Pentagon watchdog finds Hegseth endangered troops by sharing sensitive plans on personal phone

WASHINGTON According to a Pentagon inspector general report released Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth jeopardized U.S. troops by distributing sensitive details about an imminent military operation in Yemen using his personal phone. The report also highlighted concerns over the broader use of unauthorized devices and messaging applications within the Defense Department.

The watchdog determined that while Hegseth had the authority to declassify the information shared in a Signal chat, disclosing specifics about the planned strikes on Houthi forces violated internal Pentagon protocols designed to protect service members and operational missions. The report emphasized that the details Hegseth circulated including the number and timing of manned U.S. aircraft strikes approximately two to four hours before execution "posed a threat to operational security that could have compromised U.S. mission success and endangered pilots."

Had this information been intercepted by U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces could have adjusted their positions or defenses to counter the strikes, the report stated.

The incident came to light when journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was accidentally added to a Signal group by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz. While the report noted Hegseths legal ability to declassify the material, it stressed that the sharing of operational details nonetheless created significant risk to personnel.

Hegseth, a former Fox News host, is also under Congressional scrutiny for a separate incident involving a follow-up strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean, which reportedly resulted in fatalities after he issued a verbal order to "kill everybody."

Responding to the inspector general's findings, Hegseth stated on social media that no classified material was involved and declared the matter resolved. He declined to participate in interviews for the investigation, but submitted a brief written statement asserting that the information shared on Signal was an unclassified summary, devoid of locations, targets, or elements that could endanger troops.

Hegseth claimed that comprehensive operational details were transmitted through secure military channels, and that the Signal messages only reflected visible actions of U.S. forces, which could be observed in the field. Despite this explanation, lawmakers from both parties criticized his actions, arguing that sharing sensitive operational data before strikes could have put pilots at serious risk and noting that lower-ranking personnel would face severe consequences for similar lapses in operational security.

Author: Gavin Porter