What Happened
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth told a congressional hearing that the Pentagon has contingency plans that include taking Greenland and Panama “by force if necessary,” according to The Guardian. When Representative Adam Smith repeatedly asked whether invading the two countries was defence department policy, Hegseth replied: “Our job at the defense department is to have plans for any contingency.” The exchange took place during a hearing on Thursday.
What Was Said
The central exchange reported focused on Hegseth’s acknowledgement that the department maintains plans for a wide range of contingencies. The Guardian’s account quotes Hegseth directly and notes that Representative Adam Smith pressed him on whether such plans equated to policy. Hegseth’s response emphasized the planning role of the department rather than stating an operational intent to invade.
Background
The remarks come amid wider reporting and debate about US interest in strategic territories, with media coverage also noting earlier stories about Greenland. The Guardian linked the hearing to prior coverage about US consideration of Greenland’s status. The hearing and Hegseth’s comments drew public attention because they referenced planning for actions involving sovereign territories.
What This Means
Hegseth’s statement, as reported, highlights the difference between military contingency planning and declared policy. Experts and officials often distinguish routine contingency planning from political decisions to use force; however, public references to plans involving other countries can raise diplomatic concerns and prompt questions from legislators and foreign governments about intent and oversight. For Panama, whose sovereignty could be implicated by such remarks, the comment may prompt requests for clarification from Washington or reactions from Panamanian officials and stakeholders.
Observers following the exchange are likely to watch for follow-up questions in Congress, any formal clarifications from the Defence Department, and reactions from the governments named. The report underscores how comments made during oversight hearings can reverberate internationally even when framed as part of contingency preparation.