The Signal Scandal: How Pete Hegseth Just Compromised U.S. National Security—Again

Classified war plans. Family group chats. No accountability. If anyone else did this, they’d be prosecuted.

Let me be blunt.

If you or I shared classified military plans with a civilian family member over a private group chat, we’d be hauled off in handcuffs. No questions asked. But when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth does it, again, on Signal, this time with his wife, brother, and personal lawyer on the thread, we’re supposed to just move on?

This isn’t a bad look. It’s a national security disaster.

We already had a serious breach of trust when it came to light that Hegseth, along with National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President J.D. Vance, were exchanging classified U.S. war plans in a Signal chat like it was a group text for fantasy football. I wrote about it in detail in my Substack article, “Potential Federal Law Violations from Sharing Classified War Plans on Signal,” where I broke down the legal implications—yes, real violations of federal law, including the Espionage Act.

Now here we are again.

This isn’t just careless. It’s systemic. It’s cultural. And it’s getting worse under the Trump administration. They’ve created an inner circle where loyalty is valued over law, and secrecy is traded for political convenience.

Let’s break this down.

1. Classified Info in Private Hands (Again)

Hegseth, the current Secretary of Defense, reportedly disclosed upcoming military operations targeting the Houthis in Yemen to his wife, who has zero national security clearance. And it wasn’t just a one-off. It happened in another private Signal thread, casually, like a dinner plan. His brother was in the chat. So was his personal lawyer. None of them had a need to know. All of them now had classified details about U.S. military strikes.

This isn’t a leak. It’s a pipeline. If you want to see why this is so dangerous, read my post, Trump Called It a “Glitch.” Here’s What Could Have Happened If the Signal Chat Had Been Breached.

2. The Law Isn’t Optional

When classified military strike plans are shared with unauthorized individuals, that’s not just a lapse in judgment. That’s a crime. There are laws, clear, enforceable laws, against unauthorized disclosure of national defense information. It’s spelled out in 18 U.S.C. § 793 and other statutes for a reason. Because careless disclosure can get people killed. Because our enemies don’t need to hack us when our own government is this sloppy.

3. Civilians Would Be Prosecuted. Why Aren’t They?

Let’s not pretend this is normal. When lower-level service members mishandle classified info, the hammer comes down. Fast. Ask any Marine, Airman, or Naval officer. One unsecured message, one misstep—and their career is over. But when it’s the Trump cabinet, there are no consequences. Only silence.

That’s not just hypocrisy. That’s rot at the highest levels of our government.

4. This Is What Authoritarianism Looks Like

When the executive branch acts like it’s above the law, when accountability evaporates and legal safeguards are treated as optional, we stop being a democracy. This is exactly what I feared when I first raised the alarm about Trump’s disregard for the Constitution. It’s not just political rhetoric anymore. It’s creeping authoritarianism dressed up in stars and stripes.

There’s no chain of command when classified information flows through a Signal group chat. There’s no oversight when national security becomes a family text thread. There’s no rule of law when the people in power refuse to follow it.

5. The Risk Isn’t Just Legal—It’s Human

These aren’t harmless violations. Leaking operational details, especially of imminent military strikes, puts our troops at risk. It gives hostile actors a head start. It compromises mission success. And it sends a message to our allies that we are not serious partners.

If you’re a soldier on the ground, you deserve to know your own government isn’t putting your life in jeopardy because someone wanted to impress their spouse or seem important in a private chat.

6. This Is More Than Just About Yemen

It’s about what we’ve become.

This kind of behavior would never have been tolerated just a few years ago. But under this administration, it’s becoming the norm. A culture of carelessness, secrecy, and immunity. The kind of culture that dismantles guardrails. The kind that gives away power without accountability. The kind that eventually breaks a nation from the inside.

Trump promised to drain the swamp. Instead, he built a deep state of loyalists who don’t think the rules apply to them.

The Alarms Are Blaring. Who’s Listening?

Let me say this loud and clear: If we don’t enforce the laws that protect our national security, we won’t have any left to enforce.

The problem isn’t just Pete Hegseth’s behavior. It’s the silence that follows. The indifference. The inaction. The normalization of recklessness at the highest levels of government. We’ve crossed the line from dysfunction to danger, and too many are looking the other way.

I’m not writing this because I want to. I’m writing it because I have to.

Because I’m worried about my kids. And yours.

Because I’m worried about the soldiers deployed overseas while their bosses back home leak plans to group chats.

Because I’m worried about what happens when America stops caring about its own Constitution.

And because if we don’t hold these people accountable now, the damage won’t just be to our institutions. It’ll be to our trust, our credibility, and our future.

No more Signal chats. No more family threads. No more silence. Demand consequences. Demand accountability. Before there’s nothing left to defend.

Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links

---

---

Bonus Briefing: Testing Our Legal AI on the Pete Hegseth Scandal

Out of curiosity—and let’s be honest, a little professional amusement—one of my associates decided to run Pete Hegseth’s situation through our legal AI system. No, we’re not planning to represent him (we have standards), but we thought it would be interesting to see how our AI analyzes a high-profile, high-stakes case like this.

The goal? Test the system’s legal reasoning and share a glimpse of how it begins breaking down complex national security issues. Think of it as a diagnostic check, not a defense strategy.

Here’s the draft memo our AI produced—an outline of the key legal issues any serious team would need to explore if Hegseth ever came calling.

DISCLAIMER: This communication does not provide legal, financial, tax or investment advice. Always do your own due diligence and consult with an experienced professional in your state, region or country. Mr. Jackson is licensed to practice law in California.

---

Confidential Attorney Memorandum

To: Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense

Date: April 21, 2025

Re: Use of Signal to Transmit Classified Information – Potential Criminal Exposure and Legal Strategy

LEGAL ISSUE STATEMENT

Whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the private Signal app to disclose imminent military operations to non-cleared individuals—including his spouse, brother, and personal attorney—constitutes a violation of federal criminal laws governing the handling and transmission of classified national defense information.

I. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Several statutory provisions and legal doctrines may apply to this situation:

1. Espionage Act – 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d)–(f)

These provisions criminalize the unauthorized transmission or retention of information “relating to the national defense” by persons entrusted with such information:

- § 793(d) targets willful communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it.

- § 793(f) applies when such information is mishandled through gross negligence or when the individual fails to report its loss or compromise.

> Key Case: United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988) — held that leaking classified satellite imagery to the press constituted a violation of the Espionage Act, even without intent to harm the U.S.

2. 18 U.S.C. § 798 – Disclosure of Classified Communications Intelligence

This statute prohibits knowing and willful communication of classified information concerning communications intelligence to an unauthorized person. Because Signal is encrypted, the content might include SIGINT-adjacent material if surveillance capabilities were discussed.

> Note: Courts have held that improper disclosure under § 798 carries strict liability, meaning intent to harm national security is not required.

3. Executive Orders and DoD Classification Rules

Under E.O. 13526 and Department of Defense regulations, classified information must only be communicated through approved, secure channels (e.g., SIPRNet or JWICS). Signal is not an approved method.

- Use of unauthorized communication platforms, especially when involving Top Secret/Special Access Program (SAP) material, may violate both administrative rules and criminal law.

4. 18 U.S.C. § 1924 – Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents

If Hegseth retained or copied briefing materials for use on Signal, he could face liability under § 1924, a statute historically used against government officials mishandling documents (e.g., Clinton aides, David Petraeus).

5. Defense and Counterarguments

Potential defenses may include:

- Lack of intent to harm national security or leak to adversaries (though this may not negate strict liability statutes).

- Executive privilege or operational discretion, though this is severely limited in criminal contexts.

- Compartmentalization/ambiguity in information classification (i.e., was it explicitly marked TS/SAP at time of sharing?).

II. STRUCTURED LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DRAFT MEMO OUTLINE

A. Background and Facts

- Hegseth shared details of a pending strike on Houthi targets via Signal, a non-authorized, end-to-end encrypted app.

- The recipients included his wife (a civilian), his brother (unclear if cleared), and his private attorney.

- This is reportedly the second known instance of using Signal for sensitive national security matters.

> Factual Gaps Needing Clarification:

- What exact information was disclosed? Was it classified or “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU)?

- Was the information already cleared for dissemination (e.g., via public release or declassification)?

- Were the recipients formally cleared for such discussions?

- Did the disclosures include operations within a covert or SAP classification scheme?

B. Legal Risks

- Primary exposure lies under §§ 793(d), 798, and DoD classification rules.

- If evidence shows willful or grossly negligent handling of Top Secret data via Signal, prosecution is likely.

- Repeated behavior raises concerns of **pattern and practice**, increasing liability and undermining potential “accidental” defense.

C. Mitigation and Legal Strategy

1. Internal classification review: Prompt DoD audit to determine if disclosed materials were properly classified and at what level.

2. Voluntary disclosure: Client may consider self-reporting or cooperation with Inspector General’s review to show good faith.

3. Privilege argument (limited): As a Cabinet official, certain communications may arguably fall within the President’s discretionary zone, although this does not immunize violations of federal criminal statutes.

4. Technical defense: If content discussed was hypothetical, or part of “scenario planning,” we may frame the disclosures as non-operational.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Follow-up Questions for Client:

1. Did you transmit or paraphrase any classified briefings, including specific locations, dates, or targets?

2. Were the recipients briefed or cleared under DoD Form 441 or SCIF protocols?

3. What was the timing of the disclosure relative to any formal public statements or press briefings?

4. Have you disclosed this activity to DoD security officials or the White House counsel?

Suggested Research ideas:

- Review United States v. Drake, 818 F. Supp. 2d 909 (D. Md. 2011) for limits on Espionage Act when defendant discloses unclassified or improperly marked information.

- Examine internal DoD and NSC protocols on cabinet-level discretion in strategic disclosures.

- FOIA or classified review of prior internal investigations into cabinet officials’ use of personal communications apps.

Conclusion

Secretary Hegseth faces real criminal exposure under the Espionage Act and related statutes if the disclosed content qualifies as “national defense information” or if classified operations were communicated to unauthorized individuals using unapproved channels. Time is of the essence. We recommend immediately securing personal and work devices, initiating a security classification review, and preparing a proactive engagement strategy with the DoD General Counsel’s Office.

---

Let me know if you'd like a separate document for public affairs positioning, congressional inquiries, or attorney-client privilege strategy.

---

This post is free.

But free doesn’t build the future.

Independent journalism only works when people like you choose to lean in—not just with attention, but with support.

If my work and message resonates with you,— today’s a great day to take the leap.

It’s also a unique gift to a family member or friend who is interested in this kind of commentary on breaking political news and democracy.

At just $5 a month. $50 a year. It’s a small investment in something bigger than all of us.

---