Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth risked compromising delicate army data that would have endangered US troops by means of his use of Signal to talk about assault plans, a Pentagon watchdog mentioned in an unclassified report launched Thursday. It additionally details how Hegseth declined to totally cooperate with the probe.
The investigation was launched in April after studies that Hegseth had used the business communications utility to share details about an upcoming operation concentrating on Houthi rebels in Yemen with reporter Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic unintentionally included within the message chain.
“The Secretary’s transmission of nonpublic operational information over Signal to an uncleared journalist and others 2 to 4 hours before planned strikes using his personal cell phone exposed sensitive DoD information,” the Inspector General report says. “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.”
On Wednesday, NCS first reported details of the categorised model of the IG report, which was despatched to Congress on Tuesday, together with the watchdog’s conclusion that Hegseth’s use of Signal might have endangered American troops.
In response to that reporting, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell mentioned the IG’s report proved that the protection secretary had not finished something improper.
“The 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,” Parnell wrote in an e-mail to NCS utilizing language that he later repeated on social media.
Hegseth himself shared a submit on social media Wednesday evening that additionally mentioned he had been exonerated.
But that declare diverges sharply from the IG’s findings, in accordance to the unclassified report, which repeatedly refers to how Hegseth’s actions created pointless risk to American service members and the mission itself.
“Using a personal cell phone to conduct official business and send nonpublic DoD information through Signal risks potential compromise of sensitive DoD information, which could cause harm to DoD personnel and mission objectives,” the report mentioned.
The IG didn’t assess whether or not Hegseth had shared categorised data, or correctly declassified it, citing Hegseth’s authorities as secretary to unilaterally dictate what’s protected data. The report does, nevertheless, clarify that the details of the assault plans themselves originated from a doc that was marked categorised on the time it was despatched — confirming details first reported by NCS.
“Based on our review, we concluded that some information the Secretary sent from his personal cell phone on Signal on March 15, 2025, matched the operational information USCENTCOM sent and classified as SECRET//NOFORN.”
The unclassified report additionally confirms that Hegesth declined to sit for an in-person interview with the IG as half of its investigation. While the IG doesn’t have the facility to compel an official to seem for an interview, it’s “highly unusual” for senior officers to decline, Mark Lee Greenblatt, former Inspector General for the US Interior and Chair of the Inspector General Council, mentioned.
“Such a refusal prevents the OIG from asking their own questions, probe the witness’s memory with follow-up questions, and assess the witness’s credibility,” he informed NCS. “And for someone like the Secretary of Defense, it’s highly likely that administration’s lawyers and other non-witnesses may have been involved in writing Hegseth’s statement, which runs the risk of straying from the witness’s actual recollections.”
Hegseth equally didn’t flip over his private gadget as half of this IG investigation regardless of, the truth that the report emphasizes that his use of that telephone was in violation of DoD coverage, in accordance to two sources acquainted with the probe.
That can be uncommon and breaks with authorized statutes empowering Inspectors General, Greenblatt mentioned.
“Under the IG Act, IGs are entitled access to all materials in the agency, which can include government phones of senior officials’. If the phone had relevant evidence, the OIG should have had access to it or an image/copy.”
As a outcome, the IG relied closely on Hegseth’s written responses, which mentioned the knowledge he shared by way of Signal was not categorised, citing his broad authority as protection secretary to decide what’s protected behind classification.
“I took non-specific general details which I determined, in my sole discretion, were either not classified, or that I could safely declassify” and created an “unclassified summary” of the USCENTCOM strike details to present to individuals of the Signal chat,” Hegseth mentioned in his written responses, in accordance to the unclassified IG report.
Despite acknowledging that Hegseth does have broad authorities when it comes to declassifying protection data, the report additionally suggests Hegseth’s written solutions might have additional confirmed the IG’s final conclusion that he violated DoD coverage by sending “delicate, nonpublic, operational data over Signal.
“Based on the Secretary’s written statement indicating that he sent sensitive, nonpublic, operational information over Signal from his personal cell phone 2 to 4 hours before the strikes occurred, we concluded that the Secretary’s actions did not comply with DoDI 8170.01, which prohibits using a personal device for official business and using a nonapproved commercially available messaging application to send nonpublic DoD information,” the report states citing a Pentagon coverage on gadgets.
The report additionally took concern with a portion of Hegseth’s written assertion by which he claimed “there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission” in his Singal messages – concluding that the substance of the knowledge he shared steered in any other case.
“The Secretary sent information identifying the quantity and strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes,” the report says. “Although the Secretary wrote in his July 25 statement to the DoD OIG that ‘there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission,’ if 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 US mission objectives and potential harm to US pilots,” it provides.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have provided blended reactions to the IG’s findings, however a number of have stopped brief of providing their full assist for the embattled Hegseth.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune mentioned Thursday Hegseth “serves at the pleasure of the president,” whilst he acknowledged the Signal controversy was a “mistake” that shouldn’t be repeated.
“I think that ultimately, the metric by which I would measure is: are we safer today? And I think that arguably, you look at the prior administration, I don’t think there’s any question about that,” he mentioned when requested if it was acceptable for Hegseth to proceed to lead the division.
He was pressed by NCS if the nation could be even safer if somebody apart from Hegseth, who has been battered by controversy, was in cost, however he didn’t instantly reply.
“The Signalgate issue, I think, everybody’s acknowledged was a mistake. Hopefully, they’ve learned from it and can do it better,” he mentioned. “But again, he serves at the pleasure of the president, and I think as I observe what’s happening both here at home and around the world, I think our country and our world are safer places because of this administration’s leadership.”
Read the unclassified IG report here.
Jake Tapper and Natasha Bertrand contributed to this report