National security has become a widespread concern in the United States. The change follows the Pete Hegseth administration, a tenure marked by alarming leadership and attention for Hegseth’s management style and communications strategy. Hegseth, known for his loud denunciations of the U.S. military and the Pentagon itself, is in a powerful position. Many experts point to the fact that his position has hamstrung the United States’ military operations. His actions have raised alarms among security analysts, and for good reasons, especially in relation to his adherence to operational security (opsec) protocols.
Hegseth began his short reign by denouncing the Pentagon as a “woke” disgrace. This brash proclamation established a contentious tone for his administration that would last throughout his term. There has been growing criticism since then. The most damaging of his actions, say critics, is his reckless treatment of sensitive information, which he disseminated through non-secure channels. Most impressively, he started a Signal group chat that featured his wife, brother, and about a dozen peers. On this particular chat, he reportedly passed on extremely sensitive details of ongoing US military operations in Yemen.
The implications of Hegseth’s actions are significant. His conduct undermines the very integrity upon which honest U.S. military operations are based. It also shines a light on serious vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries can exploit. Experts say that his disregard for discretion could expose him and those in his close circle to extreme espionage vulnerability. If only Russian and Chinese spies weren’t actively searching for just such a vulnerable person to compromise.
Hegseth’s lack of leadership has led to multiple firings and leak investigations. This has added an additional layer of complexity to the already fractious internal politics of the U.S. armed services. His failure to execute the basic functions of crisis management has earned stinging rebukes from critics on all sides. Military malfeasance Joe Plenzler, a military analyst with the liberal group VoteVets, raised eyebrows at Hegseth’s conduct in the field.
“When you’re leading marines you have to lead by example. The fastest thing that will crack the morale of any unit is the leader that says, ‘Do as I say, not as I do’,” – Gen James Mattis (via Joe Plenzler).
The impact of Hegseth’s decisions would be felt for many years, and could be particularly harmful to U.S. military operations. His behavior has already blown national secrets from the Defense Department and the White House. This begs the question of the integrity of American military strategies in the first place. This only further puts Hegseth, but anyone who rallies behind him, in greater danger.
Despite the growing concerns surrounding his leadership, Hegseth received backing from former President Donald Trump, who publicly stated, “He’s doing a great job.” Such an endorsement would significantly bolster Hegseth’s standing. Yet, it does nothing to assuage fears over the operational security disasters on his watch.
Critics point out that his casual communication style is not the right tone for tweets, which can undermine the seriousness of military leadership positions. Hegseth himself should know better—for as serious a crime as leaking classified information is, he continues to advocate for it—but he hasn’t made any real changes.
“If any officer or enlisted member had passed classified information over an unsecured or unauthorized device, we would have been immediately removed from our position, investigated, most likely prosecuted,” – Pete Hegseth.
Hegseth’s handling of sensitive information raises ethical questions about accountability within military ranks. He speaks to growing misunderstanding on the public’s part about the decisions he makes. They tend to focus on sole unnamed sources or bitter ex-employees to attack his style.
“They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations,” – Pete Hegseth.
From the opening chapters, it is clear that Hegseth is deadly serious about his leadership. His approach has caused analysts and insiders to raise the alarm about espionage. It’s his operational decisions that carry the greatest risks. These risks would undermine U.S. military credibility and put thousands of civilians who serve alongside American forces at risk.