The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee requested the Pentagon’s inspector general probe whether classified defense information was shared on Signal, an encrypted messaging platform.
‘This chat was alleged to have included classified information pertaining to sensitive military discussions in Yemen,’ Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a letter to acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins. ‘If true, this reporting raises questions as to the use of unclassified networks to discuss classified and sensitive information.’
The letter was sent Wednesday evening, a committee spokesperson said, after The Atlantic published messages in full that included details about a planned strike on the Houthis in Yemen and revealed a target had been successfully killed when a building he was in collapsed.
White House officials have insisted the information Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and national security advisor Mike Waltz shared in the chat was not classified.
Stebbins is the acting Pentagon watchdog after President Donald Trump fired 17 inspectors general, including the Defense Department’s IG, shortly after taking office.
Wicker told reporters Wednesday he would seek an ‘expedited’ investigation.
Hegseth’s Signal messages revealed F-18, Navy fighter aircraft, MQ-9s, drones and Tomahawks cruise missiles would be used in the strike on the Houthis.
‘1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),’ Hegseth said in one message notifying the chat of high-level administration officials that the attack was about to kick off.
‘1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)’ he added, according to the report.
‘1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)’
‘1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)’
‘1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.’
‘MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)’
‘We are currently clean on OPSEC’ – that is, operational security.
Later, Waltz wrote that the mission had been successful. ‘The first target—their top missile guy—was positively ID’d walking into his girlfriend’s building. It’s now collapsed.’
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who was unintentionally added to the chat, published an initial story that did not include specifics about the strike he believed to be sensitive. After the White House insisted the information was not classified, he asked them if they would object to him publishing its contents.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded that they would object.
‘No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS,’ Waltz wrote on X on Wednesday.
Government officials frequently use Signal to communicate, even for sensitive information, given that they don’t always have quick access to a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
‘This is an approved app. It’s an encrypted app,’ Leavitt insisted to reporters Wednesday.
Still, even some Republicans have grumbled about how the situation has been handled.
Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., a Navy veteran with a top secret clearance, said adding Goldberg to the chat was ‘totally sloppy,’ and the information shared was either classified ‘or at the very least highly sensitive.’
‘In the wrong hands, like the Houthis or any of America’s adversaries, this kind of Intel could have jeopardized the mission and put our troops at greater risk,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘It was wrong when Hillary put all that classified information on an unclassified server. It was wrong when Biden had the sensitive files in his garage. And it’s wrong now.’
The Senate letter asked for ‘what was communicated and any remedial actions taken as a result’ and an assessment of whether proper policies had been followed related to government officers ‘sharing sensitive and classified information on non-government networks and electronic applications.’
It also asked for the IG to probe how the policies of DOD, the intelligence community, the National Security Council and the White House differ on the matter.
The DOD IG’s office confirmed receiving the letter yesterday to Fox News Digital and said it was in the process of reviewing it.
Earlier this week, Wicker and Reed said they would ‘likely’ hold a bipartisan hearing on the Signal chat. But given the political nature of the storyline, it may be easier to allow an independent watchdog to conduct a fact-finding mission.
‘This is precisely why independent offices of inspectors general are so valuable. When a situation becomes a hot-button political issue, it’s incredibly helpful to have an objective, nonpartisan group of trained professionals to do the fact-finding and answer the hard questions,’ former State Department inspector general Diana Shaw told Fox News Digital.
She warned not to expect the IG to give any answers on whether criminal conduct had taken place, and not to expect a quick probe given the crossover of agencies implicated in the chat.
‘It’s very difficult to do anything quickly when it involves the Interagency – an interagency review requires navigation through a complex maze of jurisdictional boundaries. The committee may get some of its questions answered quickly, but it will likely have to wait some time for answers to the more central questions it’s posed.’