Hegseth’s Signal Messaging Prompts Defense Department Review \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Pentagon’s acting inspector general has launched a review into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the encrypted Signal app to share sensitive military strike plans against Houthi militants in Yemen. Officials are also investigating whether other top defense leaders used the app to discuss potentially classified information outside secure channels. The probe follows concerns raised by Congress after a journalist was accidentally included in a Signal group chat.
Hegseth’s Signal Messaging – Quick Looks
- Pentagon IG Launches Review: Focused on compliance with DoD communication and classification policies.
- Strike Plan Shared via Signal: Hegseth detailed timing of airstrikes on Houthis.
- App Not Approved for Classified Info: Signal is not authorized for Defense Department use.
- Journalist Accidentally Added: Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was included in chat.
- Chat Included Top Officials: VP JD Vance, DNI Tulsi Gabbard, SoS Marco Rubio among participants.
- Congress Initiates Probe: Request came from Sens. Roger Wicker and Jack Reed.
- Concerns Over Record Retention: Review will assess compliance with archival requirements.
- Military Officers Raise Alarm: Say info shared likely classified in nature.
- White House Denies Violation: Trump administration claims no classified data was disclosed.
- Hearing Questions Use of Signal: Lawmakers press military on protocol violations.
Deep Look
The Pentagon’s acting inspector general announced Thursday the launch of an internal investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal, a popular encrypted messaging app, to coordinate U.S. military airstrikes in Yemen—a move raising serious concerns over national security protocols and recordkeeping practices.
The probe was initiated after it was revealed that Hegseth used Signal to share the precise timing of an air assault against Iran-backed Houthi militants on March 15, including specific launch windows for U.S. warplanes and the expected timing of bomb drops—well before the military operation was underway.
The secure Signal chat reportedly included top national security officials, such as:
- Vice President JD Vance
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio
- Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard
- National Security Adviser Mike Waltz
- And, inadvertently, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who was mistakenly added to the conversation.
Goldberg’s accidental inclusion exposed the existence of the chat and prompted immediate concerns about whether the platform—not authorized for classified material—was being used to coordinate sensitive or secret military operations.
Inspector General Launches Formal Review
In a letter to Hegseth, acting IG Steven Stebbins confirmed the scope of the evaluation:
“The objective of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which the Secretary of Defense and other DoD personnel complied with DoD policies and procedures for the use of a commercial messaging application for official business,” Stebbins wrote.
“Additionally, we will review compliance with classification and records retention requirements.”
The review will also examine whether the Signal conversation violated federal laws governing classified communications, as well as the Federal Records Act, which requires preservation of official government correspondence.
Congressional Concerns Mount
The investigation follows a bipartisan request by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the committee’s top Democrat. Both lawmakers raised alarms that Hegseth’s conduct may have bypassed secure military communication channels and risked the integrity of a classified mission.
During recent congressional hearings, several Democratic lawmakers directly questioned military officials about the propriety of using a commercial messaging app like Signal to coordinate military operations. Their concerns center on the potential compromise of operational security (OPSEC) and the precedent it could set for informal, non-secure coordination at the highest levels of defense.
“This isn’t just about an app. It’s about preserving command discipline and protecting lives,” one committee member said during a closed-door session.
Was Classified Info Shared?
Multiple current and former military officials who reviewed the content shared on the Signal chain stated that the level of operational detail—such as launch times and targeting windows—would almost certainly be classified.
However, the Trump administration has denied any wrongdoing, insisting that no classified information was disclosed through the app. Officials close to Hegseth argued that the Signal messages were meant only as high-level planning tools and were later followed by more formal orders through official channels.
Still, the nature of the messages raises red flags about how military decisions are communicated and documented, especially given that Signal messages can be set to auto-delete, raising further questions about transparency and accountability.
National Security Meets Digital Communication
Signal, while widely regarded for its strong encryption and security features, is not approved for use in handling classified information or official government records. The Department of Defense maintains its own classified communication systems, and any deviation from those channels is typically seen as a violation of federal standards.
Use of Signal or similar apps like WhatsApp or Telegram has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly when used by government officials to circumvent official documentation and avoid public records requirements.
This latest controversy adds to a growing list of instances where top government officials are alleged to have used private messaging apps to conduct sensitive or official business—a practice that has been criticized by transparency advocates and national security experts alike.
What Happens Next
The inspector general’s review is expected to examine chat logs, device records, and interview relevant officials, including members of the National Security Council and Hegseth’s senior defense staff.
If the IG concludes that classified information was improperly handled, it could result in administrative actions or even criminal referrals under the Espionage Act or federal information security laws.
At stake is not only the accountability of Defense Secretary Hegseth, but also the credibility of operational security standards at the highest levels of government. The results of the probe could also fuel partisan debate over how the Trump administration manages intelligence and military planning.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.