Pentagon Inquiry Finds Hegseth Used Personal Signal App to Share Sensitive Military Plans

BY COMFORT OGBONNA

A Pentagon investigation has concluded that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the encrypted messaging app Signal on his personal phone to transmit sensitive details about planned military strikes in Yemen, a practice that reviewers said could have jeopardized U.S. personnel if intercepted.

According to two individuals familiar with the still-unreleased document, the Inspector General’s inquiry found that the disclosures—sent during internal discussions before a covert operation—posed potential operational risks, even though the full implications remain disputed.

Despite raising concerns about the method of communication, the Pentagon’s independent Inspector General stopped short of ruling on whether Hegseth had shared formally classified information. The report acknowledged that as defense secretary, Hegseth possesses broad authority to determine what materials should be considered classified and what can be disclosed at his discretion. U.S. officials expect the full document to be released publicly later this week.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Pentagon emphasized that the review ultimately cleared the secretary of wrongdoing. Shortly afterward, Hegseth echoed that message on social media, declaring that the inquiry had vindicated him and insisting that no classified information had been transmitted. “No classified information. Total exoneration. Case closed,” he wrote on X, seeking to put the matter to rest.

The issue has resurfaced at a politically charged moment for Hegseth, a former television host whose leadership has come under intense scrutiny due to a series of lethal U.S. strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean.

Those operations, which have generated debates about legal authority and proportionality, have already placed his decision-making under a microscope. The Signal investigation has now amplified those concerns, drawing sharp criticism from prominent Democrats who question whether he possesses the judgment required of the nation’s top defense official.

Representative Adam Smith of Washington state, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, issued one of the strongest rebukes. He described the report as a stark indictment of Hegseth’s leadership and argued that his handling of sensitive military information reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibilities entrusted to him. Smith said the findings illustrated “a profoundly incapable” defense secretary who failed to respect the seriousness involved in safeguarding U.S. service members during active operations.

The episode traces back to a group Signal conversation on March 15, during which Hegseth shared information about imminent U.S. strikes targeting Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi fighters. The chat included several of President Donald Trump’s top national security officials—along with one unexpected participant: Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Goldberg later documented the exchange in an article, and when Trump administration figures accused him of overstating its significance, he responded by publishing screenshots of the conversation. In those images, Hegseth appeared to discuss specific plans, including an intention to eliminate a Houthi militant leader, roughly two hours before the covert mission began.

According to sources familiar with the Inspector General’s findings, the information Hegseth received from military channels had been classified at the time it was relayed. Investigators concluded that transmitting these details over a personal app—even one using end-to-end encryption—introduced clear risks, particularly if adversaries had somehow gained access to the conversation. The report suggested that interception could have endangered U.S. forces on the ground and potentially compromised the mission itself.

Hegseth has repeatedly denied that he shared war plans or any classified information. Sources said he declined to sit for an interview with the Inspector General’s office, instead submitting a written statement asserting that he had the legal authority to declassify information as he saw fit. In the statement, he argued that he communicated only details he believed posed no operational danger. He also accused the investigation of being influenced by political opponents—even though lawmakers from both parties had called for the review.

Many Democrats and former national security officials have expressed confusion over Hegseth’s justifications, noting that timing, targeting, and other pre-strike operational details are typically among the most sensitive categories of military intelligence. If Houthi leadership had learned a strike was imminent, they could have dispersed or taken shelter in densely populated areas where U.S. forces would face greater difficulty conducting precision operations without risking significant civilian casualties.

Even so, the screenshots published publicly did not appear to include the names or precise coordinates of the intended targets. Nor did they reveal information that would directly expose the U.S. personnel involved in carrying out the operation. The ambiguity has fueled debate over whether the messages represented a serious breach of protocol or merely reflected unpolished communication habits inconsistent with standard military procedures.

Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the report also identified several additional instances in which Signal was used for official business. According to Warner, this pattern undercuts any argument that the Yemen-related messages were a one-time oversight. He said the findings highlight “a broader pattern of recklessness and poor judgment” from a defense secretary who appears overwhelmed by the demands of the job.

One complicating factor in the investigation was the limited access to Hegseth’s full message history. Investigators reportedly received only a small selection of his Signal communications, forcing them to rely heavily on the screenshots published by The Atlantic. Sources familiar with the report noted that the absence of a more complete record hindered the Inspector General’s ability to make broader determinations about potential security breaches.

As the Pentagon prepares to release the report publicly, the controversy surrounding Hegseth’s communication practices is likely to deepen existing political rifts over his tenure. While his supporters argue that he exercised his lawful authority and did not endanger U.S. operations, critics contend that the episode reveals a troubling disregard for established security norms—and raises broader questions about the standards expected from the nation’s highest-ranking defense official.