House committee questions DoD on domestic troop deployments, OPSEC lapses and personnel changes
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers pressed Secretary Hegseth and General Kane about the department's use of troops for domestic security in Los Angeles, alleged operational security lapses involving an unclassified chat, and recent leadership changes and separations.
Members of the House Armed Services Committee used a wide‑ranging hearing with Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Kane to press the Department of Defense on three interrelated concerns: the deployment of federal troops and National Guard forces to Los Angeles, a reported operational security lapse involving the sharing of operational details over an unclassified chat, and recent personnel moves that include relief or removal of senior officers and policy changes affecting service members.
Domestic deployments and legal questions
Multiple members asked whether the Department had coordinated the deployments with local authorities and whether commanders were following federal and judicial guidance. Hegseth repeatedly told lawmakers the military was in Los Angeles to protect federal agents and facilities. “The National Guard and Marines have the full authority to protect federal ICE agents and federal buildings,” he said.
Several members pressed whether DoD would comply with court orders and the role of federal courts. Hegseth declined to promise the department would follow an individual district court ruling that, in his words, “should not make foreign policy for the country,” prompting repeated follow‑ups from lawmakers who urged deference to the judiciary. General Kane repeatedly emphasized the apolitical norm for the military and deferred policy questions to civilian leadership.
Operational security (OPSEC)
The committee questioned Hegseth about a widely reported signal‑group chat where operational details about an April strike were circulated. Representative Moulton and others probed whether classified launch times were sent over an unclassified channel and whether the secretary would accept accountability if improper disclosures were confirmed. Hegseth maintained that the public references to the operation did not disclose specific classified details and said he did not share names, targets, locations, sources or methods in that chat. He repeatedly declined to discuss classified markings in open session.
Personnel changes and policy shifts
Lawmakers also pressed DoD on several personnel and policy matters raised in the hearing: the removal or reassignment of multiple senior officers, the department’s policy on transgender service members and separations, and allegations senior leaders were being judged on political loyalty.
Ranking Member Smith told the committee that firings at the senior level — many of which he described as lacking an explanation to the committee — have consequences for continuity and capability. Hegseth and members sparred over whether accountability included the secretary and whether the Department had a coherent plan to replace senior commanders promptly; Hegseth said the department has deputies and that positions would be filled in due course.
Why it matters: Members on both sides said clarity and accountability mattered for the force’s readiness and for public trust. Several members framed the matters as distinct but linked — arguing that deployments, information security and personnel stability all shape the department’s credibility with allies and adversaries.
What’s next: Committee members pressed for additional briefings and documentation. Lawmakers said they would follow up on OPSEC questions and requested plans for domestic deployments, troop lodging, feeding and rules of engagement; DoD officials said they would provide more detail to committee staff.
