admin
On December 3, 2025 the Pentagon inspector general delivered its long-awaited review of the so-called “Signalgate” affair and found that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated Defense Department protocols by using his personal device and the unclassified Signal app to share sensitive operational details about a Yemen strike. The report, long-teased to Congress and the public, makes clear this was no trivial group chat flub but a breach of internal rules that demanded inspection by the Pentagon’s watchdog.
According to the IG’s findings, the information Hegseth relayed on Signal traced back to a classified “SECRET/NOFORN” email sent by Gen. Michael Kurilla over SIPRNet, and the scandal exploded when then–National Security Adviser Mike Waltz accidentally added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the group. That mistake turned what might have been an internal policy violation into a public spectacle, and it exposed the real problem: careless handling of sensitive information and the chaos that follows when outsiders are mistakenly invited into restricted channels.
The inspector general did not conclude Hegseth criminally mishandled classified material, noting that as defense secretary he possesses broad original classification authorities, but it nonetheless found he ran afoul of DoD rules and recommended better training and clearer procedures for senior officials. That distinction matters: authority to declassify is not the same thing as good judgment or operational prudence, and the IG’s remedy-focused recommendations underscore the need for common-sense reforms rather than witch hunts.
Unsurprisingly, Hegseth’s team blasted the review as a politically motivated fishing expedition and characterized the outcome as a vindication, while Democrats in Congress seized on the watchdog’s language to demand accountability for what they called risks to service members. This is the familiar Washington script—every controversy becomes raw material for partisan theater—but Americans deserve real answers about process and leaks, not just press-office spin.
Republican and Democratic leaders on the Senate Armed Services Committee initially pushed for the inspector general inquiry, and lawmakers have been poring over the classified report in secure facilities on Capitol Hill. If Congress is serious about protecting troops and operations, it should focus on preventing accidental inclusions of journalists, tightening communications protocols, and stopping the drip of leaks that fuel newsroom vendettas against administration officials.
Let’s be blunt: the story the legacy media wants is a salacious narrative about “war plans” texted on phones, but the real failure was sloppy process and a leaky ecosystem that rewards the outlet that gets scoops while endangering discipline. Conservatives should defend the principle that commanders and elected leaders must have the agility to communicate in wartime, while demanding rigorous safeguards so that those tools aren’t abused or turned into political lightning rods.
Washington now faces a choice—treat Signalgate as an opportunity to shore up operational security and hold the real leakers accountable, or allow it to become another permanent smear against anyone who dares to make tough decisions to protect America. Patriots want results: stronger training, clearer rules, and a refusal to let leaks and cable-news outrage distract from the job of defeating our enemies and keeping American service members safe.
