Short summary: This piece walks through the Signal chat controversy around Secretary Pete Hegseth, how the story leaked, the inspector general’s completed report, and the predictable media reaction.
I almost forgot Signalgate was a thing, but here we are again with the same noisy circus. The flap began when a Signal chat last spring included top Trump officials and, somehow, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, and now the inspector general’s work is out and people are leaking details. The tone from the usual outlets is one of moral panic, but most readers will spot the predictable pattern: outrage first, facts later.
Last spring, the Signal group reportedly included JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, then-National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and other senior Trump officials discussing plans for strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. Signal is an encrypted but unclassified app, and critics seized on that to call this a huge lapse. The more sensible view is that officials sometimes exchange operational details during fast-moving events, and authority to declassify can complicate those judgments.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday was given a final copy of the completed Defense Department Inspector General report that examined his sharing sensitive military information on a Signal group chat back in March, according to two people familiar with the investigation.
The much-anticipated report is expected to become public as early as this week, these people said.
The report outlines the findings of a more than eight-month investigation into Hegseth’s use of Signal, an encrypted but unclassified messaging app, to share details of planned U.S. military strikes in Yemen before they had begun.
Hegseth has maintained that he shared no classified information on the group chat.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The two people familiar with the inspector general investigation would not say what its conclusions are.
Given the swamp and its friendly media outlets, you could bet someone would leak at least part of the report. The outlets that pounced have a clear narrative: leak a scary snippet, suggest risk to troops, and watch the outrage spread. But leaks rarely present the full picture, and these early reports leave out important context about authority, timing, and intent.
The Atlantic editor being in a chat with senior officials raised eyebrows for obvious reasons, and critics made that the scandal’s centerpiece. It created bad optics, to be clear, and it fed right into the media’s appetite for dramatics. What matters now is what the inspector general actually found and whether procedures or job titles need adjusting to avoid sloppy perception problems in the future.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth risked compromising sensitive military information, which could have endangered American troops and mission objectives, when he used Signal in March of this year to share highly-sensitive attack plans targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to four sources familiar with the contents of a classified Inspector General report.
The repercussions of Hegseth’s action, two sources told CNN, are less clear since the IG concluded that the defense secretary has the authority to declassify information and Hegseth asserted he made an operational decision in the moment to share that information, though there is no documentation of such a decision.
An unclassified version of the report is set to be publicly released Thursday. The classified report was sent to Congress on Tuesday night.
[…]
It remains unclear if Hegseth properly declassified that information before sharing it with other top Trump officials, and a reporter, the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally added to the chat.
Hegseth refused to sit for an interview with the inspector general and submitted his version of events in writing, sources told CNN.
So where does that leave us? There are three clear facts: the chat happened, a newsroom editor was present, and an IG investigation wrapped up after several months. Beyond that, much of the rest is speculation supplied by leaks and anonymous sources. The declassification question is central, and the IG noted the official authority angle, which matters a lot.
This story will keep rattling in the press because it fits familiar narratives: alleged leaks, national security worry, and a headline-hungry media ecosystem. Republicans should push for clear rules about communications channels and declassification processes so officials know the boundaries during fast-paced operations. Clarity beats leaks when public trust and troop safety are involved.
For now, the inspector general’s full, unclassified report should be read carefully before anyone treats a handful of leaked lines as a verdict. The hype machine will try to write the ending early, but sober readers can wait for the full findings and the context that actually matters. The rest is predictable theater, and we should call it that when we see it.
