Latest news with #OPSEC
Epoch Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Defense Secretary Imposes New Restrictions on Press Access to Pentagon
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered the implementation of new restrictions on press access within the Pentagon to better protect sensitive information, the Department of Defense (DOD) said in a May 23 The Defense Department's highest priority is national security, including the protection of classified national intelligence information (CNSI) and sensitive, unclassified information such as those deemed to be critical for operations security (OPSEC), the memo stated. 'While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally obligated to protect CNSI and sensitive information—the unauthorized disclosure of which could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger.' As such, Hegseth directed that new control measures be put in place for press members who are issued a Pentagon Facilities Alternate Credential (PFAC) card, which provides access to the Pentagon. These rules are 'effective immediately.' Press members are now barred from entry or access to the office spaces of the secretary of defense and the joint staff without first securing official approval, as well as escort personnel. Access to the Pentagon Athletic Center is also prohibited. Unauthorized, unescorted access in the Pentagon will only be available in certain areas. Related Stories 5/20/2025 5/20/2025 If a press member requires access to other areas or offices within the Pentagon to conduct in-person interviews or other engagement, they must be formally escorted to and from these locations by DOD personnel from the respective offices or departments. Members of the press tasked with covering the Pentagon shall be required to complete an updated briefing over the coming weeks that lays out their responsibilities regarding protecting classified national intelligence information and sensitive details. A new style of PFAC with a clearer 'PRESS' identifier on the badge shall be issued for the press. Additional security measures and enhanced scrutiny on PFAC issuance are also expected. If any member of the press fails to comply with the new control measures, it will result in 'further restrictions and possibly revocation of press credentials,' said the memo. The Pentagon Press Association, a membership organization representing the interests of the press corps covering the U.S. military, said the new rules appeared to be a 'direct attack on the freedom of the press.' 'The decision is purportedly based on concerns about operational security. But the Pentagon Press Corps has had access to non-secured, unclassified spaces in the Pentagon for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, including in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, without any concern about OPSEC from DOD leadership,' the statement said. In a May 24 'Up until now, the press could wander all around the Pentagon with no oversight,' he said. The new requirements are 'pragmatic changes to protect operational security & ultimately brings the Pentagon in line with other government buildings.' The White House had 'The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America,' White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich said in a Protecting Government Information The new restrictions at the Pentagon are one of the latest measures implemented by the Trump administration to boost the security of government secrets and prevent leaks. On April 25, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a 'Safeguarding classified, privileged, and other sensitive information is essential to effective governance and law enforcement,' the memo said. 'Federal government employees intentionally leaking sensitive information to the media undermines the ability of the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe. This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop.' As such, Bondi rescinded previous Attorney General Merrick Garland's policies that prohibited the DOJ from 'seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks.' Under the new policy, news media 'must answer subpoenas' issued by the DOJ. The agency may also use court orders and search warrants to compel members of the news media to testify or produce information. Meanwhile, a Defense Department official Reuters contributed to the report.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
On protecting classified information, Pete Hegseth picks a fight he can't win
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth covered a fair amount of ground in his latest interview with his former Fox News colleague, Will Cain, and the beleaguered Pentagon chief acknowledged that he's received a lot of criticism since joining the White House Cabinet. In fact, he even suggested he should 'get a medal' because journalists have reported on his many failures. But of particular interest were his comments about the one criticism that apparently bothers him. 'There's a reason why our nation's most closely held secrets are contained in certain places with only access from certain people,' the former Fox News personality said. 'Nobody takes that more seriously than me. 'If there's one thing I've sort of been offended by — I don't get offended by much; I'm here to do my job for the president, for the country — is this idea that I don't take classification or I don't take clearances seriously. Nobody takes it more seriously than me.' I can appreciate why Hegseth is eager to defend himself, especially on a network his boss watches, but all things considered, this was a subject he probably should've avoided. By now, the basic elements of the 'Signalgate' controversy are probably familiar: Top members of Donald Trump's national security team participated in an unsecured group chat about sensitive operational details of a foreign military strike — and they accidentally included a journalist, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, in their online conversation. The final paragraph of Goldberg's piece on the fiasco read, 'All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group — which, at the time, included me — 'We are currently clean on OPSEC.'' 'OPSEC' refers to 'operations security.' In other words, the defense secretary was certain that he and his colleagues — while chatting on a free platform that has never been approved for chats about national security or classified intelligence — had locked everything down and created a secure channel of communication. Of course, we now know that Team Trump was most certainly not 'clean on OPSEC,' Hegseth's embarrassing boast notwithstanding. What's more, while there was some discussion of whether their discussion included classified information, there's no denying the chat did include highly sensitive information about times and targets, much of which was put there by Hegseth himself. '1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),' Hegseth told his colleagues in the chat. '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).' At one point, the defense secretary literally wrote, 'THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP.' As brutal as those revelations were, they were soon followed by a series of related controversies. The Wall Street Journal reported in late March, for example, that Hegseth brought his wife — who does not have a security clearance — 'to two meetings with foreign military counterparts where sensitive information was discussed.' The Journal also reported that Hegseth used the Signal messaging app for official Pentagon business more extensively than had been previously disclosed, 'engaging in at least a dozen separate chats.' Then, a few weeks ago, the Journal also reported that the Pentagon inspector general was investigating Hegseth's "sharing of military plans to a second Signal chat that included his wife and brother.' It was against this backdrop that Hegseth told a national television audience that 'nobody' takes the protection of classified information 'more seriously' than he does. Among the many unsettling angles to this incident: The defense secretary managed to deliver the line with a straight face. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pentagon inspector general opens investigation into Hegseth, Signal chat scandal
A few days after the White House's Signal chat scandal erupted, it became clear that Congress' Republican majority would not launch any oversight investigations, but some key lawmakers voiced support for a different kind of probe. For example, the top two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Chairman Roger Wicker and Democratic Ranking Member Jack Reed, formally requested that the acting inspector general at the Department of Defense open an inquiry into the potential 'use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know.' Soon after, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma appeared on CNN's 'State of the Union' and rejected the suggestion that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth needed to resign, but added that it's 'entirely appropriate' for the Pentagon's inspector general to take a closer look. As it turns out, officials at the Department of Defense agreed. NBC News reported: The Pentagon Office of the Inspector General just announced a subject evaluation into allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used an unclassified commercially available messaging app — Signal — to discuss classified information about military actions in Yemen. ... In addition to looking at whether Hegseth complied with rules governing classified information, the inspector general will also look at whether rules about record retention were followed. Time will tell what, if anything, the IG's scrutiny produces, but there's no denying that the publicly available information clearly paints an unflattering portrait of the beleaguered amateur Pentagon chief. By now, the basic elements of the controversy are probably familiar: Top members of Donald Trump's national security team participated in an unsecured group chat about sensitive operational details of a foreign military strike — and they accidentally included a journalist, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, in their online conversation. The final paragraph of Goldberg's piece read, 'All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group — which, at the time, included me — 'We are currently clean on OPSEC.'' 'OPSEC' referred to 'operations security.' In other words, the defense secretary was certain that he and his colleagues — while chatting on a free platform that has never been approved for chats about national security and classified intelligence — had locked everything down and created a secure channel of communications. Of course, we now know that Team Trump was most certainly not 'clean on OPSEC,' Hegseth's embarrassing boast notwithstanding. What's more, while there was some discussion about whether the discussion included classified information, there's no denying the online chat included highly sensitive information about times and targets, much of which was put there by Hegseth himself. '1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),' Hegseth told his colleagues in the chat. '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).' At one point, the defense secretary literally wrote, 'THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP.' All of this comes against a backdrop of other damaging headlines about the former Fox News personality, including reports this week that he gave an important Pentagon job to his unqualified younger brother and included his wife in meetings in which sensitive information was discussed, despite her lack of a security clearance. Earlier this week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared, in reference to the 'Signalgate' fiasco, that 'this case has been closed.' It appears that the Pentagon's inspector general just opened it back up. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
When are classified war plans neither ‘classified' nor ‘war plans'
It's been a hell of a week. As such, this is a special edition of the Pentagon Rundown that focuses solely on the continuing debate within the national security community about whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth improperly shared classified information about pending air and missile strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, first reported on Monday that he had inadvertently been invited to join a group chat on the Signal messaging app that included Hegseth and other top officials from President Donald Trump's administration. Goldberg also wrote that Hegseth had shared 'war plans' with the chat group on March 15 about forthcoming strikes in Yemen. (The phrase 'war plans' has come up a lot lately. Don't worry, we'll come back to it further down, along with input from a former director of the CIA and NSA, as well as a military lawyer with decades of experience handling these kinds of cases.) The message began with the words 'TEAM UPDATE,' and it included details about what type of aircraft would be involved with the strikes, when planes would take off, when Tomahawk missiles would be launched, and the time when the first bombs were expected to drop, Goldberg wrote on Wednesday. Hegseth also wrote, 'We are currently clean on OPSEC,' referring to operational security. It's already become meme fodder and even a brand of hand sanitizer. Since the story first broke, Hegseth and other Trump administration officials have furiously argued that the information about the strikes was not classified and did not constitute 'war plans.' 'So, let's [sic] me get this straight,' Hegseth posted to X on Wednesday. 'The Atlantic released the so-called 'war plans' and those 'plans' include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information. Those are some really shitty war plans.' Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hegseth appeared to confirm the authenticity of the message cited by Goldberg. 'My job, as it said atop of that, everybody has seen it now — 'Team Update' — is to provide updates in real time — general updates in real time, keep everyone informed,' Hegseth said. 'That's what I did.' But Mark Zaid, a national security attorney, said he is not persuaded by Hegseth's argument that the information about the strikes shared in the chat was too vague to be considered classified. 'Even if they had never happened, it still would have been classified for a period of time, without a doubt,' Zaid told Task & Purpose. 'They were planning this strike on that specific day, with those specific aircraft, at that specific time, which could give a window into future operations.' Zaid has decades of experience litigating Freedom of Information Act requests for classified information. He said he has 'no doubt' that the information about the Yemen strikes was classified at the time Hegseth sent it. 'It's dumbfounding to even contemplate an argument that this would not be classified,' Zaid said. 'It's reminiscent of the end of the 'The Wizard of Oz,' where the wizard is saying, 'Don't look over at the man behind the curtain,' when you're staring right at him.' While Hegseth has the power to declassify information, Zaid said he believes it is not realistic that he did so before sending the message about the Yemen strikes. 'Why in the world would the secretary ever declassify sensitive military and operational plans when he thinks he's discussing it with only his other principals?' Zaid said. 'If they want to say it's now not classified because they declassified it, that's a separate issue. But it's laughable to say he declassified it before or as he was sending it as part of a secret text conversation that no one in the public was ever meant to see.' Also, the Defense Department's declassification process involves determining when information will no longer be of any value to an adversary, which would logically be after a military strike has occurred, not before, a source with extensive knowledge of military operations told Task & Purpose. Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who led both the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, told Task & Purpose that he is convinced the information Hegseth shared before the strikes was classified, and perhaps may even have been Top Secret. Top Secret is a level of classification given to information that, if disclosed without authorization, 'reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security,' according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Classification Guide. If an adversary had obtained that information Hegseth shared before the strikes, it is possible that U.S. military forces could have suffered casualties as a result, Hayden said. 'They said this is going to happen,' Hayden said. 'They talked about drones and everything. They were naming the weapons, too. When I was CIA director, we have a lot of drones: I didn't talk about them on the telephone.' If Trump administration officials have been using Signal for the past two months, it is possible that Russia and China have already intercepted sensitive information sent on the messaging app, Hayden said, noting the NSA warned its employees in February that Signal is vulnerable to being exploited by U.S. adversaries. Hayden said he has spoken with members of the U.S. intelligence community, who are appalled by Goldberg's revelation about the Signal chat group. 'The president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, secretary of state, all of them are saying: 'Oh, it's OK' — it's not OK,' Hayden said. Those 'Hegseth bodyguards' are actually there for the When , they often end up in the brig The Army's Master Combat Badges will be coming to soldiers this month This photo of Air Force special ops pool training is chaos. 'Saving Private Ryan' didn't make the Army's list of most accurate movie portrayals
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why Trump Won't ‘Produce a Scalp' After the Signal Debacle
In the telling of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, he was only executing his duties when he shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen in an unclassified group chat on the Signal messaging app. 'My job,' he told reporters during a swing through Hawaii, 'is to provide updates in real time.' The implication: Nothing to see here. The reaction inside the Pentagon to Hegseth's communications—disclosed this week by The Atlantic after the editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to the chat—told a different story, as security specialists raced to reiterate rules about the proper channels for classified information. 'Incidents like this make my job significantly harder,' a Department of Defense operations security, or OPSEC, official told us this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. 'When senior leadership disregards OPSEC and security protocols without consequences, it undermines the work we do to enforce these standards.' Read: Trump goes after the messenger The OPSEC official added, 'Now we have to spend hours retraining and reiterating rules to personnel who see these double standards and question why they should be held accountable when leadership is not.' In the days since The Atlantic published the contents of the group chat, a gulf has opened between the public posture adopted by senior members of the administration and the private reaction of rank-and-file national-security officials aghast at the severity of the breach and troubled by the lack of repercussions. The disparity is likely to deepen if Donald Trump continues to resist holding anyone accountable. The president's instructions to his team late this week remained to attack Goldberg and The Atlantic, and not 'produce a scalp' by firing any members of his Cabinet, in the words of one outside adviser consulted by the White House who described the discussions to us. Senior Democrats have called on both Hegseth and the president's national security adviser, Michael Waltz, who created the Signal group and added Goldberg, to resign or be fired. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to rule out the possibility of terminations but told reporters this week that Trump 'continues to have confidence in his national-security team.' Trump, speaking in the Oval Office yesterday, said of his defense secretary, 'Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this.' And the White House today confirmed plans for Waltz to join Vice President J. D. Vance and his wife, Usha Vance, on a visit to Greenland, in an apparent show of confidence in the national security adviser. In Congress, the reactions mostly reflected partisan differences, with some exceptions. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joined the panel's top Democrat, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, in asking the Defense Department's acting inspector general to investigate the incident. The acting inspector general, Steven A. Stebbins, was appointed principal deputy inspector general in 2023, under President Joe Biden, and took over leadership of the office on an acting basis following Trump's dismissal of the inspector general, Robert Storch, in January—part of a broad expulsion of inspectors general. It's not clear whether or how quickly an investigation will take place. A spokesperson for the inspector general's office confirmed receipt of the request and told us it was being reviewed. It's also not clear whether there will be other investigations. In response to questioning this week before the Senate and House intelligence panels, FBI Director Kash Patel declined to say whether he would open an investigation. At an unrelated news conference earlier today, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, dismissed the prospect of an investigation. Bondi echoed Trump-administration talking points in describing the contents of the Signal chat as 'sensitive information, not classified,' and sought to shift the focus to the success of the mission in Yemen. She then blamed Hillary Clinton and Biden for mishandling classified information. Both politicians faced probes into their conduct by the Justice Department, the agency traditionally responsible for enforcing the Espionage Act and other federal laws governing national defense information. Wicker, speaking to reporters this week, said he believed that the information shared in the chat should have been classified, contradicting senior Trump-administration officials who insisted they had heeded classification rules. But Wicker stopped short of calling for resignations. So, too, did Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who described the conduct as an 'egregious security breach' that should serve as a 'wake-up call.' Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska also delivered a blunt assessment, calling the Signal chat a 'gross error.' Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, told us that his Republican colleagues are more concerned about the breach than they let on publicly. 'I think they are much more concerned privately, because they saw the text messages just as I did,' he said in an interview. 'They saw the unredacted messages, and they are astonishing.' Krishnamoorthi also said that the breach has broken through to the public in a way that demands consequences. 'They want to know that there's a uniform application of the law,' the lawmaker told us. According to a YouGov poll released this week, 60 percent of Republicans view the conduct by Trump officials in the Signal chat as somewhat or very serious. Nearly 90 percent of Democrats said the same. Some conservative influencers broke ranks to warn of public perceptions about the incident. In a lengthy video posted to his more than 3.6 million followers on X, Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barstool Sports, called on Trump to fire someone. 'Somebody has to go down,' he said. Tomi Lahren, another popular conservative-media personality, took issue with the administration's efforts to draw a distinction between 'war plans' and 'attack plans,' and to imply that the latter is less sensitive. 'Trying to wordsmith the hell outta this signal debacle is making it worse,' she wrote on X. 'It was bad. And I'm honestly getting sick of the whataboutisms from my own side. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.' Trump, for his part, has been angered by negative news coverage that he believes paints his White House as sloppy and that has distracted from his plans to implement further tariffs on American trading partners, two aides told us. Inside the White House, the episode brought back memories of the scandal surrounding Mike Flynn, Trump's national security adviser in the early days of his first term, as the president's aides vowed to ensure a different outcome this time around. Flynn was forced to resign in February 2017 after he was revealed to have lied to then–Vice President Mike Pence about conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Listen: Classified, or not classified? Trump, who loathes admitting errors or issuing apologies, has expressed private regret about Flynn's dismissal and has told advisers over the years that he thinks he gave up too easily. Some in the president's orbit don't want another national security adviser thrown overboard so quickly. Still, some Trump allies believe that Waltz is more vulnerable than the secretary of defense. The bare-knuckle fight to get Hegseth narrowly confirmed reminded the president's supporters of the push to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which became a significant victory for the MAGA movement. Hegseth is also receiving the most heat from Democrats, which may make the GOP more likely to try to rally around him. Waltz, meanwhile, is viewed with more suspicion by some of the president's loyalists, who are directing blame at him not for initiating the Signal chat but for seeming to have the contact details of a journalist stored in his phone. (He has denied this while not explaining how he came to add Goldberg to the chat.) Trump advisers expressed anger toward Wicker and other Republicans on the Hill who have broken ranks. As a contrast, they held up Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and longtime national-security hawk, who declared that no one should lose their job over the Signal debacle. Graham's reward came last night in the form of a presidential endorsement on Truth Social in his reelection race, which is more than a year away: 'Lindsey has been a wonderful friend to me, and has always been there when I needed him.' Article originally published at The Atlantic
