A recent investigation by the Pentagon’s internal watchdog has concluded that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth risked the compromise of highly sensitive classified information by utilizing the encrypted commercial messaging application Signal to discuss details of a planned military strike in Yemen. This determination, according to multiple news outlets reporting on Wednesday, raises significant concerns about the handling protocols for national security data among top defense officials.
The investigation, conducted by the Pentagon inspector general (IG), centered on the dissemination of operational planning material. Sources familiar with the findings indicated that the information shared by Secretary Hegseth originated from a U.S. Central Command document marked Secret/NOFORN, a designation explicitly barring its distribution to foreign nationals. The IG reportedly determined that relaying such critical operational intelligence over a commercial platform significantly increased the security risk to U.S. personnel involved in the mission.
Scrutiny Over Communications Protocol
The core incident precipitating the probe occurred on March 15. Media reports indicate that Secretary Hegseth shared granular details regarding upcoming military operations, specifically flight timings for F/A-18 Hornet sorties targeting Houthi positions, within a private Signal messaging group. This group reportedly included individuals outside the Defense Department’s chain of command, such as his wife, Jennifer Rauchet, a former television producer, as well as his brother, Phil Hegseth, and his personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, both of whom hold positions within the department.
On the same day, Hegseth reportedly posted similar details in a separate Signal chat that included The Atlantic‘s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. Goldberg later detailed the incident in a report published March 24, noting that the secretary had divulged information about strikes scheduled to commence within two hours. The use of a consumer app for such sensitive military communications immediately drew widespread scrutiny and prompted the formal inspector general inquiry.
Adding complexity to the situation, Secretary Hegseth retains unilateral classification authority, allowing him to declassify information independently. However, the IG report focused on the breach of secure communication protocols, regardless of the classification status at the time of sharing.
Recommendations and Defense Response
The formal, unclassified version of the inspector general’s report is anticipated to be released on Thursday. Sources state the document recommends mandatory enhanced training for senior Defense Department officials concerning information handling procedures. Crucially, the IG determined that Signal was an inappropriate platform for the transmission of the communications in question. A classified iteration of the report was provided to Congress on Tuesday evening.
In response to the preliminary findings, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell maintained a stance of defense for the Secretary, arguing that the review resulted in a “total exoneration” and asserting that no classified material was ultimately disclosed. Parnell added that the Pentagon considers the matter resolved and concluded.
Nevertheless, the inspector general’s findings underscore persistent national security concerns regarding the discipline of handling sensitive information at the highest tiers of the U.S. defense establishment. Even as officials argue that the formal rules of classification were not ultimately violated, the utilization of unauthorized commercial platforms for crucial mission details presents an unacceptable security vulnerability. The incident reinforces the need for strict adherence to established, secure channels, particularly when the safety of military personnel is at stake.