Watchdog looking into possibility of aide deletions in Hegseth Signal probe
The inspector general's request focuses on how information about the March 15 air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app.
Advertisement
It comes as Mr Hegseth is scheduled to testify before Congress next week for the first time since his confirmation hearing.
He is likely to face questions under oath not only about his handling of sensitive information but also the wider turmoil at the Pentagon following the departures of several senior aides and an internal investigation over information leaks.
Mr Hegseth already has faced questions over the installation of an unsecured internet line in his office that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols and revelations that he shared details about the military strikes in multiple Signal chats.
US President Donald Trump has given his backing to Pete Hegseth (Niall Carson/PA)
One of the chats included his wife and brother while the other included President Donald Trump's top national security officials and inadvertently included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.
Advertisement
Neither the Pentagon nor the inspector general's office immediately responded to Friday requests for comment on the investigation.
Besides finding out whether anyone was asked to delete Signal messages, the inspector general also is asking some past and current staffers who were with Mr Hegseth on the day of the strikes who posted the information and who had access to his phone, according to the two people familiar with the investigation and the documents reviewed by the AP.
Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans have said that the information Mr Hegseth posted to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets could have put those pilots' lives at risk and that for any lower-ranking members of the military it would have led to their firing.
Mr Hegseth has said none of the information was classified. Multiple current and former military officials have said there is no way details with that specificity, especially before a strike took place, would have been OK to share on an unsecured device.
Advertisement
'I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,' Mr Hegseth told Fox News Channel in April after reporting emerged about the chat that included his family members.
'I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterise it, was informal, unclassified co-ordinations, for media co-ordinations and other things. That's what I've said from the beginning.'
Mr Trump has made clear that Mr Hegseth continues to have his support, saying during a Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia that the defence secretary 'went through a lot' but 'he's doing really well'.
Mr Hegseth has limited his public engagements with the press since the Signal controversy. He has yet to hold a Pentagon press briefing and his spokesman has briefed reporters there only once.
Advertisement
Signal is a publicly-available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked and is not approved for carrying classified information.
On March 14, one day before the strikes against the Houthis, the defence department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of the app.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Washington Commanders move step closer to $3.7bn DC stadium… but Donald Trump threat still looms large
The Washington Commanders have received the green light to build a new $3.7billion stadium in DC - despite Donald Trump 's threat to scupper those plans if they don't revert their name back to the Redskins. Trump says he intends to block federal support for the stadium project unless the Commanders change back to the name it formerly adopted before being axed in 2020 amid pressure from fans, sponsors and Native American groups who considered 'Redskins' a racial slur. 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original "Washington Redskins," and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, "Washington Commanders," I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' the president said on Truth Social last month. With Trump's threat still looming large, the Commanders cleared another hurdle in their aim to return to the site of their former home, RFK Stadium, on Friday when the District of Columbia Council approved the legislation. The bill passed by a 9-3 vote, though it still must be approved a second time by the council before being sent to Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, who negotiated the original plan with Commanders owner Josh Harris in April. Washington currently plays at Northwest Stadium in Landover, Maryland, but aims to open a new venue in 2030. After the bill was passed, Harris said on Friday: 'Today's approval by the Council is transformational for D.C. and brings the Commanders back to our spiritual home. Like many fans, RFK was the site of memories that fueled my love for this team and this city. Now we're closer than ever to reigniting that energy for a new generation. 'We're incredibly grateful to the Mayor and the Council throughout this process for their leadership and guidance. 'This is a historic moment. This project is about more than delivering a world-class stadium worthy of our players, fans and the region. It's about revitalizing a critical part of our city, creating thousands of jobs and unlocking long-term economic benefits for the District. We look forward to working with our fans, residents, community leaders and elected officials to deliver on this vision.' The ownership group led by Harris has been considering locations in Washington, Maryland and Virginia since buying the team from Dan Snyder in 2022. Congress passed a bill transferring the RFK Stadium land to the city that was signed by then-President Joe Biden in early January. That paved the way for making it possible to replace the old stadium with a mixed-use development, including the new playing field for the Commanders. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson's office recently estimated the redevelopment could generate $26.6bn in tax revenue over 30 years. The district would contribute $1bn toward the stadium project, while the team would fund the remaining $2.7bn. However, Trump is now threatening to stand in the way of the project if his Redskins wish is not fulfilled. That issue did not come up in Friday's council meeting. Fans and even some Native American groups have voiced support for the team's new ownership group to revert to 'Redskins.' Several public opinion polls of self-identified Native Americans have found most were not offended by the term, while critics have pointed to academic research by the University of Michigan and UC Berkeley that found the opposite was true. Trump appeared to reference the public polling in favor of a name change on Sunday. 'Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen,' he claimed. 'Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' He also demanded the same from MLB's Cleveland Guardians, née: 'Indians.' 'Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past,' Trump wrote.
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Toxic civil war rips apart island paradise loved by multimillionaires... and could see it completely wiped out
Well-heeled residents of Nantucket are embroiled in furious clashes over plans to protect mansion-lined stretches of coastline from falling into the ocean. The windswept paradise is a favorite of the Biden clan and also attracts Hollywood elites such as Beyoncé, Kourtney Kardashian and many others - but the very beaches that lure stars to the island paradise are now in danger.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
