The inspector general report, issued Dec. 2 and publicly released two days later, also faulted Hegseth for using a personal cell phone to relay sensitive DoD information and for not retaining Signal conversations as official records, as required by federal law and Pentagon policy.
The chat between top administration national security officials on Signal, a private encrypted messaging app, came to light because Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to the group chat by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who was later removed from his job. In one of the messages, Hegseth appeared to provide a timeline for impending U.S. military strikes in Yemen on March 15.
.png)
According to The Atlantic, two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing in Yemen, Hegseth shared this in the group chat:
- “TIME NOW (1144ET): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w Centcom we are a GO for mission launch.“
- “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
- “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
- “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
- “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
- “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
Although Hegseth declined to sit for an interview with the inspector general, he provided a written statement on July 25 in which he insisted he provided only an “unclassified summary” of the operation in the Signal chat.
“I am the Original Classification Authority and, in this capacity, I retain the sole discretion to decide whether something should be classified or whether classified materials no longer require protection and can be declassified,” Hegseth wrote to the inspector general. A copy of his statement was attached to the report. “I took non-specific general details which I determined, in my sole discretion, were either not classified, or that I could safely declassify. In making this determination, I chose to limit the details to the overt actions of DOD assets, which would be readily apparent to any observer in the area. I did not include any details about targets or intelligence that may have been derived from other agencies outside DoD. The purpose of this was to give the principals in the chat thread a heads up on the timeline, as I knew they were going to shortly be notifying partner nations and within hours would also be giving media interviews about what we had done.”
The inspector general report noted that while the information was classified when it was provided to Hegseth, it agreed that as head of the Department of Defense, Hegseth has the “authority to determine the required level of classification for any DoD information he communicates, such as through a document, message, or speech.”
In response to that conclusion, Hegseth’s spokesman, Sean Parnell, released a statement, saying: “This Inspector General review is a TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth and proves what we knew all along – no classified information was shared. This matter is resolved, and the case is closed.”
Hegseth reposted Parnell’s statement on X and echoed his sentiments: “No classified information. Total exoneration. Case closed. Houthis bombed into submission. Thank you for your attention to this IG report.”
In a separate statement, NPR reported, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “This review affirms what the Administration has said from the beginning — no classified information was leaked, and operational security was not compromised.”
The report did conclude that Hegseth had the authority to declassify any information sent via Signal, but the inspector general’s report was not a “total exoneration,” as Hegseth put it.
In his written response to investigators, Hegseth said that “there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission.” However, the IG concluded, “[I]f this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary’s actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots.”
.png)
While Hegseth had the authority to declassify the information, the report noted that based on Hegseth’s written statement, he did send “sensitive, nonpublic, operational information over Signal from his personal cell phone.” The inspector general said that the action violated Department of Defense policy, “which prohibits using a personal device for official business and using a non-approved commercially available messaging application to send nonpublic DoD information.”
The inspector general also concluded that Hegseth violated federal recordkeeping laws and Defense Department policy regarding the retention of public records. “Specifically, those regulations require officers and employees of Executive Branch agencies and DoD employees to forward a complete copy of any record created on a nonofficial electronic messaging account to an official account within 20 days of the original creation or transmission of the record,” the report said.
======
-- By James W. Thomas
© Copyright 2025 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment