A freshly released internal review concludes that Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense, may have jeopardised the safety of American forces and mission security by using the encrypted app Signal to relay details about a planned airstrike — prompting widespread concern among lawmakers and security analysts about the risks of using unsecured communications for sensitive military operations.
⚠️ What the Report Found
According to investigators at the Pentagon Inspector General (IG), Hegseth sent information in March on his personal device regarding an imminent strike against rebel forces in Yemen — including timing and operational details — to multiple Signal chats that included senior officials and even family members.
Although Hegseth held the authority to classify or declassify information, the IG concluded that the data was considered “properly classified” by the relevant military command before he shared it — and that using a commercial messaging platform for such communications violated security protocols.
Investigators warned that if intercepted by an adversary, the details could have compromised the mission and endangered U.S. servicemembers, given the sensitive nature of strike planning.
Clash Over Accountability and Judgment
Hegseth declined to participate in an interview for the investigation, submitting only a written response in which he argued that he was within his rights to share and declassify the information as defense secretary.
Despite those claims, the IG rejected his assurances that the messages were harmless — concluding instead that his judgment in using Signal for operational communications was “reckless.”
Meanwhile, Pentagon spokespeople defended Hegseth, calling the review a “total exoneration” and insisting no classified information was leaked.
Critics, including leading lawmakers, disagreed — with some calling the episode “a damning review” that revealed poor leadership and disregard for U.S. troops’ security.
What Comes Next — Risk, Reform, and Fallout
The declassified version of the IG report is expected to be released publicly soon. Meanwhile, calls for stricter enforcement of communication protocols and better training for officials have gained momentum, as security experts warn that the lapse could set a dangerous precedent for handling sensitive military data.
The controversy raises broader questions about the balance between personal convenience and security discipline in high-stakes defense communications — and whether leadership at the Pentagon can be trusted to handle it prudently.
