Pentagon Pressed on Contingency Plans for Greenland and Panama

What Happened

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether the Pentagon has invasion plans for Greenland and Panama. Rather than deny any, he confirmed what’s long been standard: the Department of Defense keeps contingency plans for nearly every region in the world, friend or foe.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) framed the question to gauge how the U.S. views its international partners. But Hegseth made clear that military preparedness requires broad planning. His answer sparked criticism from Democrats and some corners of the media, who called it provocative. But others saw it for what it was: a basic confirmation that the U.S. military thinks ahead.

Both Greenland and Panama have made headlines this year for an uptick in interest in the nations, largely from President Trump for strategic reasons. Greenland, while currently governed by Denmark, is home to U.S. military installations and holds strategic value in the Arctic.

Panama, of course, controls the canal, a major global chokepoint for trade and logistics. While neither nation is hostile, both sit in places where rapid change, foreign influence, or unrest could affect U.S. interests.

Why it Matters

The blowback over Hegseth’s comments reveals less about actual policy and more about how defense conversations are being politicized. The Pentagon has always planned for a wide range of outcomes, including unlikely ones. This isn’t new. What’s new is how routine planning is being treated as scandalous.

To be clear, no one suggested the U.S. is preparing to invade Panama or Greenland. Hegseth didn’t say that, and there’s no evidence of such intent. But the hearing turned into a messaging battle, with some on the left trying to paint strategic foresight as something dangerous or irresponsible.

It’s worth remembering that military planning doesn’t equal political will. Just because a scenario exists on paper doesn’t mean anyone’s pushing for it. The alternative option of not having plans in place would be reckless. Contingency planning is the exact kind of behind-the-scenes work the military is supposed to do, especially in regions that touch on trade routes, security zones, or global power shifts.

How It Affects Readers

The Pentagon is doing its job to quietly prepare for all outcomes. This ensures the U.S. is ready if something major does change in the world. That’s not a problem, that’s competence.

The real concern is how easily national security can be pulled into political games. Hegseth was giving a standard answer, and now it’s a headline. Americans should want a military that prepares thoroughly, even if those plans are never used. The last thing America needs during a hectic time is the Pentagon worried about how cable news will spin a routine briefing.