A recent Pentagon inspector general report has cast a shadow over Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, revealing serious issues related to the sharing of sensitive military information through non-secure channels. The report states that Hegseth sent details about U.S. strike operations over the encrypted app Signal using his personal phone, which goes against established military protocol. It specifically prohibits officials from conducting government business on personal devices and using commercial messaging applications for Pentagon communications.
The report’s findings hinge on messages sent by Hegseth on March 15, shortly before a coordinated strike campaign on Houthi targets in Yemen. These messages reportedly mirrored timelines from a classified operational email from Central Command. While Hegseth, as the Pentagon’s top classification authority, has the ability to declassify information, the report emphasizes that it is still forbidden to transmit this information through unsecured methods.
The inspector general noted that Hegseth’s actions posed a potential risk to operational security. In practical terms, sending such sensitive details approximately two to four hours before the execution of military strikes could have allowed adversaries to counter U.S. forces or adjust their positions to evade attacks. The concern is tangible; the report highlighted, “If this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes.”
Hegseth, however, contends that he followed protocol by asserting, “there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission.” Such statements, made in a previous communication, were ultimately challenged by the inspector general’s findings.
The situation unraveled following an unintentional invitation extended by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz to Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg into a high-level Signal chat. This resulted in concerns about security as the inclusion of a journalist in the discussion raised potential compromises to U.S. personnel and operations. The inspector general indicated that this was a serious breach, further complicating the matter.
While the Secretary is backed by the military as having acted within the bounds of discretion regarding classification, the report nonetheless points to multiple missteps. Investigators noted that Hegseth had used Signal for additional sensitive discussions about operational information, revealing a concerning pattern. Moreover, it was indicated that a special tether system had been set up to allow Hegseth to manage his personal phone from within a secure Pentagon area, although it remained undetermined whether this method adhered to security protocols.
The consequences of this report extend beyond this incident alone. They reveal the precarious balancing act military officials must perform regarding the secure management of sensitive information. It raises important questions about accountability and operational security in an era where communication methods have outpaced traditional security measures.
Overall, while Hegseth’s supporters maintain he is “totally exonerated,” the ongoing scrutiny served by the inspector general’s review underscores the risks associated with sloppy information handling that could compromise mission integrity and safety. The debate surrounding these findings will likely continue as policymakers and military leaders grapple with the implications for operational protocols in the digital age.
"*" indicates required fields
