By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s disclosure of sensitive military information via Signal, the Pentagon did not conduct a routine investigation into potential national security damage, primarily because Hegseth did not authorize one. While typically a classification review and damage assessment would be initiated to examine if military operations or sources and methods were compromised, this did not occur in this instance, despite concerns and a watchdog report finding that Hegseth’s actions violated DoD regulations. Instead, Hegseth focused on investigating potential leakers within his own staff, creating a chilling effect. This unusual decision, as well as the lack of further investigation, is inconsistent with established protocols, especially considering the sensitive nature of the information shared and the potential risks involved.
Read the original article here
The fact that the Pentagon did not conduct a routine investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sharing of sensitive military information on Signal, and whether this action damaged national security, immediately raises a multitude of concerns. This is particularly striking because such an investigation is typically standard procedure following any unauthorized disclosure of sensitive defense information. The purpose of these reviews is to assess potential damage to ongoing military operations, intelligence gathering, sources, and methods, and to determine what mitigation steps, if any, are needed. The absence of this assessment, especially given the nature of the alleged disclosure – involving classified strike plans – suggests a significant departure from established protocols and a potential failure in safeguarding national security.
The decision not to initiate an investigation is all the more troubling given the high-profile nature of the alleged incident and the potential implications it holds. Sharing military plans on an encrypted messaging app, regardless of intent, is a serious matter. It inherently creates risks, potentially exposing sensitive information to unauthorized individuals and potentially compromising the safety of military personnel and the success of missions. The lack of a formal investigation sends a clear message about the perceived importance of accountability and the seriousness with which national security is taken. The fact that Hegseth reportedly did not authorize the investigation further complicates the matter and strengthens the impression that there is a reluctance to hold high-ranking officials accountable for their actions.
The decision not to investigate opens the door for significant questions about potential political influence over the process and the standard of conduct for the military. The absence of a damage assessment raises the very important question of whether the administration’s actions are really in the interest of the American people, or simply in line with their own desires. When there are not investigations, there is not accountability, and when there is no accountability, there is no deterrent. It sends the message that if you are in a high position, it does not matter what the rules or laws are.
The lack of any form of investigation creates the appearance of the “good old boys club” that favors favoritism over impartiality. It does not matter what the situation is, if they are in the inner circle, they are always given a pass. The implication of this is that the rules only apply to some people, and that some are above the law. This erodes public trust in the institutions of government and sends a message that the integrity of national security protocols is not a priority. Skipping the process undermines the credibility of the military and casts doubt on the commitment to protect classified information.
The sharing of sensitive strike plans on Signal, an encrypted messaging app, should have automatically triggered a thorough review. The fact that it didn’t raises questions about who could possibly have known, and possibly even condoned, these actions. The potential for damage stemming from this type of disclosure is substantial, and the failure to initiate a routine assessment to determine the extent of that damage is negligent. Even if the investigation concluded that no harm was done, the act of conducting a formal investigation is a crucial step in upholding standards, ensuring accountability, and reinforcing the importance of protecting classified information. The fact that the process was skipped altogether sets a dangerous precedent.
The implications for national security extend beyond the immediate incident. It shows a systemic problem, that the standard practice is not followed. The lack of investigation is not only a failure to adhere to established protocols but also a potential compromise of the military’s ability to operate effectively and protect its assets. The failure to conduct an investigation also sends a message to other service members that their actions don’t have to be in line with the standards or expectations of their role. This will invariably result in a lack of trust and respect in the military.
The situation calls for a reassessment of the importance and significance of military accountability. While any government is expected to be imperfect, and mistakes may be made from time to time, the failure to address such an issue is far more serious. The absence of an investigation into the possible breach of national security, combined with the reasons behind it, serves to undermine the credibility of the military, and the belief that the system is operating fairly. This incident must be recognized as a serious threat to the American public and those who serve to defend it.