A new investigation from the Pentagon's acting inspector general has concluded that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth potentially endangered American military personnel by using a commercial messaging app to discuss sensitive war plans. The report, released on Thursday, scrutinizes a significant security lapse now referred to as "Signalgate."
The Signal Chat That Exposed Sensitive Operations
The inquiry focused on Hegseth's decision to use the encrypted app Signal instead of secure government communication channels. The discussions involved detailed, real-time information about a planned military strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The breach became public knowledge after Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic published a story on March 24, revealing he had been inadvertently added to the Signal group chat.
This chat included 18 high-ranking officials, such as Hegseth and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. According to reports, the participants shared specific operational details, including timings, types of aircraft, and intended targets for the Yemen strike.
Pentagon Findings and Direct Risks
The internal Pentagon probe was unequivocal in its assessment. It found that using a personal cell phone for official business and transmitting nonpublic Department of Defence information via Signal created a serious vulnerability. The report states this practice "risks potential compromise of sensitive DoD information, which could cause harm to DoD personnel and mission objectives."
This formal condemnation highlights the severe consequences of bypassing established, secure military communication protocols, especially for active combat planning.
Hegseth Faces a Second Major Controversy
This security report emerges as Defence Secretary Hegseth is already embroiled in another serious allegation. A separate controversy is brewing over who authorized the order to kill survivors of a military strike on September 2. The operation targeted an alleged drug smuggling boat, and the subsequent "double tap" strike on survivors has been labelled a potential war crime by critics.
This is a developing story, and further updates are expected as both investigations proceed. The confluence of these two incidents raises profound questions about operational security and command accountability within the U.S. defence establishment.
