- 2 days ago
BREAKING: Evidence Shows Pete Hegseth Shared Classified Intel via Signal Chat
Recent reports from The Washington Post, CBS News, and The Daily Beast reveal that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth forwarded classified “SECRET//NOFORN” military plans through Signal. These messages—detailing aircraft types, launch times, and attack choreography for strikes in Yemen—originated from a SIPRNet email by Gen. Kurilla .
🕵 What You’ll Discover in This Video:
📜 The Pentagon watchdog’s finding: the info was shared in multiple Signal chats—not only with top Trump officials but also in a private group with Hegseth’s family and aides .
🗣 How denial statements (“no war plans were shared”) clash with transcripts and email documentation .
🚨 Legal fallout: bipartisan IG probe, calls for resignation, comparisons to an earlier chat leak that mistakenly added a journalist .
🌐 National security experts weighing in on operational risks & the implications under the Espionage Act and Federal Records Act .
00:00 - ⚠ Disclaimer: All images in this video are AI-generated
00:10 - Intro: Hegseth under fire for leaked Signal chats
02:00 - What Was Shared? Classified intel breakdown
04:30 - Timeline of the Chat Leak: Who, When & Where
06:45 - SIPRNet, Yemen Plans & Security Risks
08:00 - 🔁 Reminder: All visuals are AI-generated
08:15 - How the Info Spread: Private chats & media leaks
10:30 - Government Reaction: Investigations begin
12:15 - Legal Fallout: Espionage Act & classified violations
14:00 - Public & Media Response: Fox News silence
15:30 - 📝 Final Note: Summary & AI disclaimer
Disclaimer: Images shown are generated by AI and do not represent real people or events.
---
🧠 Why It Matters
“Signalgate” could reshape how senior officials handle classified info—and raise urgent questions about accountability, privacy, and military protocol.
🔔 Subscribe for daily updates on political and defense scandals.
👍 Like if you want more insider breakdowns.
💬 Comment below: Should Hegseth resign?
#Hegseth #Signalgate #ClassifiedLeak #Pentagon #YemenStrikes #MilitarySecurity #USPolitics #NationalSecurity
Recent reports from The Washington Post, CBS News, and The Daily Beast reveal that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth forwarded classified “SECRET//NOFORN” military plans through Signal. These messages—detailing aircraft types, launch times, and attack choreography for strikes in Yemen—originated from a SIPRNet email by Gen. Kurilla .
🕵 What You’ll Discover in This Video:
📜 The Pentagon watchdog’s finding: the info was shared in multiple Signal chats—not only with top Trump officials but also in a private group with Hegseth’s family and aides .
🗣 How denial statements (“no war plans were shared”) clash with transcripts and email documentation .
🚨 Legal fallout: bipartisan IG probe, calls for resignation, comparisons to an earlier chat leak that mistakenly added a journalist .
🌐 National security experts weighing in on operational risks & the implications under the Espionage Act and Federal Records Act .
00:00 - ⚠ Disclaimer: All images in this video are AI-generated
00:10 - Intro: Hegseth under fire for leaked Signal chats
02:00 - What Was Shared? Classified intel breakdown
04:30 - Timeline of the Chat Leak: Who, When & Where
06:45 - SIPRNet, Yemen Plans & Security Risks
08:00 - 🔁 Reminder: All visuals are AI-generated
08:15 - How the Info Spread: Private chats & media leaks
10:30 - Government Reaction: Investigations begin
12:15 - Legal Fallout: Espionage Act & classified violations
14:00 - Public & Media Response: Fox News silence
15:30 - 📝 Final Note: Summary & AI disclaimer
Disclaimer: Images shown are generated by AI and do not represent real people or events.
---
🧠 Why It Matters
“Signalgate” could reshape how senior officials handle classified info—and raise urgent questions about accountability, privacy, and military protocol.
🔔 Subscribe for daily updates on political and defense scandals.
👍 Like if you want more insider breakdowns.
💬 Comment below: Should Hegseth resign?
#Hegseth #Signalgate #ClassifiedLeak #Pentagon #YemenStrikes #MilitarySecurity #USPolitics #NationalSecurity
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00where we take your stack of sources and really try to pull out the essential knowledge and insights.
00:06Today, we're plunging into some truly sensitive material.
00:10We're talking about allegations surrounding the handling of classified information
00:13right at the highest levels of government.
00:16Our mission here is to unpack the details, clarify these classifications,
00:21and really understand the implications of what's been reported.
00:24That's right.
00:25And we've got a fascinating, pretty complex set of sources detailing a specific incident.
00:30It involves former Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, unclassified messaging apps,
00:35and, well, highly sensitive military intelligence.
00:39Okay.
00:39It's a really prime example, I think, of the challenges of information security in, you know, the digital age.
00:46We'll explore not just what happened, but why it actually matters for national security and public trust.
00:52Right. So let's unpack this.
00:53Our sources lay out allegations that former Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared intelligence from a secret,
00:59no foreign, classified email.
01:01That specific classification, yeah.
01:02And he shared it with an unclassified signal group chats back in March.
01:07This was concerning a U.S. bombing campaign in Yemen.
01:11Now, the big headline here, and what makes this really critical for our deep dive,
01:15is that the Pentagon's independent inspector general has reportedly obtained evidence supporting this claim.
01:21Evidence. That's key.
01:22And it directly contradicts repeated denials from the Trump administration.
01:27Right. The contradiction is central.
01:29So here's where it gets really interesting.
01:31The core of this deep dive centers on intelligence concerning that U.S. bombing campaign in Yemen.
01:36Yes.
01:36Our sources state this information was initially sent via a classified email by General Michael Eric Carilla.
01:43He's the top commander for U.S. military operations in the Middle East.
01:46C-N-T-Com commander, yeah.
01:47Yeah.
01:48Sent to more than a dozen defense officials through proper channels initially.
01:52Okay, initially.
01:53So what's fascinating here is the classification itself.
01:55You mentioned Carilla's email was marked secret, no foreign.
01:58Exactly.
01:59And secret isn't just, you know, a rubber stamp.
02:01It means unauthorized disclosure could cause serious damage to national security.
02:07Serious damage.
02:08That includes potential harm to defense capabilities, foreign relations, intelligence operations.
02:14Precisely.
02:14It's a significant threshold.
02:17And that no foreign designation.
02:19What exactly does that mean for you, the listener?
02:22And why is it such a critical layer of protection here?
02:25Well, no foreign stands for not releasable to foreign nationals.
02:28It adds an extreme layer of restriction.
02:31Extreme how?
02:32It prohibits release to any foreign government, foreign national, or international organization without very explicit authorization.
02:39So not just allies, but any non-U.S. entity.
02:42Correct.
02:43And connecting this to the bigger picture, sharing no foreign info, even if it doesn't directly compromise an ongoing operation right then and there,
02:51it could seriously erode trust with allied intelligence agencies.
02:55Ah, the trust factor.
02:56Absolutely. It leads to questions about the U.S. commitment to information security.
03:00It might even expose sources and methods that rely on these strict agreements we have.
03:04You could see a kind of chilling effect on international intelligence cooperation.
03:08Allies might just become hesitant.
03:10Makes sense.
03:11So the information was critical, highly restricted to only those with a clear need to know.
03:17But then it allegedly ended up somewhere it absolutely shouldn't have.
03:20Our sources do help clarify the classification levels.
03:23You've got confidential, that's damage to national security.
03:28Then secret, which is serious damage, like there's no foreign example.
03:31Yeah.
03:31And then top secret, which means exceptionally grave damage.
03:35That often has extra caveats like SI for special intelligence or TK for talent keyhole.
03:42Exactly.
03:42Very sensitive stuff at that level.
03:45Okay.
03:45So let's get into the alleged breach itself.
03:47The classified intelligence was reportedly posted in at least two unclassified group chats on the Signal messaging app.
03:53That was March 15th.
03:54Two chats, yeah.
03:55Now, the choice of Signal, a commercially available unclassified platform, immediately raised, well, significant security concerns among experts and lawmakers.
04:04Why is Signal, even with its encryption, not suitable for this kind of information?
04:09Yeah.
04:09This really gets to that tension, doesn't it?
04:11Convenience versus security.
04:13While Signal offers end-to-end encryption, which is good for personal privacy, our sources highlight that its unclassified nature means it just lacks the secure infrastructure.
04:25It doesn't have the robust access controls, the auditing capabilities, the stringent physical security measures that are required for handling classified material.
04:33So it's not just about the encryption itself?
04:35Not at all.
04:36It's the whole environment.
04:38It kind of suggests a broader trend, maybe, where officials used to instant communication might perhaps inadvertently bypass the secure, albeit sometimes clunkier, channels.
04:49Right.
04:49And here's where it gets really interesting and turned what might have been an internal lapse into a public scandal.
04:56A journalist from The Atlantic magazine known for critical reporting on the Trump administration was apparently inadvertently included in one of these group chats.
05:04Wow.
05:04Okay.
05:05Inadvertently included.
05:06That phrasing itself is interesting.
05:08It suggests an accidental oversight, right?
05:11But the fact that such a lapse could happen involving the Secretary of Defense, well, it points to maybe a deeper systemic issue, a kind of casual approach to communication security at very high levels.
05:25It definitely raises that question.
05:27And what's also fascinating here is the alleged involvement of Marine Corps Colonel Ricky Buria, a military aide to Secretary Hegseth.
05:33Ah, the aide.
05:35The aide.
05:36Yeah.
05:36Officials familiar with the matter stated that Buria had access to Hegseth's personal phone.
05:41And according to individuals interviewed by the Inspector General, Buria informed colleagues that he was the one who typed the controversial Yemen texts into Hegseth's device.
05:50So the aide physically typed it.
05:52Does that shift the responsibility?
05:54Well, that's the crucial point.
05:56While the aide may have physically transmitted the information, the ultimate responsibility for the content and its dissemination, especially classified content, lies with the principle.
06:05So Secretary Hegseth.
06:07Exactly.
06:07It raises really important questions about delegation, oversight and accountability for senior officials' communications, especially in the digital realm.
06:15OK.
06:15So following the initial reports, our sources detail a pretty consistent pattern of denials from numerous Trump administration officials.
06:24Denials started coming quickly.
06:25For example, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard explicitly stated under oath during a March 25th Senate intelligence hearing, quote, there was no classified material that was shared in that signal chat.
06:38Under oath.
06:39That's significant.
06:40And Mike Waltz, who was National Security Advisor then, also insisted on July 15th that Hegseth did not share classified intelligence.
06:48Another flat denial.
06:49And even after the Pentagon watchdog's evidence emerged, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell reiterated, quote, no classified information was shared via signal.
06:57He added that nobody was texting war plans and even cited successful operations like Rough Rider, the Yemen bombing itself and Midnight Hammer as proof of, quote, top notch operational security and discipline.
07:09Right. That top notch security claim becomes interesting later.
07:13But if we connect this to the bigger picture, this official stance, these strong denials, stand in direct contradiction to the evidence obtained by the Pentagon's independent watchdog.
07:22The IG evidence.
07:24Yes, which indicates the signal messages originated from an email classified secret L form.
07:29And it's not just the IG.
07:31Seasoned national security professionals have also weighed in.
07:34Like who?
07:34Well, retired Admiral William McRaven, highly respected, oversaw the bin Laden raid.
07:40He unequivocally stated that the information shared on signal was, quote, clearly classified.
07:45Clearly classified.
07:46OK.
07:46And Senator Chris Coons, Democrat from Delaware, also expressed strong criticism, emphasizing that signal is just not an appropriate and secure means of communicating highly sensitive information.
07:56So you have this stark contradiction, official denials, some under oath, versus internal findings from the IG and criticism from seasoned experts.
08:06Exactly.
08:06It really suggests or at least raises questions about a potential politicization of intelligence and classification.
08:12And our sources note the Trump administration has yet to claim that such a process declassification was carried out.
08:18That's a really critical point.
08:19Right.
08:20The absence of that claim.
08:21Which further strengthens the inference that it was indeed classified at the time it was shared on signal.
08:27Precisely.
08:27It raises that important question.
08:29When political expediency seems to outweigh established national security principles, what happens to the integrity of the classification system itself?
08:38Yeah.
08:38Our sources suggest this can set a really dangerous precedent.
08:42It erodes public trust.
08:44It undermines Democratic oversight.
08:46And the timeline here really highlights the conflict from the March 15th signal messages to those July 23rd bombshell reports revealing the IG evidence.
08:56It lays it all out.
08:57So the Pentagon inspector general's inquiry, how did that get started and what were the key findings, according to our sources?
09:03Well, the alleged disclosure prompted a formal inquiry by the Defense Department inspector general's office.
09:08It was initiated back in April.
09:10April.
09:10And that followed bipartisan requests from the Senate Armed Services Committee.
09:14So both sides wanted answers.
09:17The investigation specifically focused on those messages posted in the unclassified signal group chats about the Yemen bombing campaign.
09:25And what's fascinating here, as you mentioned, is the role and relative independence of the inspector general system.
09:30Absolutely. Despite political pressure or official denials, the IG's mandate allows for an internal check on executive power.
09:39It provides a mechanism for accountability.
09:41And crucially.
09:42Crucially. The Pentagon's independent watchdog obtained evidence confirming that the messages shared on signal derive directly from an email classified as secret in a foreign.
09:52Directly from that classified email.
09:54Yes. That evidence is really the cornerstone of these allegations.
09:57It provides a direct factual counterpoint to the administration's denials.
10:02So what does this all mean for any potential defense the administration might have had?
10:06You touched on the declassification issue.
10:07Right.
10:08Our sources highlight this critical aspect.
10:11The absence of any assertion from the Trump administration that the classified information was declassified or even downgraded before it was sent via signal.
10:19And the defense secretary can declassify Pentagon info or anything?
10:23Yes. The authority exists.
10:25But those familiar with the IG's review indicate there's simply no evidence that such a process happened here.
10:30No paper trail. No formal declaration. Nothing.
10:34So that omission, that lack of a declassification claim, it really undermines any potential defense, doesn't it?
10:41Significantly. Their failure to claim declassification strongly implies the information was still classified when shared.
10:48It suggests, well, either an acknowledgment of culpability or at least a recognition that no legitimate declassification pathway was followed.
10:55It highlights a direct breach of established protocols.
10:58Got it. And it's important our sources distinguish this specific IG inquiry from another separate criminal investigation involving Secretary Hexeth, right?
11:06That's correct. There was another investigation regarding a different leak, a classified defense intelligence agency report about Iranian nuclear facilities.
11:15This signal incident is distinct from that.
11:17OK. So pulling back, what are the broader implications of this alleged sharing of secret no foreign intelligence on an unclassified platform?
11:26Well, our sources emphasize this constitutes a significant potential security breach, a serious one.
11:32How so? What are the risks?
11:33The risks are severe. You're talking about the potential compromise of ongoing or future military operations, endangering U.S. forces or assets,
11:43and potentially exposing sensitive intelligence sources and methods, the very people and techniques we rely on to gather critical information.
11:50That really brings home why these rules exist.
11:52Exactly. It raises that important question. Why are established government regulations so strict?
11:57They mandate using highly secure, accredited communication systems for transmitting classified info, especially at the secret level and above.
12:04Systems designed specifically for this?
12:06Precisely. They have stringent encryption, access controls, auditing capabilities, all designed to prevent unauthorized disclosure.
12:15Using a commercial app like Signal is a fundamental deviation from those critical security standards.
12:20So beyond the individual accountability for whoever shared it, incidents like this, they erode public trust, don't they?
12:28Absolutely. Public trust, international intelligence sharing relationships are damaged.
12:33The credibility of governmental institutions gets undermined.
12:36And we saw public outcry, right? Calls for Secretary Hegseth's firing.
12:40Yes. And Michael Waltz, the apparent creator of the main signal group, he was ousted less than two months after this episode came to light.
12:46It underscores the gravity of the perceived breach.
12:49Which brings us back to that Pentagon spokesman's comment.
12:52Right. The claims about top-notch operational security and discipline and successful operations.
12:57It creates a kind of paradox when you juxtapose it with this signal incident.
13:02A disconnect.
13:02A definite disconnect, it seems, between broad institutional claims of security and the actual practices of senior officials in their daily digital interactions.
13:12So what's the lesson there?
13:13It suggests that true national security in this digital age requires more than just robust technical defenses.
13:21It demands a pervasive culture of security awareness and discipline among all personnel, you know, especially at the highest levels.
13:28This incident is a stark reminder of that challenge balancing rapid communication with really stringent security needs.
13:36Okay. So what does this all mean for you, the listener, navigating this complex world of information?
13:42Well, the evidence presented by the Pentagon's Independent Inspector General strongly indicates that secret, no foreign classified information was shared in unclassified signal chats by an account affiliated with then Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
13:55And that finding directly contradicts those repeated denials from various Trump administration officials, some of which were made under oath.
14:02Exactly. This incident highlights a significant security lapse.
14:06It raises profound questions about how sensitive national security intelligence is handled and whether established communication protocols are being followed at the very highest levels of government.
14:16And the lack of any claim about declassification before the sharing?
14:19That further underscores the seriousness of the alleged breach. It really points to the core issues of protocol and trust.
14:27So for us, this deep dive really emphasizes that inherent tension, doesn't it, between the demand for fast, maybe informal communication in our digital age?
14:36And the absolutely stringent, sometimes slower security requirements needed to protect classified national security information.
14:44They often seem at odds.
14:45So given everything we've discussed today about the critical need for secure communication, especially at the top, here's something to think about.
14:52Okay.
14:52How might that seemingly small act, choosing convenience over protocol and digital communication, maybe sending a quick text instead of using the secure system, how might that ripple outwards?
15:03How could it impact global trust and national security in ways that we don't immediately see?
Recommended
0:15
|
Up next
1:00
25:34
23:51
1:27
2:28