Eight months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drafted detailed military plans aimed at targeting Houthi rebel sites in Yemen, significant developments have emerged regarding his communication practices. Hegseth reportedly shared these sensitive plans with his wife and several colleagues through separate chats on the messaging app Signal. On Wednesday, his chief spokesperson declared that he is "totally exonerated" following an internal investigation.
Sources familiar with the internal Pentagon investigation revealed that the Defense Department's inspector general determined this week that the information shared by Hegseth was initially classified. Investigators raised concerns about the potential risks his decision posed to military personnel, suggesting that if the details of the planned strike were to leak or be hacked from the commercial app, it could compromise the safety of U.S. troops. Hegseth has denied these allegations.
According to investigators, there was a significant risk that the Houthi rebels could anticipate the timing of U.S. airstrikes if they accessed the information shared in a platform not designed for classified communications. Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expressed concern, stating, "The way he chose to communicate this information put service members at risk."
Despite the violation of agency protocols, the report acknowledged that Hegseth, as defense secretary, possesses certain declassification powers under the law. Sources indicate that while sharing such sensitive information may be risky, the inspector general concluded that Hegseth did not break any laws. His spokesperson emphasized that the Inspector General review represents a "TOTAL exoneration" and confirms that no classified information was shared, asserting that the matter is now resolved.
However, experts in classification and secrecy have voiced differing opinions on this issue. They agree that the defense secretary generally has broad authority to declassify military operation details. The key question remains whether Hegseth should have chosen to declassify the information in the manner he did. Experts emphasize that while there is no legal requirement for a paper trail during declassification, doing so in an informal way raises concerns about judgment.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert with the Federation of American Scientists, remarked, "Declassifying information in this improvised way is not a crime. It is just poor judgment." Tom Blanton, director of George Washington University's National Security Archive, added that such operational details are typically kept classified until after a military operation concludes, especially if there is a possibility of future strikes.
Blanton noted that Hegseth likely had the authority to declassify military operational details, although exceptions exist, particularly regarding nuclear-related secrets and intelligence gathered by agencies outside the Defense Department. He emphasized that classification is often a subjective matter, with "secrecy in the eye of the beholder."
Aftergood expressed skepticism regarding Hegseth's rationale for declassifying the information, questioning the lack of a compelling reason for such action. He suggested that the claim of declassification could be viewed as an attempt to evade responsibility.
The ongoing discourse surrounding Secretary Hegseth's actions highlights the complexities involved in military communications and the balance between operational security and transparency. As the investigation concludes, it raises important questions about the protocols governing the sharing of sensitive information and the potential implications for national security.