Pentagon says “Nothing to see here” , even though “here” involved war-plans on a group chat.
So, the Pentagon has now declared a “TOTAL exoneration” of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the Signalgate debacle. According to their internal review, the info he shared was technically declassified, so no crime was committed. (ABC News)
But — and stick with me here — almost every serious security expert quoted by the media is basically facepalming. Yes, as Secretary of Defense, Hegseth can declassify things. (ABC News) But the problem isn’t “Did he have the power,” it’s “Did he have any right to do it like this — hours before a strike, with full war plans, using a personal messaging app that is explicitly not authorized for classified comms.” (AP News)
What the watchdog actually found — and why “exoneration” tastes weird
- The internal review concluded that the information Hegseth posted to a group-chat earlier this year — including exact strike timing, aircraft and missile types, and coordinates — had originally been classified by command staff at United States Central Command (CENTCOM). (ABC News)
- The watchdog said using a personal device and a consumer app like Signal for such operational details violated Pentagon policy. (AP News)
- The IG report concluded this choice “risked exposing sensitive information” — potentially endangering U.S. personnel and missions. (AP News)
- Yet — not illegal, the review found. Because as SecDef, Hegseth can declassify documents unilaterally. The Pentagon insists no law was broken. (ABC News)
Fine print, caveats, and why many are calling this a “technicality exoneration”
Security-classification norms are less like “Follow-the-manual” and more like “Follow-the-ritual.” Historically, when military operations are complete and there is no foreseeable repetition, older documents may be declassified — often with a formal paper trail. (ABC News)
What Hegseth did — sending real-time (or near real-time) war-planning details before the strike in a group including non-Pentagon people — is almost the opposite of “old, no-longer-sensitive history.” Experts pointed out that this qualifies as “shockingly bad judgment,” even if technically legal. (ABC News)
As one expert put it: “Secrecy is in the eye of the beholder.” Another observed it’s not about authority — it’s about common sense, discipline, and the lives that could’ve been lost. (ABC News)
So what’s really going on — and why Republicans should be squirming
Look at what this sets up. The GOP (and Hegseth loyalists) are patting themselves on the back for a “win”: the IG didn’t find a crime. Fine. But the same report simultaneously says he violated internal security policy and put U.S. troops at risk. That’s like clearing someone of burglary — then issuing a reprimand for breaking into a house window and hanging out in the kitchen drunk.
If this doesn’t trigger at least serious reforms in how the Pentagon communicates, it would be an epic demonstration of institutional sclerosis. And yet we’re being told: “Carry on.”
Meanwhile, for Hegseth, this “exoneration” smells a little like prison-yard math: “Sure, we caught you drinking before diving — but technically, you had the right to drink.”
The big question country’s left hanging
Did the ex-SecDef just exploit a technical loophole — or did he truly commit an act of reckless endangerment masked as bureaucratic compliance?
That’s a stark difference. Because you can roll back policy. But you can’t undo the fact that launch times, missile types, and airstrike coordinates were sent on a family-friendly chat app.
