How Dangerous Is It For Secretary Hegseth To Use The Signal App In The Pentagon?

In a startling revelation that has sent shockwaves through Washington, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been caught using the encrypted messaging app Signal to share sensitive military operational details not once, but twice – with the second instance including his wife, brother, and personal lawyer in a private chat group.³,¹¹,¹²,¹³

This revelation follows the already embarrassing disclosure from last month that Hegseth and other top Trump administration officials had inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to another Signal chat where they discussed the same military operations.

While the administration continues to insist that nothing classified was shared, the growing scandal raises serious questions about judgment, security protocols, and the protection of sensitive information that could put American service members at risk. As progressive citizens concerned with good governance and national security, we need to examine what happened, why it matters, and what it tells us about the current administration.

What Actually Happened?

The newly reported Signal chat, named “Defense| Team Huddle,” was reportedly created by Hegseth himself during his confirmation process in January 2025. The group included around a dozen people from Hegseth’s personal and professional circles. According to sources familiar with the matter, Hegseth used this chat to share detailed flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting Houthis in Yemen – essentially the same attack plans that were accidentally shared with The Atlantic’s editor in the first Signal fiasco.³,¹¹,¹²,¹³

In that initial incident, Hegseth provided specific timing information in the Signal chat, including when aircraft and drones would launch, when bombs would drop, and details about target movements.¹ When confronted about this communication, Hegseth repeatedly insisted that “nobody was texting war plans” and that the messages contained “no names, no targets, no locations, no units, no routes, no sources, no methods, and no classified information.”¹,²

Yet multiple sources with knowledge of military protocols have indicated that this information was highly classified at the time Hegseth wrote it, especially because the operation had not yet begun. One defense official noted that these updates were the kind of “real-time play-by-play that a commander would be giving to the president in a highly classified setting as the operation unfolded.”⁹

Why This Matters: Security Implications

The use of Signal – a commercially available encrypted messaging app – to discuss sensitive military operations raises profound national security concerns for several reasons:

1. Unsecured Communications: Even if the Pentagon hasn’t explicitly stated the classification level of the information shared, details about upcoming military strikes are typically tightly guarded to prevent adversaries from having advance warning that could jeopardize missions or put service members at risk. The Pentagon closely guards even publicly available information that’s considered sensitive.¹⁴,²¹
2. Improper Channels: Discussions about military operations normally occur in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), a highly secure area designed specifically for classified communications.²² Even “controlled unclassified information,” while not secret, is considered sensitive enough that military personnel are prohibited from discussing it on unsecured devices like personal phones.¹⁴,²¹
3. Vulnerable to Compromise: Just days before The Atlantic revealed the first Signal chat incident, the National Security Agency issued a bulletin warning some government employees about “a vulnerability” in Signal, noting that Russian hacking groups were using “phishing” attacks to try to penetrate the app’s “linked devices” feature.⁷
4. Improper Recipients: The inclusion of Hegseth’s wife, who holds no official role at the Department of Defense, is particularly concerning. While his brother and attorney do work at the Pentagon, it’s unclear why either would require advance knowledge of strike plans.¹⁸

Proper Handling of Sensitive Information

To understand how drastically Hegseth’s actions deviated from proper protocols, it’s important to know how sensitive military information is supposed to be handled:

Senior officials with security clearances receive extensive training on handling classified material. The Department of Defense maintains secured rooms (SCIFs) where classified information is stored and accessed under strict intelligence community standards. These facilities include physical security measures, controls to prevent documents from being improperly removed, monitoring of usage, and electronic device detection systems.²⁴,²⁵

Military communications systems employ advanced cryptographic protocols specifically designed to safeguard classified and sensitive communications from cyber threats and espionage efforts. The systems ensure that all messages are timestamped, encrypted, and stored securely, with access limited to authorized personnel only.²⁶

Officials like Hegseth typically have dedicated, secure spaces in their homes to review, discuss, or share classified information when not at their offices. When traveling, defense secretaries normally have communications personnel who can set up mobile secure facilities, including specialized tents to protect classified information from detection.¹⁰,²⁴

Hegseth’s decision to bypass these established channels in favor of a commercial messaging app shows either an alarming ignorance of basic security protocols or a willful disregard for them – neither of which is acceptable for the person charged with leading our nation’s military.

Why Signal Instead of Secure Channels?

The administration’s use of Signal for sensitive communications rather than established secure government channels raises serious questions about both motives and processes. Several possible explanations emerge, none of which reflect well on the current leadership at the Pentagon:

The Convenience Factor

One explanation is simple convenience. Signal is user-friendly, works on personal devices, and doesn’t require officials to be in specific secure locations. In our always-connected world, the temptation to take shortcuts is powerful.

Several days before The Atlantic revealed the first Signal chat incident, the National Security Agency issued a warning about vulnerabilities in the Signal app, noting that Russian hacking groups were using phishing attacks to try to penetrate the app’s⁷ “linked devices” feature. Yet despite these warnings, top officials continued using the app — suggesting either a troubling ignorance of security advisories or a cavalier attitude toward them.

Avoiding Official Records

A more concerning possibility involves deliberate avoidance of record-keeping requirements. The Federal Records Act and Presidential Records Act require preservation of official communications for historical records, transparency, and accountability.

Hegseth and other members of the Trump administration are required by law to archive their official conversations, and it remains unclear if copies of the Signal discussions were forwarded to official emails so they could be permanently captured for federal records keeping.⁴ Signal’s optional auto-delete feature makes it particularly useful for those wishing to avoid leaving a paper trail.

Creating Parallel Communication Systems

Perhaps most troubling is the possibility that this represents an intentional effort to create parallel communication systems outside established government channels. By creating private chat groups that include family members and personal attorneys alongside government officials, Secretary Hegseth effectively established a shadow communication system beyond normal oversight mechanisms.

Military and intelligence professionals typically have dedicated secure spaces, known as SCIFs, in their homes to review, discuss, or share classified information when not at their offices. These alternatives exist specifically so that sensitive communications don’t need to occur on commercial platforms.¹⁰,²²

An Administration-Wide Pattern

This isn’t occurring in isolation. Many current administration officials, including Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, were fierce critics of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which they characterized as a serious security breach.¹⁵,¹⁶ The stark contrast between their past rhetoric and current practices suggests either stunning hypocrisy or a fundamental misunderstanding of the security standards they once championed.

The Signal scandal parallels other instances where the administration has shown disregard for established norms and protocols. This pattern betrays a troubling mindset where rules are seen as obstacles to be circumvented rather than protections to be respected.

Implications for Governance

Regardless of motive—whether simple convenience, deliberate evasion of oversight, or something else—the effect is the same: a breakdown of proper governance and security protocols. Democratic accountability depends on transparency and adherence to established procedures, especially when it comes to national security.

When senior officials create back-channel communications that include family members and personal associates, they blur the lines between public service and private interests in ways that undermine the foundations of responsible government. The American people deserve better from those entrusted with our nation’s most sensitive information.

Military and Intelligence Community Reactions: A Pentagon in Crisis

The fallout from Hegseth’s Signal chat scandals has reverberated deeply through military and intelligence circles, creating what insiders describe as an unprecedented crisis of confidence in Pentagon leadership. The reactions from these communities provide a telling window into the state of morale within America’s defense apparatus.

A Revolt from Within

Perhaps most damaging to Hegseth’s standing is the extraordinary public criticism coming from those who once supported him. John Ullyot, Hegseth’s former press secretary who resigned this month, delivered a scathing assessment in Politico, describing “a month of total chaos at the Pentagon” marked by “leaks of sensitive operational plans” and “mass firings.”¹²,¹³ When a secretary’s own former press secretary declares that his leadership has created “a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon,” it signals a profound crisis of confidence.

This internal dissent extends beyond just one aide. The recent dismissals of senior Pentagon officials Dan Caldwell, Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll—all part of Hegseth’s inner circle—suggest deep dysfunction within the department’s leadership structure.³,¹¹ When a defense secretary begins purging his own loyalists in an internal leak investigation, it points to a department consuming itself from within.

Military Professionals Sound the Alarm

Career military officers and veterans have expressed particular concern about the handling of operational details. Former military officers with experience in classified operations have been unsparing in their assessment. As one former U.S. official told the Washington Post, “If someone used this example as a teaching moment in an introductory opsec class for people new to the military or government, it would receive laughs as an unbelievable and inconceivable example.”¹⁰

Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War combat veteran who lost both legs in service, represents the perspective of many in the military community with her call for Hegseth to “resign in disgrace.”³ Her voice carries the moral authority of someone who has personally experienced the life-and-death consequences of operational security.

Military experts interviewed by Al Jazeera noted that while the texts might not constitute a complete formal war plan, they contained “alarmingly specific details” that should never have been shared on an unsecured platform.¹ Thane Clare, a retired Navy captain with 25 years of service, described the Yemen chat as “100 percent sensitive operational information that reveals critical details of imminent operations.”¹

Intelligence Community Concerns

For intelligence professionals, the implications of this scandal extend far beyond a single operation. Robert L. Deitz, a former National Security Agency general counsel, pointed out that while Signal provides “pretty good protection,” it falls well short of the standards expected for sensitive military communications.¹

The informal handling of operational details has created what one Pentagon official described as a crisis of trust that extends to America’s intelligence partners. Nations that share sensitive intelligence with the United States do so with the expectation that it will be handled according to strict protocols. Hegseth’s casual approach to information security threatens to undermine these critical relationships at a time of global instability.

Collapsing Morale and Professional Standards

The impact on Pentagon morale has been devastating. Career civil servants and military officers operate within a culture that emphasizes professionalism, chain of command, and adherence to established protocols. When leadership openly flouts these norms, it creates a corrosive effect on institutional integrity.

One U.S. official at the Pentagon questioned “how Hegseth could keep his job after the latest news.”³ This sentiment reflects a broader crisis of confidence within the ranks. When rank-and-file personnel witness senior leadership sharing sensitive information with family members while simultaneously investigating and firing staff for alleged leaks, it creates an atmosphere of hypocrisy and arbitrary enforcement that undermines the foundation of military discipline.

The scandal has also created dangerous divisions between political appointees and career officials. By establishing private channels that include family members and personal associates while excluding professional staff, Hegseth has effectively created a shadow leadership structure that circumvents the expertise and experience of career professionals. This approach not only damages morale but also degrades the quality of decision-making by sidelining those with relevant expertise.

For a military that depends on clear chains of command, established protocols, and mutual trust, this leadership crisis represents a profound threat to institutional effectiveness at a time of increasing global challenges.

History Repeating: Parallels to Clinton’s Email Server

The irony of this situation is impossible to ignore. Many current Trump administration officials, including Hegseth himself, harshly criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, often portraying it as a grave security breach that warranted criminal prosecution.¹⁵,¹⁶

In a 2016 Fox News appearance, Hegseth said of Clinton’s email usage: “Any security professional, military, government, or otherwise, would be fired on the spot for this type of conduct and criminally prosecuted for being so reckless with this kind of information.”¹⁶ In another appearance in September 2017, he called Clinton’s actions “reckless” and described her as “such a corrupt politician.”¹⁶

Similarly, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who initiated the first Signal chat that accidentally included The Atlantic’s editor, tweeted in June 2023: “How is it Hillary Clinton can delete 33,000 government emails on a private server yet President Trump gets indicted for having documents he could declassify?”¹⁶

Yet despite these past statements, the Trump administration has categorized the initial Signal chat saga as closed, with no top cabinet officials expected to be fired.¹⁶ The stark contrast in responses raises serious questions about consistency and accountability in our government.

Fallout and Accountability

The revelation of this second Signal chat comes at a particularly tense moment for Hegseth, who is already under scrutiny for his handling of sensitive information. The Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Steven Stebbins, has launched a review of Hegseth’s use of Signal to determine whether the Secretary of Defense and other DoD personnel complied with department policies for using commercial messaging applications for official business, and whether they followed classification and records retention requirements.³,⁴

Last week, several officials were ousted from the Pentagon as part of an internal leak investigation, including Dan Caldwell, one of Hegseth’s leading advisers, along with Darin Selnick (Hegseth’s deputy chief of staff) and Colin Carroll (chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg).³,¹¹

John Ullyot, Hegseth’s former press secretary who resigned from his role this month, described the past month at the Pentagon as “total chaos” in a Politico piece published Sunday. “From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president—who deserves better from his senior leadership,” Ullyot wrote. “Even strong backers of the secretary like me must admit: The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon—and it’s becoming a real problem for the administration.”¹²,¹³

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for Hegseth to be fired, stating, “We keep learning how Pete Hegseth put lives at risk. But Trump is still too weak to fire him. Pete Hegseth must be fired.” Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran who suffered grave injuries in combat in 2004, said that Hegseth “must resign in disgrace.”³

Global Impact: Trust and Intelligence Sharing

Beyond the immediate political fallout, this scandal threatens America’s relationships with international allies, particularly regarding intelligence sharing. When the Secretary of Defense demonstrates such cavalier handling of sensitive operational details, it sends alarming signals to partners who entrust us with their own classified information.

Intelligence cooperation depends on mutual trust that shared information will be properly protected. Foreign intelligence agencies may now question whether sensitive information provided to the United States will be adequately safeguarded, potentially leading to reduced intelligence sharing at a time of increasing global instability.

For a Secretary of Defense to share operational details with family members via an unsecured commercial app fundamentally undermines that trust. Our allies must be able to rely on American officials to handle sensitive information with the utmost care and professionalism – qualities that appear sorely lacking in this administration.

Conclusion: A Pattern of Recklessness

The use of Signal to share sensitive military information – not once but twice, and with family members – reflects a troubling pattern of recklessness at the highest levels of our government. It suggests either a profound ignorance of basic security protocols or a dangerous belief that rules simply don’t apply to those in power.

Either explanation is deeply concerning coming from the person charged with leading our nation’s military and safeguarding our most sensitive defense information. The fact that many of these same officials were the loudest critics of Hillary Clinton’s email practices only adds a layer of hypocrisy to an already serious security breach.

As citizens, we deserve leaders who take their responsibility to protect sensitive information seriously, who follow established security protocols, and who don’t share war plans with family members over commercial apps. This isn’t a partisan issue – it’s about basic competence and national security. The question now is whether there will be genuine accountability, or whether this administration will continue to operate as though the rules don’t apply to them.