Dan Abrams Calls Out Pete Hegseth for ‘Attacking the Media’ Instead of ‘Expressing Regret’

Tommy ChristopherApr 22nd, 2025, 8:42 am

Mediaite founder Dan Abrams called out Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for “attacking the media” instead of “expressing regret” for his misuse of the Signal app on at least two occasions.

The political media world was stunned in March when Jeffrey Goldberg dropped a blockbuster report that revealed he was (apparently inadvertently) included in a Signal text chain in which the Principals Committee discussed plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen — strikes that shortly came to pass. The story dominated headlines for weeks, but President Donald Trump stuck by Hegseth.

This week, a second Signalgate bombshell report dropped, this time revealing Hegseth may have shared details of a sensitive attack against Yemen in a second Signal app group chat with his family last month. As reports swirl that Hegseth is on the chopping block, Trump is maintaining support for him in public.

Abrams — whose commentary can also be found at the Mediaite YouTube channel — was a guest on Monday’s edition of CNN NewsNight, during which he noted several damning points about Hegseth — namely that he’s “attacking the media” rather than denying the second breach happened, and that he hasn’t done anything to show “regret” or assure Americans it won’t happen again:

ABBY PHILLIP: So, when the defense — hold on, Congressman. When the defense secretary used it to post the details of a classified operation in Signal, that is not an approved use of Signal. Everybody understands that. Dan, you want to say something?

DAN ABRAMS: It seems to me that there’s certain things we should accept and decide sort of how bad this is, right? It sure seems like it happened, right? The idea that it didn’t happen, it doesn’t even seem to me that Pete Hegseth said is saying it didn’t happen. He’s just attacking the media for reporting.

PHILLIP: Okay. (INAUDIBLE), yes.

ABRAMS: Yes. But let’s assume that this happened, right, that the relatives were on the Signal, they shouldn’t have done it, right? I think everyone can probably agree, if you’re going to be reasonable about this, this is not the way that he should have been talking about classified information or exactly what these plans were.

Okay. Now, the question is, what should happen as a result of that? If you are someone who didn’t think Pete Hegseth said should have ever been in the Department of Defense right now, you’re yelling and you’re screaming and you’re saying, I want him out. He’s done. He should be finished. The truth is you wanted him finished before anyway. It’s not that this suddenly changed your mind. That’s why you’re calling for it.

But there’s also the hypocrisy for me of this, which is the same people who are defending Pete Hegseth are also a lot of the same people who were yelling and screaming about Hillary Clinton’s emails for years, years, and about the dangers, the possible risks. And you know what? They were right. They were right, that they were risks there. But there are also risks here.

And to pretend that in one case, well, you know, in that case there was no big deal. That’s the part that makes me nuts is the hypocrisy of not being able to say this was wrong. This is wrong. Now, let’s talk about what should be the remedy.

…

ABRAMS: Isn’t it a little bit troubling that all Hegseth is saying. And Scott’s right about sort of the White House, but Hegseth himself isn’t saying this was a mess up, but we’re going to make sure it never happens again.

And instead he’s saying, oh, the media, they’re just trying to get us again. It’s like, well, wait a second. Yes, that’s true, but it’s also true that you did something that you should be expressing some level of regret for, and you should be promising the American people it won’t happen again.

“And here’s what I’m going to assure you that it was a mistake that will never be repeated.”

And he’s not saying it.