Washington — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge Thursday in a combative congressional hearing that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force, if necessary.

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee had a few heated exchanges with Hegseth, but in one back-and-forth, Hegseth gave an answer that seemed to take some lawmakers by surprise. Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Washington asked the secretary whether the Defense Department has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.

"Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency," Hegseth said multiple times. 

Smith followed up, "Including the contingency of basically invading Denmark?" 

"Any contingency you need, we've got it," Hegseth answered. "We got a building full of planners, and we're prepared to give recommendations whenever needed."

Smith asked again,"You have plans to take Panama and Greenland by force, if necessary?" 

"I think the American people would want the Pentagon to have plans for any particular contingency —"

"Not for that," Smith said, interrupting him as Hegseth finished his answer, saying, "— and thankfully, we are in the planning business."

"Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland," Smith said.

It isn't unusual for the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for conflicts that have not arisen, but his handling of the questions prompted a Republican lawmaker to step in a few minutes later.

"Lawyer here, I just want to help because help you out because people try to, you know, twist your words," Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio said to Hegseth. "You are not confirming in your testimony today that at the Pentagon, there are plans for invading or taking by force Greenland, correct? That is not your testimony today?" 

"All my testimony is, is that the Pentagon has plans for any number of contingencies," Hegseth said. 

"It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?" Turner continued. "Because I sure as hell hope that it is not your testimony." 

"We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats," Hegseth responded.

Given the opportunity, President Trump has declined to rule out military intervention in Greenland.

"We'll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%," Mr. Trump told NBC News in March.

"There's a good possibility it could be done without military force," Mr. Trump said, but adding, "I don't take anything off the table." 

Mr. Trump has said multiple times that he wants to take control of the strategic, mineral-rich island nation of Greenland, long a U.S. ally. Those remarks have been met with flat rejections from Greenland's leaders.

"Greenland is not for sale," Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland's representative to the U.S, said Thursday at a forum in Washington sponsored by the Arctic Institute.

Time and again on Thursday, lawmakers pressed Hegseth to answer questions he has avoided for months, including during the two previous days of hearings on Capitol Hill. And frustration boiled over for some Democrats.

"You're an embarrassment to this country. You're unfit to lead," Rep. Salud Carbajal snapped, the California Democrat's voice rising. "You should just get the hell out."

Hegseth's use of Signal chats

Hegseth's use of two Signal chats to discuss plans for U.S. strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen with other U.S. leaders as well as members of his family prompted dizzying exchanges with lawmakers.

He was pressed multiple times over whether or not he shared classified information and if he should face accountability if he did.

He argued that the classification markings of any information about those military operations could not be discussed with lawmakers.

That became a quick trap, as Hegseth has asserted that nothing he posted — on strike times and munitions dropped in March — was classified. His questioner, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and Marine veteran, jumped on the disparity.

"You can very well disclose whether or not it was classified," Moulton said.

"What's not classified is that it was an incredible, successful mission," Hegseth responded.

A Pentagon watchdog report on Hegseth's Signal use is expected soon.

Moulton asked Hegseth whether he would hold himself accountable if the inspector general finds that he placed classified information on Signal, a commercially available app.

Hegseth would not directly say, only noting that he serves "at the pleasure of the president."