Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Hegset put U.S. service members at risk through Signal messages

An investigation confirmed that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth risked the security of American service members by transmitting secret attack plans via Signal. He sent details of strikes on Yemen to unauthorized individuals, including a journalist.

Oleg Bazylewicz

By Oleg Bazylewicz

December 4, 2025 · 2 min read

Hegset put U.S. service members at risk through Signal messages
Піт Гегсет (Фото: Orlando Barria/EPA)

Defense Secretary Pit Hegset may have endangered American service members when he transmitted secret plans for strikes against the Houthis in Yemen via the Signal messenger app, CNN reported, citing four sources familiar with a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Details of the incident

In March of this year Hegset used the messenger to transmit highly sensitive military information. The messages contained specific data about planned strikes in real time. One of them even indicated the exact moment the first bombs would be dropped.

The Pentagon chief sent this information to a group chat that included his wife, brother, personal lawyer and other senior officials. Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was accidentally added to the conversation.

According to sources, some materials in the messages came from U.S. Central Command documents that were classified at the time of transmission. That means foreign nationals should not have had access to them.

Investigation findings

The inspector general found that Hegset transmitted confidential data to unauthorized individuals and failed to preserve the correspondence in accordance with federal law. The report also said the secretary should not have used Signal for such purposes.

At the same time, the investigation concluded that the Pentagon chief has the authority to declassify information. Hegset himself claimed he made an operational decision to share the data, although there is no documentary evidence to support that.

The secretary declined an interview with the inspector general and submitted his account in writing. The unclassified version of the report was released on Thursday; the classified version was sent to Congress on Tuesday evening.

Pentagon response

A Pentagon spokesperson dismissed the allegations:

The inspector general's review fully vindicates Secretary Hegset and confirms what we have known from the start: no classified information was transmitted. This matter is resolved and the case is closed

– Pentagon spokesperson

A source familiar with Hegset's position emphasized that the secretary has the unilateral authority to declassify information. In his view, that removes any allegations of wrongdoing.

Political consequences

The release of the findings could heighten lawmakers' concerns from both parties about Hegset's actions. Earlier, a senator demanded his resignation, saying he posed a threat to national security.

The White House denied reports that it was seeking a replacement for the Pentagon chief. Hegset himself sharply criticized the media and the sources who provided the information to journalists.

Context

In April 2025 it became known about the incident involving the transmission of data about the March strike on the Houthis. Initially Hegset shared details in a chat with family and his lawyer, and later accidentally added a journalist to the conversation while discussing another strike.

The report also noted that senior Pentagon officials need better training on security protocols. The investigation found that the department head shared similar details about military operations in Yemen with several other unauthorized individuals.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026