anyone said who emerged today that disputes the fact of what happened in the water, is that right?

[Nicole Wallace]

That's right. There's two survivors in the water. They don't have any weapons. They're clinging for life. They're trying to save themselves. And that's where we're at. That's what a shipwreck person is. Again, we haven't seen the video ourselves, but that's the description that we have.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

And let me just play what Republican Mike Turner said made him believe that these, that that second strike was illegal.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Obviously if that occurred, that would be very serious. And I agree that that would would be an illegal act. That is not the legal opinion or the information or the legal justification. The acts that have been described to Congress that are being undertaken.

In this there are very serious concerns, Congress, about the attacks on the so called drug boats down in the Caribbean and the Pacific and the legal justification that's been provided.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

And just indulge me. Let me show you one more Republican. This is Senator Rand Paul.

[Rand Paul]

To my mind, there's a question about.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Whether or not killing people in the.

[Rand Paul]

First place who you have no proof that they're armed. You have presented no proof that they're.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Carrying drugs and that you simply kill them.

[Rand Paul]

I think that's outrageous.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

But now not only do we kill.

[Rand Paul]

Them, our government is following up by killing them when they're wounded and stranded.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

And have no threat whatsoever, which is.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

According to our own laws, illegal.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

And I just want to establish nothing we've heard from the people who were eyewitnesses in this briefing who watched the video contradicts any of those legal concerns voiced by Republicans. Does it?

[Nicole Wallace]

No, it doesn't. I haven't heard anything and I haven't seen anything here that contradicts those very serious concerns.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

So let me bring you in on this, Ben Rhodes, because I imagine we're going to, you know, if we've sort of been in a spin cycle, you know it's going to go into hyperdrive. Now you've got folks like Tom Cotton sort of lining up as defenders.

Of whatever they saw. But you have now Democrats and Republicans coming out with very different reactions to the briefing when going in, they were very much on the same page. What do you make of what's happened and what we know of what was seen today?

[Rand Paul]

Well, I think that they know they're in trouble. I think you saw Trump a few days ago kind of pass the buck down to Pete Hegseth. You saw Pete Hegseth kind of pass the buck down to the commander who then briefed this to Congress and they can spin whatever they want. There's a very established fact of a video that shows what happened and you can't spin the existence of a video. And by the way, these types of strikes are very well documented. I'm sure there's a paper trail, I'm sure there's communications, I'm sure there's perhaps even multiple videos for this kind of thing. And the reality is to echo something the admiral said, like, look, this is the definition of why they have laws of war, so that people who are in duress, people who are wounded, people who can pose literally no threat whatsoever. I mean, there's no spin that can describe how people hanging on to a burning boat posed a threat to US Military forces whatsoever. That's physically impossible. Right. And so for them to spin this, I don't know, they can, they can talk all they want about the drugs that are on the boat, if that's the case, but that doesn't justify.

Taking this strike against people that were clearly in duress. This is why we have those laws, frankly. We have them in part because of humanitarian purposes, in part because we want our own troops, when they're in harm's way, to have the capacity to surrender without being killed while they're trying to do so. And also, they've yet to describe a legal basis for the entire operation. And I want to say one more thing about that. If we accept the premise that Donald Trump can decide to kill people hundreds of miles away from the United States, even if there are drugs on those boats, and they're not providing a lot of evidence to back that up, even if there are, because somehow those drugs might reach the United States and might pose a threat to us, imagine how much that opens up the aperture for who he could kill and take military force against, based on the presumption that somehow they might someday pose a threat because the drugs might sometime get here. Right. I think we're just, we're in very dangerous territory. And this is a time where, you know, Congress needs to reassert itself in the war powers, because right now, Donald Trump is doing something that I can't think of any precedent for.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

I just want to hit pause on what you're saying, because it feels like we're at a hinge point where 12 hours ago, Thom Tillis agreed with you and what you're saying. Let me show you what he had to say. Actually, I think this is. This is from Today Watch.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

If someone knowingly launched a second missile at that boat, which led to the deaths of the other two, then they have to be held accountable, and they shouldn't be in whatever role they're in.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

They've been putting the onus of this on the admiral here.

[Ben Rhodes]

Do you believe that it is on.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Him, or do you think it's on Secretary Hesethet?

[Senator Thom Tillis]

I'll take at face value right now what Secretary Hegseth said. He said he wasn't there. He said he was busy doing other things. I would assume a part of the record was what was the other thing that he was doing that was more important than a battle damage assessment over the first strike in the Caribbean.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

So you want to know where he.

[Ben Rhodes]

Went when he left that room?

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

I mean, all that's important.

That was.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Last night at 9:00pm over on CNN. Ben. But to your point, Thom Tillis, Republican, I think he cast the deciding vote to confirm Heg's death. JD Vance cast the tiebreak vote, but without Tillis, he's not secretary of Defense. So he has a lot of.

Duty, I think here to carry out whatever oversight role he's going to assume. And he says if someone knowingly launched a second missile at that boat which led to the deaths of the other two, those are the two survivors that Jim Himes, who saw the video says were in, quote, clear distress, then they have to be held accountable and they shouldn't be in whatever role they're in. Kaitlan Collins says they're basically blaming the admiral. Do you believe it's on him? He says, I'll take at face value what Hegseth saying, but he wants to know what he got up to go do and he wants all those records preserved. Do you believe that the Pentagon, under Pete Hegseth's direction, will provide those kinds of answers and that kind of truthful testimony?

[Rand Paul]

He's not giving us a lot of confidence that they'll do that. I mean, the fact is though, that evidence exists, that video exists. You know, Jim Himes, not given to hyperbole, saying this is one of the most troubling things he's seen in public service, tells you that that video is all you really need to see. I should say a couple other things, Nicole. First of all, none of us should be surprised that this is who Pete Hegseth ended up being as secretary of Defense. It's not like we didn't have a paper trail or evidence that he might have a temperament that was ill suited for this job. And also there's something kind of gratuitous about him passing the buck down to this commander because the reality is we know that they got rid of jags at the Defense Department. We know he had some conflict with the head of Southern Command and he's leaving his job early. We know that Pete Hegseth posted these videos as if it was like a content for Twitter or for Fox News and was boasting about them as if it was like a video game. We know he's created a culture there at the Pentagon that suggests why it might be the presumption that even if there wasn't an order to kill everybody, even if there was not a no quarter order, certainly the tone set from Trump and Hegseth both is about we're blowing these boats out of the water and bragging about the fact that there are less boats there and being very callous and kind of dehumanizing and talking about the people being killed. The tone matters. It is set from the top of the chain of command. And for him to try to shirk accountability and push this on to a commander, I think is something that should be appalling to Republicans. If Barack Obama or Joe Biden did that, do you think that they would stand for it? I mean, if you want to get the backs of our military, why let the secretary of defense say, oh, I stepped out of the room before the war crime happened? I mean, come on, like, let's stand up for the military in this.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Nancy, the chorus and the bipartisan nature of folks saying exactly what Ben Rose just said extends to Newsmax. Let me show you what their legal expert had to say.

[Nicole Wallace]

I wish the White House would reveal to us the laws on which the president is relying. He says he has an opinion from the Justice Department, but neither the Justice Department or the White House will offer it for public scrutiny. And it gives me no pleasure to say what I'm about to say because I worked with Pete Kaiseth for seven or eight years at Fox News. This is an act of a war crime.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Everybody along the line who did it.

[Nicole Wallace]

From the secretary of defense to the.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Admiral to the people who actually pulled.

[Nicole Wallace]

The trigger, should be prosecuted for a war crime for killing these two people.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

There's no hedging. It is a declarative statement from the normally friendly confines of Newsmax. Where do you see today's events.

Falling politically?

[Ben Rhodes]

Well, I think the challenge is the justification we've gotten for these strikes up until this point is that the imminent threat were drugs coming to the United States. United States. The problem now is for the Pentagon to say we had to conduct subsequent strikes when the first strike immobilized the delivery of those drugs to the United States is a very hard argument to make. And I think they're facing some political pushback from that, in part because Congress hadn't authorized any of these strikes to begin with. And there had been frustrations from the beginning about that. We've seen the Pentagon sort of toggle between saying the target was the drugs versus the people, if the target was the people. That the challenge of that argument, I think what you heard from legislators who watch the video is that when they're in the water, they are not a threat to anyone. The Wall Street Journal reported that the admiral was going to say that they were on communications trying to get nearby vessels. Until they're on that vessel, the next vessel, they are not a threat to the United States. And so in terms of the political backlash you're hearing, I think part of it is that you haven't had Congress brought into the conversation from the beginning. The legal just justification doesn't stand up when it comes to these strikes as they're arguing it. And you've had a secretary that has had a relatively hostile relationship with the Hill from the time of his confirmation and hasn't been sharing details with them or communicating with them in a way, even with Republican legislators. And so I think the totality of it has created a very tense political environment, but it's rooted in a lack of discourse about why the US Military needed to be brought in to these kinds of issues, not just the one on September 2nd, but the 20 subsequent ones afterwards.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Nancy, we also don't have any indication that Donald Trump is interested in defending the killing of the two survivors. First time he was asked about it, he said, no, if there was a second strike, I don't like that. And when he was asked about releasing the video, he said, sure.

How does that cross pressure the Pentagon?

[Ben Rhodes]

Well, it's so interesting at the Pentagon because you're really seeing some of the political tensions even manifest there in that there are some people who are such strong supporters of the secretary and of the department, because so many of those who might have raised concerns are no longer there, that you're hearing from some of them that they're standing by the secretary and are backing the strikes. And then there's another sort of group who are silent because they're afraid that to speak up. And so you can see the divisions within the building. The other thing you're hearing a lot is there's frustration that the military is sort of being put in a battle, a political battle, over Hegset's conduct from their perspective, those who defend Admiral Bradley, that he was carrying out the mission as defined. He had the backing of military lawyers, the ones that remain at the Pentagon, and therefore he was doing what the command climate at the building had demanded that he do. And so you're hearing from, or I'm hearing from commanders there who are frustrated in some instances that the commander finds himself in this position that, that this isn't just on the commanders, but on the civilian leadership for the the climate that they have created during their 10 month tenure in the department.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

It is unbelievable that this is the environment that they find themselves in. Nancy Youssef and Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner, thank you so much for starting us off today. Ben Rhodes sticks around for the hour. When we come back, a top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee will join us. We'll talk to him about all of this, about what lawmakers have seen today, they've heard about what they've seen. Plus another damning indictment of Pete Hegseth, a report, report in black and white that confirms reporting we brought you here yesterday. Pete Hegseth is in many instances, at least the ones that we have learned about that have been investigated, including by the Pentagon's own ig, a reckless leader who in the case of the signal gate scandal, put the lives of US Troops at risk. Much more from that report is ahead. And later in the broadcast, Donald Trump's Justice Department plans to re indict New York Attorney General Letitia James after the first attempt was thrown out. We'll have all those stories and more when Deadline White HOUSE continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Rand Paul]

One of my favorite pieces of advice.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Think big to accomplish big things. Have no fear of failure. It really does come down to just trusting yourself.

[Ben Rhodes]

Julia Boorstin HOSTS CNBC CHANGEMAKERS and Power Players. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Rand Paul]

We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wars to win, not to defend. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

I want to bring in Doc Havage, Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee. Senator, thank you for being here.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Good to be with you.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Were you a part of this briefing today? Did you hear from Admiral Bradley or see the video of that second strike?

[Senator Thom Tillis]

No, I was not part of the meeting. I'm a member of the armed services, but it was strictly the chairperson, the chair, as well as the ranking member. They saw it. I certainly seen the statement from Senator Reid, who's the ranking member on armed services, and a pretty strong comment that he made that it was he's now more committed than ever that we have to get to the bottom of this. He was disturbed by what he saw and he says we need to have the unedited versions of those videos have to be released. And, you know, I've known ranking member Reid for a long time. Those are pretty strong words from him. Obviously, he was pretty rattled by it, which means we have to get that information out broadly through the committee. And in fact, I'm happy to say that we're now launching another bipartisan investigation into this through Homeland Security. I serve as a ranking member on homeland Security, which of course deals with issues of border security and drugs coming into the country. We're also the top oversight committee for the Senate. And today we made a formal request with Chairman Rand Paul and I as ranking member, to get that information. So we've got committees across the U.S. senate now coming together in a bipartisan way saying the Department of Defense has to come clean, has to put this information out. These are very serious allegations, and we need to get to the bottom of it as soon as possible.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

What seems clear is that at least at this point.

There are a few things not in dispute. And one of them is that the act itself of a second strike on shipwreck survivors doesn't seem to be in dispute by the White House or the Defense Department or from anyone who was in that briefing today that walked out of that briefing. And the manual itself gives the example of not firing on shipwrecked people. As you know where that line is. Tell me what possible explanations exist and what your ranking member said he heard in the meeting that even constitutes the story they're telling about why they struck shipwrecked survivors.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Well, you're absolutely right. Everything we've heard seems very clear, doesn't seem to be disputed. I think there's some response that the individuals were communicating with other individuals of that process. But what the basis of those communications were, if they were simply making a distress call to others that simply does not warrant being killed and having a second strike. They are shipwrecked. The rules of war are very clear. The Uniform Code of Military justice is very clear. And of course, all that presupposes we're actually in a war. That's something we can't really even answer. Now, we have been asking from this administration the legal rationale for the actions that they have taken so far. What I have seen is simply insufficient. So if we're not at war, of course what they did was actually commit murder, which is an offense that needs to be held. Folks involved in that need to be held accountable for it. But certainly we've got a fairly clear picture. We just want to have it all crystal clear. But where we are going and the direction that it's going. I think it is pretty clear right now that we have really a war crime that was committed and now we want to know who knew what and when. Certainly Secretary Hexaf is saying he didn't see something and he wasn't aware of it. Whether or not he gave an order that the admiral thought that he needed to follow is something that we need to clarify.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Senator, Republican Mike Turner said this. That would, quote, be an illegal act. Thom Tillis said, quote, if somebody knowingly launched a second missile at the boat which led to the deaths of the other two, then they have to be held accountable and they shouldn't be in whatever role they're in. Thom Tillis seeming to say that the admiral and anyone above him shouldn't, quote, be in whatever role they're in. Fox News or I'm sorry, newsmax.

Legal analysts describing this as a war crime. What is your message to the men and women of the military who are today.

Being asked by folks above them in the chain of command to carry out more strikes?

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Yeah, it's, you know, we're trained. I served in the Navy Reserve and we're all trained in the military that you do not need to. In fact, you have a responsibility not to carry out unlawful orders. This appears to certainly be an unlawful order to launch a strike on defenseless folks who are the result of a shipwreck. That's fairly clear in the Navy. You know, we've seen instances in the past in history which we have thought was absolutely abhorrent. There is a recent case of a submarine, or I should say not recent, but a case of a submarine commander, that of the Germans submarine that sunk a ship and then killed civilians. That person was actually executed as a result of those actions. This is a very serious charge. And certainly folks who have committed these kinds of atrocious crimes should not be in any position of leadership whatsoever. They need to be held accountable. Certainly, I think Secretary Hexaf has to be clear that he does have responsibility for this. As the secretary of the Department of Defense, we're going to find out whether or not he gave those orders or not. But if he gave those orders or the admiral believed those were orders, it's incumbent on the secretary to, you know, basically man up and take responsibilities for these actions.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Man up. Fighting words there when it comes to Pete Hexa. Senator Peters, thank you very much for joining us today after the break. For us, a report out today confirms the story swirling around Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. For months now that he broke Pentagon policy and risk putting US Troops in harm's way. We'll bring the latest on that next.

What made you come confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure.

[Ben Rhodes]

Trailblazing women, changing the game One of.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

My favorite pieces of advice Think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just gotta think big to accomplish big things.

[Ben Rhodes]

Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players New episodes every Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

The official report is out and it is damning. And it is from the Pentagon's own watchdog about the severity of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's texting classified war plans on a messaging app. The report confirms a lot of what we've heard reported this week and directly contradicts nearly nine months of downplaying the story from Trump administration officials. The inspector general of the Pentagon report finds that Hegseth, quote, did not comply with Pentagon instruction, which prohibits using a personal device for official business. It continues, quote, if this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. Quote, Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the secretary's actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed US Mission objectives and potential harm to US Pilots. As for the repeated insistence from Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration that the information Hegseth shared over Signal wasn't classified, the inspector general finds this, quote, some information Hegseth sent from his personal cell phone on signal on March 15, 2025, matched the operational information U.S. cENTCOM sent as classified as secret, no foreign meaning, not releasable to foreign nationals, with one message that, quote, included information on the means and timing of strikes, aircraft type and weapons systems employed. I'm going to bring into our coverage Pak News senior political columnist and MSNow national affairs analyst John Heilman. Ben Rhodes is still here with us.

The dynamic of Trump surviving calamities that would have ended or severely or permanently altered the presidencies of any of the people either of us work for, Ben or anyone else, is proven by the fact that a Hegsa scandal is almost knocked off the news by a Hegses scandal. And I wonder, right, like before we get into the substance of this, I wonder if you can address that dynamic first. Heilmann.

[John Heilmann]

Well, you know Nicole, it's a cascade effect right where you have that.

The thing just keeps getting worse and worse. And of course, the initial scandal, all these scandals kind of have a piece. I mean, all the things that he has done wrong go to the fundamental issue, which is that he's fundamentally just not a serious person and not a serious, not seriously qualified either in terms of history, experience, intellect.

Temperament, anything to be the leader of the Pentagon. But you know, I will. I don't think that this IG's report, as serious as it is and as significant as it is, I don't think that it is in fact going to push the question of these potential war crimes in. I don't think it's going to push those out of the headlines and I don't think it's going to push them off the front page. I think that we have finally come to a place where something is serious enough and has risen to the level where some number of Republicans are actually finally willing to take it seriously.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Yeah, I mean, Ben, all of it speaks to the wanton disregard for the actual rank and file men and women of the military who in a national political conversation have no voice, none. And you look at the reluctance of former generals to weigh in and be part of the conversation. They have no interest. I mean, I think Jim Mattis is still silent from the first Trump term and everything he saw then, it has to rise to an extraordinary level where the men and women in the military's lives are at risk to hear anything. And we have these two cataclysmic scandals on the same day. It is extraordinary and it speaks to what is certainly even greater turmoil that we can't see under the surface.

[Rand Paul]

Oh, absolutely. These things always point to greater turmoil at the tip of the iceberg. And look, first of all, this is on every Senate Republican that voted to confirm him because we knew Pete Hegseth was. John's exactly right. He's not a serious person. Are we surprised that he's putting classified information into a signal chat to kind of boast about strike, which again, if the Chinese or Russians intercepted that, passed it on, that could have been a disaster. Are we really surprised that he calls back, you know, all the general officers, you know, that he did to give them kind of a TED Talk about fitness, you know, in Northern Virginia? Are we really surprised that he posts these kind of snuff videos of these boats being blown up? That's who he is. And that's going to continue so long as he's in the job in a normal administration. I think he'd be out over either of these scandals. But here's what's happening.

[John Heilmann]

Interesting to me, Nicole.

[Rand Paul]

The uniform military, they're going to be there after Trump. You know, he tries to create this impression, particularly at the beginning. This is the new permanent reality of Washington. You know, Trump someday is not going to be there to protect Pete Hegseth for whatever happened with those boats. The uniform military are given orders, know that someday Trump might not be the commander in chief, and they might be held accountable. If not, you know, by. By all manner of different people that could file a grievance against what took place in the Caribbean. This is. We're beginning. See the cracks because people, including Republicans in Congress, are beginning to reckon with the fact that, you know, this is not a permanent reality in Washington. Like any administration, this is temporary. Now, we may have to go through some pretty tough stuff to get to the other side, but there will be another side. And I think that's what is on everybody's mind. The reason why the White House and Peg Seth went after Mark Kelly and those Democrats so ferociously when they gave that video saying, you don't have to follow in the legal order is because they knew that that was probably going to hit the target. In terms of the audience, that tells you they know they have a real problem with the Pentagon.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Yeah, I mean, their consciousness of guilt always reveals itself. Why not retweet their video and say, we agree you should never, ever, ever follow an illegal order? I mean, instead, they absolutely lose their godforsaken minds and freak out. I want to turn to that with. With both of you and try to stitch together what is really an historic week and historic time in our politics. No one's going anywhere. We'll all be right back.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

It doesn't bother me. I don't know. You know, I want to find if.

[Rand Paul]

There'S any mistake or if a signal doesn't work.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

It could be that signal is not very good. You know, it's a company, maybe it's not very good.

[Nicole Wallace]

I think we'd rather know about it now.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

There was no harm done because the attack was unbelievably successful that night.

[Nicole Wallace]

Hexseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this.

[Rand Paul]

What was shared over signal then and now, however you characterize it was informal, unclassified coordinations for media coordination, other things.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Survey says no. So does the Pentagon's inspector general. Heilman. I've tried to focus today on the debate within the Republican Party when it comes to the Strike on the boat, on the shipwreck survivors. And here, I want to move this inside the Pentagon. And inside the Pentagon, the Pentagon's inspector general found that that statement from Pete Tegseth is a lie. There's no way to spin it. What the Pentagon inspector general found was that the information he put in the chat was classified, it was operational, and it was about plans that were in motion at the time. And Trump, I mean, the most generous thing you can say about what Trump said there is that he doesn't know what signal is. He says, because if a signal doesn't work, it could be that the signal is not very good. So again, that's the commander in chief of the United States military who has no idea. This is like day two or three of the scandal, and he still has no idea. No one has sat down and explained to him what the signal app is and what the story's even about. Your thoughts?

[John Heilmann]

Well, I mean, Nicole, you hear the same thing happening now with the, the boat strike story where you saw Trump at the Cabinet meeting basically saying, I don't really know much about this. There are one strike, two strikes, red strikes, blue strikes. I don't know. But, you know, all I know is that I trust Pete. Go talk to Pete. If there's a problem, you should talk to Pete, because I don't really want to have any part of this discussion. And I think that's essentially what he's doing there on the Signal story. Somebody may have explained to him what signal is, but his attitude is he's like sergeant Schultz. He knows nothing, he sees nothing. He doesn't really have any involvement in any of this because he doesn't want to get caught in the crossfire. I think when the inspector general comes out with a report like this report on Signal Gate, and then Pete Hegseth goes on X and says total exoneration. There was no classified information. Everything I did was fine. It's just like I've been saying all along. What it does is it's another sign of not just what we were talking about before, which is hexis inadequacy in leading Pentagon, it's his disrespect for the institutional military. And as much as Ben and you and I can make have our opinions about what Pete Heggs capacities are to lead the United States Armed Forces, the more important issue here is that many, many people who are at the senior levels of the United States Armed Forces share our opinions. They do not think that he is up to the job. They have not thought he was up to the job from day one on questions of intellect, temperament, experience, management capacity, none of it. And nothing that's happened over the course of the past year has convinced them, has brought them around to his side. And so as we head into the next phase of this, on the back of the signal gate, IG report, which he didn't turn over his phone, Nicole. He never turned over his phone to the inspector general, Pete Hegseth. So he didn't really cooperate with the investigation in any meaningful way. Another sign of fundamental disrespect when they fired the jags at the beginning. P hags are the first. The jags, the army's, the armed forces, top lawyers as jagoffs. Is there any more disrespectful way you could treat the people in the Pentagon who are meant to uphold the rule of law? All of this is going to come to the surface when people like Admiral Halsey and others are called before Congress and asked to give their reasons for why they had questions about the legality of the orders to strike those fast boats, they are going to answer honestly because they understand what kind of a danger Pete Hegseth is to the institution they care so much about.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

Ben, you get the last word.

[Rand Paul]

Yeah. Attacker. What John just said. The reality is they're going to need lawyers to go up there and, you know, he can call them jagoffs, but they're going to need some lawyer to go make that case. And it's going to be like the Jim Comey prosecution, where the only person they're going to find is going to be inept because the people that actually work in the military, I don't know what their politics are.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Right.

[Rand Paul]

Some of them skew. Right. Some of them don't. But the fact of the matter is they care about the institution in the same way the people at the FBI care about that institution. They've raised questions about Cash Patel. And so I think we've not seen the end of this story of people who know that they're an institution that they care about are being put out on a limb by Pete Hexent because of his conduct. He's getting other people put at risk of potentially committing illegal acts, of potentially endangering soldiers and airmen because of what you did on signal. That is a message that I'm sure is being discussed in the military. And John's right. It's not what we think about it. It's the fact that these institutions that they're going to have to rely on, they can't do anything without these institutions, people in them are going to have their own views.

[Senator Thom Tillis]

Yeah.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

If you're not asking us to do anything illegal, why do you freak out when members of Congress tell us not to do anything illegal? And why do you fire all the lawyers? Benrose, thank you so much for joining us on this. Highland, you stick around a little bit longer with us after the break. If you can believe it, there is another Pentagon story to tell you about today. We'll have that next.

Another thing on Pete Hegseth's plate today. The New York Times is suing the defense secretary and the Pentagon to stop the enforcement of its new press policy that has led to most mainstream media outlets being banished from the Pentagon after they refused to sign off on the policy. In their lawsuit, the New York Times argues that the policy violates the Constitution's freedom of speech and due process provisions since they give Pete Hegseth the power to ban reporters all on his own. From the lawsuit. New York Times says this, quote, reporting any information not approved by department officials could lead to punishment. Regardless of whether such news gathering occurs on or off the Pentagon grounds and regardless of whether the information at issue is classified or unclassified. We'll stay on top of that lawsuit and all the reporting that journalists are still working hard to bring us on Pete, Texas and on the Department of Defense. Still ahead for us, one of the congressmen who first sounded the alarm about the danger for the men and women of the military of following illegal orders is our next guest. The next hour deadline White House starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Nicole Wallace]

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with the MSNow newsletter. Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.

[Ben Rhodes]

The American people are basically telling the.

[Nicole Wallace (Host)]

President that they are not okay with any of this.

[Nicole Wallace]

Sign up for the Project Project 47 newsletter at Ms. Now. Project 47.