WASHINGTON — A Pentagon inspector general review has concluded that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used a personal Signal chat in March to share sensitive details about U.S. airstrikes in Yemen, faulting his judgment even as the report stops short of accusing him of mishandling classified information. Investigators found that moving timing and operational details from secure systems onto an unclassified app created avoidable risks for U.S. pilots and mission security, Dec. 4, 2025.
The still-unreleased report by the Defense Department’s independent watchdog, described by people who have seen it, says Pete Hegseth violated Pentagon policy by using his personal phone and a commercially available messaging app that is not authorized for classified traffic, while acknowledging he had broad authority to decide what information was classified. It concludes that his Signal messages about a March 15 strike on Yemen’s Houthi militants contained sensitive operational information whose exposure could have jeopardized U.S. personnel and the mission, though it does not determine that he broke the law.
Publicly, the Pentagon and the White House are portraying the inspector general’s review as a vindication for Pete Hegseth. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell called the findings a “total exoneration” and insisted that no classified information was shared, while President Donald Trump has said he “stands by” his defense secretary. Hegseth himself has echoed that message on social media, arguing that he only sent material he regarded as unclassified and operationally safe.
Critics say Pete Hegseth’s conduct crossed a bright line.
Democratic leaders reading the same report are drawing a very different conclusion. Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, has described the watchdog’s findings as a damning portrait of a Pentagon chief who lacks the judgment to safeguard U.S. troops, while Sen. Mark Warner, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Democratic chair, says the Signal chats reflect a broader pattern of recklessness and poor judgment at the top of the Defense Department.
Lawmakers in both parties had pressed for the investigation after reports emerged that Pete Hegseth relayed strike windows, aircraft launch times, and other time-sensitive details to at least two Signal groups ahead of the Yemen operation. In one chat, later published in full by The Atlantic, Hegseth laid out the timetable for an impending strike to a group that, due to a mistake by national security adviser Mike Waltz, included Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who was watching the bombs fall in Sana’a roughly two hours after receiving what he later described as a texted war plan. A first-person account by The Atlantic helped ignite the furor that quickly became known in Washington as “Signalgate.”
Long-running questions about Yemen chats and record-keeping
The inspector general review caps eight months of scrutiny into Pete Hegseth’s Signal use. In March, Associated Press reporting showed Trump officials had texted details of Yemen war plans into a group chat that included a journalist, contradicting Hegseth’s insistence that “nobody was texting war plans.” Later, a Reuters investigation revealed a second Signal thread in which Hegseth shared similar strike details with a circle that included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer, intensifying concerns about operational security and favoritism.
Those disclosures prompted the nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight to sue the administration over its use of auto-deleting apps for war planning and to accuse Pete Hegseth and other officials of skirting federal record-keeping laws. An Axios summary of that lawsuit noted that the group is seeking to recover deleted messages and force agencies to preserve future Signal communications tied to U.S. military operations in Yemen.
Report stops short of legal findings but fuels pressure campaign.
In its current form, the watchdog report focuses on policy violations rather than criminal exposure. According to a Reuters account of the findings, investigators said the information Pete Hegseth transmitted had been classified when it was first sent to him by the military, and that its appearance in unclassified chats could have put aircrews and the mission at risk if the messages were intercepted. Yet the review also notes that, as defense secretary, Hegseth had the authority to declassify materials and does not accuse him of breaking secrecy laws.
A separate story from the Associated Press, based on people familiar with the report, stressed that the inspector general concluded that Pete Hegseth breached Pentagon rules by using his personal device and a commercial app outside the department’s secure communications systems, and recommended additional training for senior officials on proper handling of sensitive information. The AP report also noted that Hegseth declined an in-person interview with investigators, instead submitting a written statement arguing that his declassification authority gave him wide latitude in how he communicated.
International coverage has been equally pointed. Al Jazeera, citing anonymous U.S. officials, reported that the inspector general found that Pete Hegseth improperly used Signal to transmit sensitive information, and that critics in Congress see the chats as one of the most serious breaches of military protocol in recent years. Its analysis placed the findings in the broader context of Trump-era attacks on inspectors general and alleged efforts to weaken internal oversight.
Newsweek, summarizing the same findings, said the watchdog concluded that Pete Hegseth “risked endangering American troops” when he sent real-time information about the Yemen strike over Signal and underscored that the investigation grew out of bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill. In that account, secrecy experts and lawmakers argued that a junior officer who took similar liberties would likely face discipline or dismissal.
With the report now circulating among lawmakers and a partially redacted version expected to be released publicly, questions remain about whether Pete Hegseth will face any concrete consequences. Advocacy groups such as American Oversight say the episode has already exposed dangerous gaps in how the Pentagon polices senior officials’ digital communications, while critics in Congress argue that the only real fix is a new law— and perhaps new leadership at the top of the Defense Department.
