Pentagon Watchdog Finds Hegseth’s Use of Signal for Houthi Strike Created Operational Risks

A Pentagon Inspector General report has confirmed a detail that sounds like it belongs in a political satire, not a national security briefing: plans for a U.S. military strike were being discussed in a group chat that accidentally included the editor of The Atlantic.

But the conclusions of the watchdog’s report are deadly serious. The investigation found that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth “created risks to operational security” by sharing sensitive details of a strike on Houthi rebels over the encrypted app Signal. The report warns that these actions “could have resulted in failed US mission objectives and potential harm to US pilots.”

This incident is not just a story about careless texting. It is a profound case study in the breakdown of secure communications protocols at the highest levels of government, and a test of whether political appointees are held to the same standards of operational security as the soldiers they command.

What Was Shared in the Chat?

The details revealed in the report paint a picture of a real-time, play-by-play of a lethal military operation being broadcast over a commercial messaging app.

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” Hegseth reportedly wrote. “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP…)”

These messages, detailing the launch times and specific assets involved (F-18s, MQ-9 drones, Tomahawk missiles), were sent to a group that inadvertently included a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg. While the administration insists “no classified information was shared,” the Inspector General’s finding that the chat risked harm to pilots suggests that the information was, at the very least, operationally sensitive enough to endanger lives.

The Constitutional Chain of Command

This episode highlights a dangerous informality in the execution of the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. The chain of command is designed to be a secure, rigorous hierarchy. When operational details are shared in a casual group chat, outside of secure channels, it bypasses the safeguards put in place to protect military secrets.

The administration’s response – declaring the report a “TOTAL exoneration” because no technically classified markings were used – misses the larger point. The duty of a cabinet secretary is to protect the mission and the troops. If the method of communication “created risks” to pilots, as the IG found, then the constitutional duty of care has been breached, regardless of classification labels.

A Tale of Two Strikes

The release of this report comes at a moment of intense scrutiny for the Pentagon. On the same day the IG findings are made public, the commander of Special Operations Command will be on Capitol Hill to testify about a separate, controversial strike on drug smugglers.

That incident, involving a “double tap” strike on shipwrecked survivors, has raised questions about potential war crimes. Together, these two stories – one involving loose lips on a messaging app, the other involving lethal force at sea – paint a picture of a military leadership that is testing the boundaries of protocol, law, and operational safety.

The Inspector General’s report is a vital mechanism of accountability. It serves as a check within the executive branch itself. But a report is only as effective as the response it generates. The question now is whether this finding of “risk to pilots” will lead to a tightening of operational security, or if it will be dismissed as just another partisan attack in Washington’s information war.