Dec 5, 2025, 8:19 amDec 5, 2025, 8:19 am
Whether it’s his careless handling of sensitive military data, new guidelines for the press or a controversial deployment of the US military in the Caribbean: Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth is coming under increasing pressure. On Thursday, the Defense Minister, who now calls himself the Minister of War, was in focus in several respects:
Signal affair
His ministry’s oversight board concluded that Hegseth risked endangering US soldiers through his handling of sensitive military information. Because he used a private cell phone for business matters and shared operational details that were not publicly accessible via the Signal app, staff could have been harmed, according to a partially redacted investigation report that has now been published. Operational targets could also have been jeopardized by the exchange of highly sensitive information about an attack on the Houthi militia in Yemen in March.
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth is coming under increasing pressure.Image: EPA CNP / POOL
If this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces may have been able to act against U.S. forces or reposition themselves, it said. “Even if these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary’s actions posed an operational security risk that could have resulted in the failure of U.S. mission objectives and potential endangerment of U.S. pilots.”
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell still rated the results of the review on Platform X as “FULL exoneration of Minister Hegseth”. It proves that no secret information was shared. In fact, the report states that Hegseth sent sensitive information about Signal on his personal phone that he classified as unclassified. The report still sees violations of Pentagon guidelines: in the use of private phones or an unauthorized, commercially operated app.
The Signal affair hit the headlines in the spring when the US magazine “The Atlantic” made the contents of a chat public. Previously, its editor-in-chief had been invited to the Signal group – probably accidentally – by then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. The journalist was able to read sensitive information about a US military operation against the Houthi militia in Yemen live in the app. Hegseth, who was a member of the chat like other top U.S. national security leaders, provided detailed information about weapons and attack times. Media later reported that he also shared the military plans with his wife and others.
Attack on survivors
The US Secretary of Defense is also being criticized for a particularly controversial attack by the US military on an alleged drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean. At the beginning of September, two people who initially survived an initial attack were said to have been killed by the military. According to experts, this second attack may have violated international law – according to the Washington Post, the men were clinging to the wreckage and did not pose an immediate threat.
In reports from the newspaper and the broadcaster CNN it was said that Hegseth had previously given the order to “kill everyone”. However, according to CNN, it is unclear whether he knew about the survivors before the second attack. Hegseth himself recently denied direct responsibility for the second attack. He personally didn’t see any survivors. He only found out a few hours later that the commander in charge, Admiral Frank M. Bradley, had made the decision for a second attack, “for which he was fully authorized.”
Observers fear that Bradley could be used as a scapegoat in the affair. On Thursday he exonerated Hegseth: The admiral had stated to members of Congress that he had not received an order to “kill everyone,” said Republican Senator Tom Cotton and the Democratic member of the House of Representatives, Jim Himes.
But demands for clarification about the US actions and Hegseth’s role should not be off the table. The Democratic US Senator Jack Reed, for example, now demanded on Platform X that the Pentagon should publish the complete and unedited video material of the second attack.
“New York Times” lawsuit
The debate about the controversial US attack was sparked by media reports that cited people familiar with the situation. The case therefore exemplifies the relevance that reporting on US military actions can have – even if access to the Pentagon for journalists was restricted under Hegseth.
Members of the Pentagon press corps carry their belongings out of the Pentagon after turning in their press credentials in mid-October.Image: FR33460 AP
Since October, new guidelines have been in place that stipulate that reporters are not allowed to publish any information without the permission of the ministry – otherwise their accreditation could be withdrawn. Reporters who did not agree to comply with the requirement had to vacate their workplaces. Almost all major US media companies have rejected the rules, including the Republican-affiliated channel Fox News, for which Hegseth previously worked, and the New York Times.
The renowned daily newspaper has now filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and Hegseth. It argues that the new policy violates the First Amendment and aims to “restrict the ability of journalists to do what journalists have always done: ask government employees questions and gather information.” This is necessary in order to publish articles that offer more than official announcements. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects, among other things, freedom of the press. (sda/dpa)