Pentagon Watchdog Launches Probe into Use of Signal for Yemen Attack Plans

April 3, 2025, 1:58 PM PDT – The Pentagon’s Inspector General has initiated a formal investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate plans for a U.S. military strike on Yemen’s Houthi militants, raising significant questions about security protocols, classification policies, and the Trump administration’s handling of sensitive operations. Announced earlier today, the probe centers on the March 15, 2025, airstrikes and follows revelations that operational details were shared in an unclassified group chat that inadvertently included a journalist. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the unfolding situation based on the latest updates.

Background of the Incident

The controversy erupted last week when The Atlantic published a report by its editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally added to a Signal group chat titled “Houthi PC small group” by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz on March 13. The chat, which included high-ranking officials like Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others, contained detailed plans for the Yemen strikes—launched two days later on March 15. Hegseth’s messages, later released in screenshots on March 26, specified launch times (e.g., “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH”), aircraft types (F-18s, MQ-9 drones), and targeting details, including the planned killing of a Houthi missile leader.

The White House confirmed the chat’s authenticity on March 24 but insisted no classified information was shared—a claim met with skepticism from security experts and lawmakers. The strikes, part of an ongoing U.S. campaign against Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, killed dozens, including civilians, according to Houthi reports, though the Pentagon has not detailed casualties or targets publicly.

Scope of the Investigation

At 11:25 AM PDT today, multiple outlets, including Reuters and Fox News, reported that the Pentagon’s acting Inspector General, Steven Stebbins, opened the probe following a bipartisan request from Senators Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a memo, Stebbins outlined the investigation’s objectives:

• Policy Compliance: To assess whether Hegseth and other Department of Defense (DoD) personnel adhered to DoD policies on using commercial messaging apps like Signal for official business.
• Classification Review: To determine if the shared information was classified—or should have been—and whether its disclosure violated security protocols.
• Records Retention: To evaluate compliance with federal record-keeping requirements, given Signal’s disappearing-message feature, which Waltz reportedly activated.

The probe was spurred by concerns that the chat’s contents—described by former officials as likely classified—could have compromised operational security if intercepted by adversaries like the Houthis or their Iranian backers. Posts on X today reflect ongoing public and expert alarm, with users like @ajosandman noting the investigation’s focus on “senior Trump admin officials” and @Whip_Skitty questioning the White House’s assertion that the matter is “closed.”

Key Developments Today

• 11:45 AM PDT: The Associated Press reported Stebbins’ announcement, noting the investigation extends beyond Hegseth to other DoD personnel involved in the chat. The Pentagon has deferred all questions to the Inspector General’s office, signaling the probe’s active status.
• 12:08 PM PDT: Reuters confirmed the investigation’s launch, citing Hegseth’s use of Signal as a potential breach of DoD guidelines, which prohibit unclassified apps for sensitive communications absent specific authorization.
• 1:06 PM PDT: Posts on X, including from @STForeignDesk, amplified the news, linking to articles detailing the probe’s implications for national security.

Features of the Signal Chat

The Signal app, while encrypted and widely used for secure communication, is not part of the DoD’s approved classified systems, such as Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs). Hegseth’s messages included:

• Exact timings (e.g., “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts”).
• Weapon systems (F-18s, MQ-9 drones, Tomahawk missiles).
• Real-time updates (e.g., Waltz’s note that a building collapsed with “multiple positive ID” of a Houthi target).

Goldberg, who exited the chat after witnessing the plans unfold as predicted, argued in The Atlantic that such specificity endangered U.S. pilots had it reached hostile hands. The Pentagon had warned staff against Signal’s vulnerabilities to phishing just days before, on March 18, per NPR, though no evidence suggests the chat was hacked.

Reactions and Implications

• Administration Response: Hegseth, currently in the Indo-Pacific, dismissed the controversy yesterday, claiming the texts lacked “locations, routes, flight paths, sources, or methods.” President Trump, on March 25, called it a “witch hunt,” defending the operation’s success and downplaying the breach. Waltz took responsibility for adding Goldberg but echoed that “no war plans” were shared.
• Lawmakers: Democrats, including Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, have labeled it a “stunning breach,” demanding accountability. Republicans like Wicker support the probe but urge a measured approach. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told ABC News the incident “put American lives at risk.”
• Experts: Former officials like Mara Karlin (BBC) and Ned Price (NPR) expressed shock, noting such discussions belong in secure channels. Cybersecurity expert John Wheeler told the BBC that Signal’s use for operational plans lacks the oversight of government systems.

Potential Impact

The investigation could reshape DoD communication policies, especially as Signal’s popularity among officials clashes with its unclassified status. If classified information is confirmed to have been mishandled, Hegseth—who narrowly won Senate confirmation—could face legal or political consequences, potentially violating the Espionage Act or federal records laws. Trade relations, already strained by Trump’s tariff policies, may see indirect effects if allies question U.S. operational security.

For the gaming-like intrigue of this real-world saga, the probe’s outcome could either vindicate the administration’s casual approach or expose systemic flaws, influencing trust in Trump’s national security team. As the Inspector General digs deeper, the stakes remain high—both for U.S. military credibility and the administration’s narrative of competence. Updates will follow as the investigation progresses.