Experts on Secrecy Evaluate Hegseth's Signal Controversy: Is it Really a 'TOTAL Exoneration'?

Eight months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drafted detailed military plans targeting Houthi rebel positions in Yemen and shared them with his spouse and several colleagues via separate Signal chats, his chief spokesperson declared Wednesday that he is completely cleared of wrongdoing.

According to sources familiar with an internal Pentagon review, the Defense Department's inspector general (IG) concluded this week that the material was initially classified. The report also noted that Hegseths choice to share information about an upcoming strike through a commercial messaging app posed potential risks to military personnela claim he disputes.

Investigators expressed concern that if the plans had been leaked or intercepted from an app not designed to handle classified material, the Houthis could have anticipated U.S. air operations and mounted counterattacks.

Rep. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, stated, "The method he used to communicate this sensitive information endangered service members."

Sources indicate the IG report also recognized that, despite the potential risks, the defense secretary possesses certain legal declassification powers. Ultimately, the IG determined that while Hegseth did not follow internal protocols, he did not break the law.

"The Inspector General review is a TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth and confirms that no classified information was improperly shared. The matter is now resolved," said Parnell in a statement.

Security and classification experts, however, argue the situation is more nuanced. While the defense secretary generally has broad authority to declassify military information, the key issue is whether it was prudent to do so at that moment.

Experts noted that a formal record of declassification is typical, though not legally required. "Declassifying information in this ad hoc manner isnt illegalits just poor judgment," said Steven Aftergood, a long-time security analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.

Tom Blanton, who has spent decades examining declassified government records, explained that operational details typically become public only after a mission concludes, especially if similar strikes might be conducted in the future. "Revealing such information beforehand could compromise national security," he said.

Blanton and Aftergood agreed that Hegseth likely had the legal authority to declassify military operational details. Exceptions include nuclear secrets, managed by the Energy Department, and intelligence from agencies like the CIA, which would require consultation with the director of national intelligence.

"Classification is ultimately subjective," Blanton added. "Secrecy is in the eye of the beholder."

Aftergood cautioned that while Hegseths actions may not have broken the law, they remain questionable. "There was no compelling reason to declassify this information in Signal. Claiming otherwise appears to be an attempt to avoid accountability," he said.

Author: Ethan Caldwell