Secretary Hegseth is slamming reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post, who received the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the “Russia hoax.”

His pointed comments come as the Pulitzer Board has faced a string of legal setbacks in its attempt to delay President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against it for giving the prestigious journalism prize to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting on now-discredited allegations his 2016 campaign colluded with Russian.

An appeals court in Florida recently rejected the board’s request to move the case to another venue, likely in New York, that would presumably be more favorable to it. More recently, the board’s request to delay the trial was rejected.  

During the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday, Mr. Hegseth was confronted by reporters about a report from the New York Times that the defense secretary shared “detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen” in a Signal group chat that included his wife and brother.

The story cited “four people with knowledge of the chat” and said that the group chat was a separate group from the one the Atlantic reported one last month. The group chat reported by the Times is said to have been created before he was confirmed as the defense secretary. 

When asked about the controversy that erupted following the report of the second group chat, Mr. Hegseth said, “You know, 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, won’t give back their Pulitzers.”

“They’ve got Pulitzers for a bunch of lies, Pulitzers for a bunch of lies, and hoaxes time and time and again, and as they peddle those lies, no one ever calls them on it,” he added. “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. Not going to work with me.”

His comment about the Pulitzer Prizes comes as Mr. Trump is suing the Pulitzer Board for defamation for its decision to award the 2018 national reporting prize to the Times and the Post for their coverage of Russian interference during the 2016 election.

After Mr. Trump’s victory over the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, the two liberal papers published a steady stream of articles focused on allegations that Russian operatives colluded with the Trump campaign to help his chances of winning.

The coverage played a role in the ensuing special counsel investigation – which enraged Mr. Trump – headed up by Robert Mueller. Ultimately, Mr. Mueller and his team concluded in 2019 that the probe “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities.”

The report did confirm that Russia engaged in “sweeping and systematic” interference in the election and said that the Trump campaign believed it would “benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

In awarding the prizes, The Pulitzer Board said that the articles, which frequently cited anonymous sources, were “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for the Pulitzer Board to rescind the prizes. However, the board stood by its decision. In statement released in 2022, the board said that there were two independent reviews of the reporting, and at their conclusion it was determined that there were no “passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.”

The Pulitzer Board, which is overseen by Columbia University, made a serious error in making the 2022 statement, because it restarted the clock on the statute of limitations, which would otherwise have expired.

In March, a circuit court judge, Robert Pegg, rejected the board’s request to delay the lawsuit until after Mr. Trump’s time in office is complete. 

The Pulitzer Board insisted that the case would distract the 47th president from his duties. However, Judge Pegg said, “Should the duties of the President interfere with his ability to perform his obligations in this action, he is certainly entitled to seek the appropriate relief.” He also said that if the president does not comply with the court’s orders, the board can seek “appropriate sanction,” including fines. 

In a statement after that ruling, a spokesman for the Pulitzer Board criticized Mr. Trump for trying to continue his defamation case while seeking to delay civil cases against him. 

“Allowing any president to pursue civil claims against private citizens in state court while simultaneously claiming that private citizens cannot pursue civil claims against him in the same exact court is extremely troubling and should raise concerns for all Americans,” the spokesman said. 

The statement said the board is considering its next steps. 

While the Pulitzer Board has steadfastly defended its decision to award the prizes to the Times and the Post, the string of legal setbacks along with the pressure from the Trump administration on Columbia University to crackdown on antisemitism might lead it to reconsider its path.

Several large companies have taken steps in recent months to try to fend off potential adverse actions from the Trump administration. In December, ABC News agreed to pay Mr. Trump’s $16 million and issue an apology after star anchor George Stephanopoulos falsely and repeatedly claimed on-air that the president had been found liable for rape. 

Meanwhile, CBS News is facing a $20 billion lawsuit from Mr. Trump for editing Vice President Harris’ October 2024 interview to remove what critics call a “word salad.” Executives at the network’s parent company, Paramount Global, are in settlement talks with the 47th president.

The attempt to resolve the lawsuit comes as the FCC is reviewing Paramount and Skydance’s planned merger. The matriarch of the family that controls Paramount, Shari Redstone, reportedly believes settling Mr. Trump’s lawsuit is the best way to ensure the Paramount-Skydance merger is approved.  

Columbia University might follow the strategy of giving concessions to Mr. Trump to try to prevent the federal government from pursuing a consent decree against it.

In March, Columbia agreed to a series of demands from the Trump administration, such as changes to its protest policies and security measures, after the federal government canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts because of the “school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.”

However, in April, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration is considering pursuing a consent decree which would give a federal judge the responsibility of ensuring the university changes its policies. Such an arrangement could lead to fines if the judge determines that the school is not in compliance. 

The acting president of Columbia, Claire Shipman, said the university would “reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms.”

The decisions of other companies to settle lawsuits in hopes of avoiding government scrutiny raise the question of whether the Pulitzer Board and Columbia may try to settle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit in a bid to convince the administration to drop its efforts to seek a consent decree. 

Columbia’s journalism school is also facing questions from Senator Cruz about its firing of Sewell Chan, the editor of Columbia Journalism Review. Mr. Chan says he was terminated after only eight months after he demanded that a pro-Palestinian writer be more objective in covering the anti-Israel student demonstrations at Columbia. The Breaker media newsletter, however, says Mr. Chan was fired for yelling at people and being a terrible boss (accusations Mr. Chan denies).

The Pulitzer Board did not respond to the Sun’s request for comment about whether it would adopt such a strategy by the time of publication.