Inspector General Finds Hegseth’s Signal Messages Risked U.S. Operational Security

The Pentagon inspector general concluded that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss operational details of a March strike on Houthi targets in Yemen posed a risk to U.S. personnel and mission security. The review, provided to congressional committees on December 5, found Mr. Hegseth shared precise timing and mission details on a personal device, in some cases while aircraft were en route.

The report stopped short of concluding that classified material was deliberately mishandled, according to lawmakers who reviewed the findings, but it criticized the use of unapproved communications channels and called for improved training and record keeping within the Department of Defense. A redacted public version of the report was expected to be released after committee review.

The inspector general’s findings underscore enduring tensions between secure communications protocols and the rapid information flow demanded by senior civilian leaders. Officials with access to classified planning and operational details are typically required to use approved channels that provide auditing, retention and compartmentalization. The IG concluded that reliance on a personal encrypted application bypassed those safeguards, creating potential exposure of sensitive timing and tasking information.

Legal and technical experts say encrypted applications can reduce the risk of casual interception but they do not eliminate operational exposure when accounts or devices are compromised, when metadata reveals patterns, or when messages are transmitted outside controlled systems. The IG report did not reach definitive conclusions about any exploitation, but it flagged behavior that could increase vulnerability in future operations.

Hegseth and White House officials have disputed assertions in the report that operational security was compromised. The administration has emphasized that no deliberate mishandling of classified information was found and that the department is addressing procedural gaps. The inspector general recommended targeted training for senior leaders on approved communications practices and stronger documentation of operational decision making.

Congressional overseers now face decisions about whether to pursue public hearings, additional document requests or statutory changes to tighten rules around personal devices and authorized communications platforms. Lawmakers from both parties have shown recurrent concern about information flow between civilian leaders and the military, and this report is likely to reignite debates over executive access to operational details and the mechanisms that ensure accountability while preserving agility.

For civil society and voters, the episode highlights the balance between transparency and security in wartime governance. Oversight plays a key role in determining how much detail about operations is disclosed to elected officials and the public, and how departments maintain records that support accountability. How Congress and the Pentagon respond will shape institutional norms for communications by senior officials and could influence trust among voters who weigh national security competence in evaluations of executive leadership.