By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Minnesota Star Tribune republished a New York Times opinion piece calling for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s resignation following the revelation of a Signal group chat where sensitive discussions regarding Yemen airstrikes occurred. The chat included Hegseth, other high-ranking officials, and, inadvertently, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. This incident, described as a serious security breach, prompted criticism from both Democrats and military figures citing concerns about Hegseth’s qualifications and conduct. While Hegseth denies discussing “war plans,” calls for his resignation or dismissal persist, fueled by concerns about the potential compromise of national security.
Read the original article here
Pete Hegseth’s home state newspaper, the Minnesota Star Tribune, has published a call for his resignation as Secretary of Defense. This call comes in response to revelations about a Signal group chat where discussions of “war plans” took place. The article, a republished opinion piece from David French of The New York Times, argues that Secretary Hegseth’s actions have severely damaged his credibility as a military leader, rendering him unfit for his position.
The newspaper’s action is significant, particularly given Hegseth’s Minnesota roots. It suggests a level of local disapproval that transcends partisan lines, indicating a broad concern over the potential implications of the Signal chat revelations. The decision to publish the opinion piece highlights the gravity of the situation and the newspaper’s commitment to holding public figures accountable.
Many online commentators echo the call for Hegseth’s resignation, although some go further, demanding his firing and prosecution. The sentiment expressed widely is that Hegseth’s alleged actions represent a serious breach of trust and potentially violate the law. These voices suggest that he should face the same consequences as any other individual who engaged in similar behavior, dismissing the idea of resignation as insufficient.
However, other commentators express significant skepticism that any consequences will follow for Hegseth. The belief that President Trump will shield Hegseth from accountability is prevalent, fuelled by a perception of the administration’s pattern of inaction in the face of past controversies. Concerns are raised about the potential for pardons and the apparent lack of concern for the gravity of the situation within the administration.
Some are also concerned about the selective application of justice, questioning whether this incident would be treated the same way if the involved parties held differing political affiliations. This highlights the broader issue of perceived political bias and double standards in holding government officials to account.
The discussion also touches on the larger implications of the Signal group chat and the information it contained, raising concerns about the potential for misuse of power and the lack of transparency within the administration. This underscores a broader distrust in the current political climate, and a concern over the lack of effective checks and balances.
Underlying the calls for Hegseth’s resignation is a growing frustration with the current administration’s response (or lack thereof) to such events. The perception is one of an administration more interested in protecting its own than in upholding the rule of law or safeguarding national security. This contributes to a feeling that calls for resignation are largely symbolic acts, unlikely to lead to meaningful change.
Despite the relatively strong public response, the likelihood of Hegseth resigning appears extremely low. Many commentators believe that Hegseth and others involved will ride out the controversy, leveraging the perception of partisan media bias to deflect criticism. This belief is rooted in a perceived pattern of behavior within the administration, where accountability has seemingly been eschewed in favor of maintaining a united front.
Even those who don’t necessarily agree with the call for resignation concede that no meaningful action is likely to be taken against Hegseth or other implicated individuals. The prevailing opinion is that without significant external pressure, no internal mechanisms will result in accountability. The overall sentiment is one of resignation to the perceived lack of consequences within the administration, coupled with lingering concerns about the potential long-term effects of the administration’s alleged actions.