Judge This Event Impartially. Partisanship Must Not Apply to National Security
STRATEGY CENTRAL
For and By Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth – March 26, 2025
Introduction
In a stunning breach of national security protocols that would end the career of virtually any other military officer, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth finds himself at the center of a controversy that strikes at the heart of military values and leadership principles. The incident—involving the use of the commercial messaging app Signal to discuss sensitive military operations—reveals not just a failure of operational security but a dangerous double standard that threatens to undermine the bedrock principles upon which military leadership is built.
The Signal Incident: What We Know
The controversy erupted when Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported being accidentally added to a Signal group chat by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. According to Goldberg's account, the chat included high-ranking officials discussing imminent military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.[1] Most alarmingly, Secretary Hegseth allegedly shared specific details about the planned operations, including targets, weapons to be employed, and timing of attacks shortly before the U.S. conducted strikes on March 15.
When questioned in Hawaii during his first trip to the Pacific region as Pentagon chief, Hegseth categorically denied sending "war plans" and attacked Goldberg personally, calling him "deceitful and highly discredited."[2] This contradicted the White House's earlier acknowledgment of the chat's authenticity, creating a troubling discrepancy that suggests an attempt to obscure the truth. Sadly, it was the journalist who did the right thing by not publishing any of the obviously classified information on the group chat and waiting until after the operation.
Goldberg did not ask to be put on the chat and followed protocol far better than Hegseth. In yet another sign of immaturity, Hegseth called Goldberg, “a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who has made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again.” The standard bearer for DoD leadership should not resort to name calling and blaming the messenger for their mistakes.
The Clear Violation of Security Protocols
The facts of the case present an unambiguous violation of established security protocols. Department of Defense policies explicitly prohibit personnel from using unclassified systems—whether on government or personal devices—to discuss classified material.[3] A 2023 Defense Department memo specifically states that agency personnel must not use unclassified systems to discuss classified material.
Military and intelligence professionals understand that operational details—including the timing, targeting, and methods of attack—are inherently classified information. Such details provide adversaries with actionable intelligence that could compromise mission success and endanger American lives. This is precisely why Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) exist—to provide secure environments for discussing sensitive national security matters.
As one former senior U.S. official commented, "If someone used this example as a teaching moment in an introductory opsec class for people new to the military or government, it would receive laughs as an unbelievable and inconceivable example."[4]
A Double Standard of Accountability
The most disturbing aspect of this controversy is the glaring double standard being applied to Secretary Hegseth compared to regular service members. Any junior officer or enlisted personnel who committed a similar security breach would face immediate relief from command, comprehensive investigation, and potentially career-ending consequences.
Federal law makes it a crime when someone "through gross negligence, removes information relating to the national defense from its proper place of custody" if that information is "delivered to anyone in violation of trust or is lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed."[5] Under normal circumstances, a security violation of this magnitude would trigger immediate accountability measures.
Senator Ruben Gallego, a former Marine who served in Iraq, put it bluntly: "I probably would have faced court-martial if I had been involved in such a breach while in uniform."[6] Representative Seth Moulton pointedly quoted Hegseth's own previous statements about accountability: "'Accountability is back': I quote Secretary Pete Hegseth. That was our secretary of defense, on the record, just a couple of months ago."[7]
The Contradiction at the Heart of Military Values
The Army itself has written extensively about the central importance of integrity to military leadership. A September 2020 article published by Army Materiel Command titled "Integrity builds trust, confidence within Army workforce" emphasized that integrity "only has one meaning – truth" and that "violations of integrity should be treated in a consistent manner, without preference to specific employees."[8]
Most pointedly, the article notes: "Integrity violations at that leader level can tear down an organization and can create a cancerous environment that can quickly spread through the employee or Soldier unit, creating uncertainty and ultimately impacting readiness."
This is precisely what makes the current situation so damaging. When the Secretary of Defense—the pinnacle of military leadership—appears to operate under different rules than those he enforces on others, it creates a corrosive effect throughout the entire organization.
The Politicization of Military Leadership
The handling of this incident cannot be viewed in isolation. It follows troubling patterns of politicization within military leadership structures, including the removal of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Charles Q. Brown (and others) and the subsequent disparagement of General Mark Milley’s service.[9] The taking down of Milley's portrait and branding him a traitor represents an unprecedented political attack on a decorated military leader.
The strength of the American military has historically rested on its professional, apolitical nature. Service members swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a party or individual. The values of integrity, honor, and accountability transcend political affiliation. When these principles are subordinated to political loyalty, the fundamental character of the military institution is threatened.
As columnist David French noted in The New York Times: "If the present course of action holds... then what you've had is a further reaffirmation that the American military is becoming a political military... And as fearsome as many of those militaries can look on paper, I guarantee you political militaries, pound for pound, are much less effective than professional militaries."[10]
The Leadership Crisis
At its core, this controversy represents a crisis of leadership. Effective military leadership has always been built on the foundation of personal example. Leaders who hold themselves to the same or higher standards than those they lead inspire trust, confidence, and emulation. Those who exempt themselves from the rules they enforce inspire cynicism, contempt, and emulation of the worst kind.
The service academies instill in future officers the core principles of duty, honor, and integrity—not as abstract concepts but as practical necessities for effective leadership. When cadets witness that senior leaders can violate fundamental security protocols without consequence, what lesson are they to draw? What lesson should the junior officers and enlisted draw? If demonstrated loyalty trumps demonstrated integrity, why invest in the difficult work of character development? Why shouldn't everyone in uniform seek to excel at loyalty tests and disregard the historically high ethical standards of good character? Who is punished and who is rewarded will shape the system one way or the other.
The Way Forward
The path to restoring trust and integrity is clear, if politically difficult. A thorough, independent investigation into the Signal chat incident should be conducted, with appropriate consequences following. Secretary Hegseth should, at minimum, acknowledge the security breach and take responsibility for his actions. Ideally, he would resign to demonstrate that principles matter more than power or the favor of his boss.
More broadly, the administration must reaffirm its commitment to the apolitical nature of military service and the paramount importance of integrity at all levels of leadership. Without such actions, the damage to military culture and effectiveness will continue to spread.
The military thrives when its values are clear, consistent, and universally applied. When those at the top demonstrate that rules apply differently based on political allegiance, they undermine not just specific security protocols but the ethical foundation upon which military effectiveness depends. The consequences extend far beyond a single incident or individual, threatening the institutional character that has made the American military among the most respected and effective fighting forces in history.
In a profession where lives hang in the balance, integrity cannot be optional or situational. It must be absolute. Those who cannot meet this standard have no place in positions of military leadership—regardless of their political connections. It is not a partizan issue. Great leadership protects every American. A highly politized military threatens us all equally. Americans are in this together and we should uphold truth, duty, honor, and commitment to our democratic principles for our collective defense. Neither party should be indifferent to the erosion of national security or accept poor judgment and leadership based solely on party affiliation.
Works Cited
[1]: Goldberg, Jeffrey. "I Was Accidentally Added to a Trump Official Chat About a Military Strike." The Atlantic, March 2025.
[2]: Ryan, Missy and Lamothe, Dan. "Hegseth faces renewed scrutiny after Signal chat disclosures." The Washington Post, March 25, 2025.
[3]: Department of Defense. "Information Security Program: Overview, Classification, and Declassification." DoD Manual 5200.01, February 24, 2023.
[4]: Ryan, Missy and Lamothe, Dan. "Hegseth faces renewed scrutiny after Signal chat disclosures." The Washington Post, March 25, 2025.
[5]: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
[6]: Ryan, Missy and Lamothe, Dan. "Hegseth faces renewed scrutiny after Signal chat disclosures." The Washington Post, March 25, 2025.
[7]: Ryan, Missy and Lamothe, Dan. "Hegseth faces renewed scrutiny after Signal chat disclosures." The Washington Post, March 25, 2025.
[8]: Hawkins, Kari. "Integrity builds trust, confidence within Army workforce." Army Materiel Command, September 1, 2020.
[9]: Schmitt, Eric and Cooper, Helene. "Milley's Official Portrait Is Removed From Pentagon Display." The New York Times, February 2025.
[10]: French, David. "The Worst Part of Pete Hegseth's Group Chat Debacle." The New York Times, March 25, 2025.
Bibliography
Department of Defense. "Information Security Program: Overview, Classification, and Declassification." DoD Manual 5200.01, February 24, 2023.
French, David. "The Worst Part of Pete Hegseth's Group Chat Debacle." The New York Times, March 25, 2025.
Goldberg, Jeffrey. "I Was Accidentally Added to a Trump Official Chat About a Military Strike." The Atlantic, March 2025.
Hawkins, Kari. "Integrity builds trust, confidence within Army workforce." Army Materiel Command, September 1, 2020.
Ryan, Missy and Lamothe, Dan. "Hegseth faces renewed scrutiny after Signal chat disclosures." The Washington Post, March 25, 2025.
Schmitt, Eric and Cooper, Helene. "Milley's Official Portrait Is Removed From Pentagon Display." The New York Times, February 2025.
Tillman, Zoe. "Trump Cabinet Officials in Group Chat Flap Face a Lawsuit." Bloomberg, March 25, 2025.
"The questions we have to ask about a text-message national security fiasco." The Washington Post, Letters to the Editor, March 25, 2025.
United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
Comments