Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lashed out at the media and “disgruntled former employees” on Monday as the media doubled down on the Signal controversy.
Hegseth stood firm in statements to reporters at the White House for the traditional Easter Egg Roll. He refuted recent reports of a second Signal app discussion in which he disclosed intelligence about Yemen attacks. He assured reporters that he and President Donald Trump are in complete agreement.
“What a big surprise that a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hoax,” Hegseth said, responding to new reporting from The New York Times.
“This is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations,” Hegseth continued. “Not going to work with me, because we’re changing the Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of war-fighters. And anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn’t matter. So I’m happy to be here at the Easter Egg Roll with my dad and my kids.”
Asked if he had spoken to the president, Hegseth said he had.
“And we are going to continue fighting. On the same page all the way,” Hegseth said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied a report from NPR that Trump is looking to replace Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.
The White House has been embroiled in a dispute about information security when The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, seemed to be inadvertently added to a group chat with multiple key Trump officials planning a strike on the Houthis on Signal.
In April, a similar scandal occurred when Hegseth, according to the New York Times, allegedly discussed specifics of a March military operation against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen in another Signal messaging conversation with his wife and brother.
On Monday, NPR reported that despite these concerns, “The White House has begun the process of looking for a new secretary of defense, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly.”
The NPR story was revised to reflect that Leavitt had called it “fake news.”
“This @NPR story is total FAKE NEWS based on one anonymous source who clearly has no idea what they are talking about,” the White House spokeswoman wrote. “As the President said this morning, he stands strongly behind @SecDef.”
The White House’s official “Rapid Response” account on X shared a post slamming the report as well, claiming, “Lies from NPR — which, as we all know, is a Fake News propaganda machine.”
This is the second time recently that Trump has clarified that he’s standing by Hegseth, as some Democrats have called for him to resign because of a leaked Signal chat that contained information about a military strike in Yemen.
Last month, the president discussed the controversy following Hegseth’s accidental transmission of details about the strike to members of the administration in a Signal chat, which also included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Goldberg published the full messages.
After several Democrats in Congress called for Hegseth to step down because of the scandal, reporters asked Trump if he thought Hegseth might want to resign.
“Hegseth is doing a great job, he had nothing to do with this. Hegseth. How do you bring Hegseth into this?” Trump replied.
Trump also acknowledged that his White House national security advisor, Mike Waltz, took responsibility for mistakenly adding Goldberg to the Signal chat.
“Mike Waltz … he claimed responsibility, I would imagine. It had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike, I guess, I don’t know, I was told it was Mike,” Trump said when asked about the investigation.
Trump again played down the controversy over whether or not Hegseth shared secret information that could have put the operation at risk by focusing on the mission’s success.
“There was no harm done because the attack was unbelievably successful that night,” Trump said.
One sentence.
That’s all it took.
“I’ll take a pickax to it if I have to.”
When Kerry Kennedy — daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and niece of John F. Kennedy — delivered those words, Washington felt the aftershock almost instantly.
What followed wasn’t just outrage or applause. It was something deeper and more combustible: a renewed national argument about power, memory, and who gets to define the Kennedy legacy in modern America.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has long been treated as sacred ground — a space meant to celebrate art, creativity, and unity beyond ideology. Named in honor of JFK, the Center has traditionally stood apart from the partisan battles that consume Washington.
That’s why recent controversy surrounding the use — and interpretation — of the Kennedy name at the institution has struck such a nerve.
Critics argue that decisions involving the Kennedy Center risk politicizing a national cultural landmark and diluting the legacy of a family whose name is inseparable from American history. Supporters counter that silence is no longer neutral — and that defending the Kennedy legacy requires confrontation, not quiet reverence.
Into that tension stepped Kerry Kennedy.
This wasn’t an offhand comment from a pundit or protester. Kerry Kennedy carries a surname that still echoes with ideals of service, sacrifice, and unfinished promise. Her work as a human rights advocate has often placed her in the center of moral and political debates — but this time, the conflict was personal.
Her statement was read by many as a line in the sand:
a declaration that the Kennedy name cannot be invoked without accountability.
Supporters praised her bluntness, calling it long overdue — a refusal to allow the family legacy to be used in ways they believe betray its values.
Opponents accused her of inflaming division, arguing that such rhetoric risks turning shared national heritage into a partisan weapon.
Either way, the reaction was immediate — and intense.
More than half a century after JFK’s assassination, the Kennedy name still carries extraordinary weight. It represents hope to some. Hypocrisy to others. And to many, it remains a mirror reflecting America’s unresolved struggles over power, justice, and identity.
What this moment has made clear is that the legacy is not settled history. It is living, disputed, and emotionally charged.
And when a Kennedy herself suggests tearing something down — even symbolically — it forces the country to ask uncomfortable questions:
Who owns history?
Who decides what a name stands for?
And when does preservation become distortion?
This isn’t just about a building or a plaque. It’s about authority — moral, cultural, and historical. It’s about whether national institutions can ever truly stand above politics, or whether they inevitably become battlegrounds for meaning.
Insiders say the debate has only begun.
Cultural leaders are weighing in.
Political figures are choosing sides.
And the Kennedy family’s internal divisions are once again playing out on a public stage.
One thing is certain: the argument Kerry Kennedy reignited isn’t going away quietly.
Love it or loathe it, the Kennedy legacy still has the rare ability to stop the country mid-sentence and force a reckoning.
And with emotions rising, language sharpening, and history itself on trial, this latest showdown may become one of the most defining cultural clashes in years.
