7 ms·

It was Hegseth, not Waltz, that suddenly started dropping classified operations details (without promoting) into a group chat that was just set up for the purpo

It was Hegseth, not Waltz, that suddenly started dropping classified operations details (without promoting) into a group chat that was just set up for the purpose of planning for a future meeting. He's the one who really fucked up here.

infecto 2y ago
I don’t like Waltz but I think this is the better take that has no really taken hold well in the media. Why was Hegseth posting information that should be in a need to know basis and to folks that have no benefit know before hand. This is the primary issue and I believe a disqualification for being SECDEF. Others would get immediately fired and a healthy chance of being prosecuted. The other issue is having this chat outside of formal means. I am not as well educated but having civilians that serve at the pleasure of the president I would assume must follow some rules around formal and recorded communications.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Hegseth's primary qualification for being the Secretary of Defense is being a yes-man who owes the administration for his job. It's not surprising that given a choice between {serving the needs of the military} and {serving the needs of the administration}, he defaulted to the latter.
  - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
    I agree with Hegseth not being qualified and everything, so +1 for the snark, but.. how was this "serving the needs of the administration"?
    - HenryBemis 2y ago
      (I assume/will try to interpret as...) Meaning that the role has some rules (written and unwritten). I can gossip about what went wrong at work today when out drinking with friends without breaking any laws/contracts, or I can just shut up and not gossip/brag that "today we killed 100 people", especially when celebrating the death of people.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      In this particular situation, Hegseth had two choices. 1. Limit what was shared in the Signal group to non-operational details and refer all involved to their secured systems. 2. Make it easier for everyone else and just post the details directly in the chat. He chose the one that he thought would curry favor with other members of the administration.
  - nailer 2y ago
    I thought his primary qualification for being the secretary of defence was: —— Being a Major in the Minnesota Army National Guard. And the following Overseas deployments: - Guantanamo Bay (2004-2005): He served as a second lieutenant with a security platoon, guarding detainees. - Iraq (2005-2006): He deployed with the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, serving as an infantry platoon leader in Baghdad and later as a civil-military operations officer in Samarra. - Afghanistan (2011-2012): He served as a captain and senior counterinsurgency instructor at the Counterinsurgency Training Center in Kabul. Awards Hegseth earned two Bronze Star Medals for his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a Combat Infantryman Badge, which recognizes soldiers who have directly engaged in ground combat. He also received two Army Commendation Medals and the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, along with Expert Infantryman and Combat Infantryman badges. His military career spanned from 2002 to 2021, including active duty and time in the Individual Ready Reserve. In addition to his military service, Hegseth holds a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from Princeton University and a Master of Public Policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, which complement his practical experience with academic credentials relevant to leadership and policy. ———- You can argue he’s good at the job or bad at the job. I would have no issue if you said he was completely incompetent. But saying that hs a ‘primary qualification is being a yes man’ is a ridiculous laughable argument.
    - dagw 2y ago
      You do not seriously believe that he got hired based solely or even primarily on that, let's face it, quite mediocre military service resume.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I realize much has been made of his military service. If he was the only reserve O-4 with combat experience we could find to serve as Secretary of Defense, then yes, that would be a primary qualification. Given the rank, that's ridiculous. Ergo his primary qualification is something else.
      - nailer 2y ago
        A decent military record is table stakes, if he did not have a reasonable military record at all he would not have the position - so that’s his primary qualification. People that were close to the administration that didn’t have a military record would not have been eligible for the job. Not you, but many others were arguing at the time that his primary qualification was ‘being a Fox News anchor’, which is infuriating. It’s not - it’s his military service. There are many people that are Fox News anchors, none of them were eligible for the job because they do not have a military record. I have no argument with claiming he won the job because of his connections.
- jasonm23 2y ago
  > better take that has no really taken hold well in the media. The media ... not covering a story accurately, or with integrity?! Say it isn't so!
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  everyone else in the chat is responsible for not shutting it down
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    Yeah, ultimately they are all morons. If I was on Slack at work and someone tried sharing secrets I would immediately say hey, we have protocols for this. Now we have to rotate keys. Please follow the protocols. Let’s walk you through it if you don’t remember. Etc. And those are just API keys or similar data. We take it seriously because 1. It actually matters and 2. The habit will save your ass when it counts. Make it a habit These guys have not made security a habit. It doesn’t actually matter to these guys. That’s scary. This is so much more than access to my org’s AWS services.
    - immibis 2y ago
      If you worked for the Trump administration, you would then be fired for getting in the way of what he wants.
  - infecto 2y ago
    Sure they are all morons and culpable but still the largest failure is the person who leaked details.
    - goku12 2y ago
      There is something bigger at play when so many people make mistakes all at once. Considering the seriousness of the topic, wasn't there any sort of protocol or monitoring system that would alert them that the information is too privileged for that medium? I have seen ordinary institutions behave more sensibly. I don't have any experience in national security matters. But even as a tech professional, I would expect at least one dedicated official to be watching the channel for compliance. How does such an experienced institution make such fundamental mistakes?
      - defrost 2y ago
- trhway 2y ago
  >Why was Hegseth posting information that should be in a need to know basis He was tripping on power (reminds any other washed out alcoholic talking). It was a collective orgasm in that chat.
remus 2y ago
It seems reasonably likely they were using signal to avoid records keeping requirements and public scrutiny. If you found a group of employees using signal with disappearing messages to talk about work outside of your normal work chat (slack etc.) you'd be pretty suspicious, let alone if they were working in public office!
- ljf 2y ago
  Also if you then saw colleagues discussing company secrets or legally privileged information on a group chat, the onus is on everyone in the chat to call that out as wrong.
  - trhway 2y ago
    >the onus is on everyone in the chat to call that out as wrong that would be in a group of even minimally qualified professionals, not the clowns who got their jobs on a whim of the bigger clown. You know the monkey with a nuclear bomb. I hope we wouldn't see how they handle the real bomb, and for now just the tariffs have like an extremely large nuke just wiped $10T+, and it isn't "just stock market", it is large complicated efficient logistics chains and trade relations that were built over years and were powering this civilization. To compare, the damage from the Ukraine war - you'd need several tens of nukes to produce such damage - is just around a "meager" $1T.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Should be, but the US is run by cults of personality where they defer to people they see as their superiors - that is, "if Hegseth does it, it's ok, right?"
  - DebtDeflation 2y ago
    Most large companies monitor devices. You start GMailing source code to yourself, you get fired.
- HenryBemis 2y ago
  A very friend of mine was going through a nasty divorce. Although we weren't talking about the divorce/case he set our messages on auto-delete. Apparently his (now, ex-wife) had SMS and WhatsApp messages in court to be used for her cased. Any 'loving message' to her from the early days ("you are so perfect") and any 'nasty message' to others ("oh that bitch!!") sent to anyone was presented in court. So for caution he auto-deleted even the messages that were innocuous, just in case it could be used against him "oh he wanted to spend money for a new phone/laptop, thus he has money, thus I will take it"
mcintyre1994 2y ago
None of them seemed at all surprised though, and a bunch of them responded positively. The group didn’t act like the chat was just for setting up a meeting.
wolfi1 2y ago
Hegseth, the DUI hire?
verelo 2y ago
It’s an interesting point, but are they even allowed to communicate on these devices with this app? I feel that has to be a question with an answer and i would assume it’s no?
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Yes they are, but explicitly not for non-public DoD information. It's for stuff like "hey get to a SCIF so we can talk" and otherwise replacing what you'd normally use SMS for.
jmull 2y ago
Hegseth's messages were the worst but not the only ones. E.g., Waltz goes on to share details of targets hit. And no one ever says, "Don't share operational details in this chat," either before Hegseth's details message or after. It's perfectly clear that was normal and expected. The chat starts with pulling together the group, continues with high-level agreement to proceed, then the details start dropping... You know... exactly the way work-related chats go. I've had innumerable work chats like this. Hegseth's own severe incompetence doesn't somehow absolve Waltz of his. I used "bozo" in the plural for a reason. You don't have to carry water for these idiots. They may nominally be on your "side", but they aren't holding up their end of it. They are making huge mistakes which have real consequences for us all. Time to start calling them out on it, not trying to defend them with technicalities, false dichotomies, and misdirection.
- footlose_3815 2y ago
  Among all the promoted opinions that are trying to muddy the waters on the subject to make them seem innocent, there shines a beam of truth: >It's perfectly clear that was normal and expected. Their lack of protocol, lack of humility, and just lying about everything shows how unfit they are for leadership.
- sixothree 2y ago
  > And no one ever says, "Don't share operational details in this chat," The work I do isn't 1/10th as sensitive as this but we have this branch in our threads all the time. I can't imagine the carelessness required for this to happen this way.
saghm 2y ago
I don't think we need to go out of our way to exonerate any of them. "Really fucking up" isn't something exclusive.
elihu 2y ago
Hegseth's posts were the most egregious, but there was a lot of sensitive information that could have been inferred from the rest of it -- basically that the U.S. was planning some sort of attack against the Houthis, they debated whether to do it or not and chose to go ahead, and the approximate timing of the attack is implied by the timing of meetings and decision windows. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2025/03/politics/yemen-war-plans-signal-chat-annotated-dg/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2025/03/politics/yemen-war-p...
ncr100 2y ago
They were all still breaking Presidential Records Act. They knew it. Including Waltz. They deserve punishment at the Executive level. I want a President who follows laws.

infecto 2y ago

I don’t like Waltz but I think this is the better take that has no really taken hold well in the media. Why was Hegseth posting information that should be in a need to know basis and to folks that have no benefit know before hand. This is the primary issue and I believe a disqualification for being SECDEF. Others would get immediately fired and a healthy chance of being prosecuted. The other issue is having this chat outside of formal means. I am not as well educated but having civilians that serve at the pleasure of the president I would assume must follow some rules around formal and recorded communications.

ethbr1 2y ago
Hegseth's primary qualification for being the Secretary of Defense is being a yes-man who owes the administration for his job. It's not surprising that given a choice between {serving the needs of the military} and {serving the needs of the administration}, he defaulted to the latter.
- hnaccount_rng 2y ago
  I agree with Hegseth not being qualified and everything, so +1 for the snark, but.. how was this "serving the needs of the administration"?
  - HenryBemis 2y ago
    (I assume/will try to interpret as...) Meaning that the role has some rules (written and unwritten). I can gossip about what went wrong at work today when out drinking with friends without breaking any laws/contracts, or I can just shut up and not gossip/brag that "today we killed 100 people", especially when celebrating the death of people.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    In this particular situation, Hegseth had two choices. 1. Limit what was shared in the Signal group to non-operational details and refer all involved to their secured systems. 2. Make it easier for everyone else and just post the details directly in the chat. He chose the one that he thought would curry favor with other members of the administration.
- nailer 2y ago
  I thought his primary qualification for being the secretary of defence was: —— Being a Major in the Minnesota Army National Guard. And the following Overseas deployments: - Guantanamo Bay (2004-2005): He served as a second lieutenant with a security platoon, guarding detainees. - Iraq (2005-2006): He deployed with the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, serving as an infantry platoon leader in Baghdad and later as a civil-military operations officer in Samarra. - Afghanistan (2011-2012): He served as a captain and senior counterinsurgency instructor at the Counterinsurgency Training Center in Kabul. Awards Hegseth earned two Bronze Star Medals for his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a Combat Infantryman Badge, which recognizes soldiers who have directly engaged in ground combat. He also received two Army Commendation Medals and the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, along with Expert Infantryman and Combat Infantryman badges. His military career spanned from 2002 to 2021, including active duty and time in the Individual Ready Reserve. In addition to his military service, Hegseth holds a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from Princeton University and a Master of Public Policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, which complement his practical experience with academic credentials relevant to leadership and policy. ———- You can argue he’s good at the job or bad at the job. I would have no issue if you said he was completely incompetent. But saying that hs a ‘primary qualification is being a yes man’ is a ridiculous laughable argument.
  - dagw 2y ago
    You do not seriously believe that he got hired based solely or even primarily on that, let's face it, quite mediocre military service resume.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    I realize much has been made of his military service. If he was the only reserve O-4 with combat experience we could find to serve as Secretary of Defense, then yes, that would be a primary qualification. Given the rank, that's ridiculous. Ergo his primary qualification is something else.
    - nailer 2y ago
      A decent military record is table stakes, if he did not have a reasonable military record at all he would not have the position - so that’s his primary qualification. People that were close to the administration that didn’t have a military record would not have been eligible for the job. Not you, but many others were arguing at the time that his primary qualification was ‘being a Fox News anchor’, which is infuriating. It’s not - it’s his military service. There are many people that are Fox News anchors, none of them were eligible for the job because they do not have a military record. I have no argument with claiming he won the job because of his connections.
jasonm23 2y ago
> better take that has no really taken hold well in the media. The media ... not covering a story accurately, or with integrity?! Say it isn't so!
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
everyone else in the chat is responsible for not shutting it down
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  Yeah, ultimately they are all morons. If I was on Slack at work and someone tried sharing secrets I would immediately say hey, we have protocols for this. Now we have to rotate keys. Please follow the protocols. Let’s walk you through it if you don’t remember. Etc. And those are just API keys or similar data. We take it seriously because 1. It actually matters and 2. The habit will save your ass when it counts. Make it a habit These guys have not made security a habit. It doesn’t actually matter to these guys. That’s scary. This is so much more than access to my org’s AWS services.
  - immibis 2y ago
    If you worked for the Trump administration, you would then be fired for getting in the way of what he wants.
- infecto 2y ago
  Sure they are all morons and culpable but still the largest failure is the person who leaked details.
  - goku12 2y ago
    There is something bigger at play when so many people make mistakes all at once. Considering the seriousness of the topic, wasn't there any sort of protocol or monitoring system that would alert them that the information is too privileged for that medium? I have seen ordinary institutions behave more sensibly. I don't have any experience in national security matters. But even as a tech professional, I would expect at least one dedicated official to be watching the channel for compliance. How does such an experienced institution make such fundamental mistakes?
    - defrost 2y ago
trhway 2y ago
>Why was Hegseth posting information that should be in a need to know basis He was tripping on power (reminds any other washed out alcoholic talking). It was a collective orgasm in that chat.

remus 2y ago

It seems reasonably likely they were using signal to avoid records keeping requirements and public scrutiny. If you found a group of employees using signal with disappearing messages to talk about work outside of your normal work chat (slack etc.) you'd be pretty suspicious, let alone if they were working in public office!

ljf 2y ago
Also if you then saw colleagues discussing company secrets or legally privileged information on a group chat, the onus is on everyone in the chat to call that out as wrong.
- trhway 2y ago
  >the onus is on everyone in the chat to call that out as wrong that would be in a group of even minimally qualified professionals, not the clowns who got their jobs on a whim of the bigger clown. You know the monkey with a nuclear bomb. I hope we wouldn't see how they handle the real bomb, and for now just the tariffs have like an extremely large nuke just wiped $10T+, and it isn't "just stock market", it is large complicated efficient logistics chains and trade relations that were built over years and were powering this civilization. To compare, the damage from the Ukraine war - you'd need several tens of nukes to produce such damage - is just around a "meager" $1T.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Should be, but the US is run by cults of personality where they defer to people they see as their superiors - that is, "if Hegseth does it, it's ok, right?"
- DebtDeflation 2y ago
  Most large companies monitor devices. You start GMailing source code to yourself, you get fired.
HenryBemis 2y ago
A very friend of mine was going through a nasty divorce. Although we weren't talking about the divorce/case he set our messages on auto-delete. Apparently his (now, ex-wife) had SMS and WhatsApp messages in court to be used for her cased. Any 'loving message' to her from the early days ("you are so perfect") and any 'nasty message' to others ("oh that bitch!!") sent to anyone was presented in court. So for caution he auto-deleted even the messages that were innocuous, just in case it could be used against him "oh he wanted to spend money for a new phone/laptop, thus he has money, thus I will take it"

mcintyre1994 2y ago

None of them seemed at all surprised though, and a bunch of them responded positively. The group didn’t act like the chat was just for setting up a meeting.

wolfi1 2y ago

Hegseth, the DUI hire?

verelo 2y ago

It’s an interesting point, but are they even allowed to communicate on these devices with this app? I feel that has to be a question with an answer and i would assume it’s no?

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Yes they are, but explicitly not for non-public DoD information. It's for stuff like "hey get to a SCIF so we can talk" and otherwise replacing what you'd normally use SMS for.

jmull 2y ago

Hegseth's messages were the worst but not the only ones. E.g., Waltz goes on to share details of targets hit. And no one ever says, "Don't share operational details in this chat," either before Hegseth's details message or after. It's perfectly clear that was normal and expected. The chat starts with pulling together the group, continues with high-level agreement to proceed, then the details start dropping... You know... exactly the way work-related chats go. I've had innumerable work chats like this. Hegseth's own severe incompetence doesn't somehow absolve Waltz of his. I used "bozo" in the plural for a reason. You don't have to carry water for these idiots. They may nominally be on your "side", but they aren't holding up their end of it. They are making huge mistakes which have real consequences for us all. Time to start calling them out on it, not trying to defend them with technicalities, false dichotomies, and misdirection.

footlose_3815 2y ago
Among all the promoted opinions that are trying to muddy the waters on the subject to make them seem innocent, there shines a beam of truth: >It's perfectly clear that was normal and expected. Their lack of protocol, lack of humility, and just lying about everything shows how unfit they are for leadership.
sixothree 2y ago
> And no one ever says, "Don't share operational details in this chat," The work I do isn't 1/10th as sensitive as this but we have this branch in our threads all the time. I can't imagine the carelessness required for this to happen this way.

saghm 2y ago

I don't think we need to go out of our way to exonerate any of them. "Really fucking up" isn't something exclusive.

elihu 2y ago

Hegseth's posts were the most egregious, but there was a lot of sensitive information that could have been inferred from the rest of it -- basically that the U.S. was planning some sort of attack against the Houthis, they debated whether to do it or not and chose to go ahead, and the approximate timing of the attack is implied by the timing of meetings and decision windows. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2025/03/politics/yemen-war-plans-signal-chat-annotated-dg/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2025/03/politics/yemen-war-p...

ncr100 2y ago

They were all still breaking Presidential Records Act. They knew it. Including Waltz. They deserve punishment at the Executive level. I want a President who follows laws.