By Devin Breitenberg
In recent days, a major controversy has erupted surrounding U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stemming from a leaked Signal group chat that inadvertently included a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. The chat, intended to coordinate plans for military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, has sparked outrage, lawsuits, and calls for Hegseth’s resignation from Democrats and some national security experts. Meanwhile, supporters argue the incident has been overblown and that Hegseth should remain in his role. As of March 26, 2025, the debate rages on: Should Hegseth step down, or does he deserve to keep his job?
The Incident: What Happened?
The controversy began when National Security Advisor Michael Waltz accidentally added Goldberg to a Signal group chat titled “Houthi PC Small Group,” which included high-ranking Trump administration officials like Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside Hegseth. According to Goldberg’s reporting, Hegseth shared operational details about forthcoming U.S. strikes on Yemen, including targets, weapons, and attack sequencing—information that many argue should have been classified and confined to secure channels.
The strikes took place on March 15, and Goldberg’s article, published on March 24, revealed the breach, igniting a firestorm. Waltz has taken “full responsibility” for adding Goldberg, but much of the scrutiny has fallen on Hegseth, who posted the sensitive details. The administration, including President Donald Trump, has downplayed the incident, insisting no classified information was shared. Hegseth himself dismissed the criticism, accusing Goldberg of fabricating “hoaxes” and asserting, “Nobody was texting war plans.”
The Case for Resignation
Critics argue that Hegseth’s actions represent a grave breach of national security protocol, warranting his immediate resignation. Democrats, including Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, have been vocal in their condemnation. Wyden called the incident “sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior,” while Jeffries demanded Trump fire Hegseth for disclosing war plans in an unsecured chat. Senator Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran, went further, suggesting everyone involved should resign or be fired.
National security experts have echoed these concerns. Former defense officials interviewed by USA Today described the use of Signal—a commercial app—for such sensitive discussions as unprecedented and potentially reckless. Even though Signal is encrypted, it lacks the safeguards of classified government systems, and adding an unvetted party like Goldberg exposed critical plans to an outsider. The New York Times reported that the leak could have endangered American pilots, a risk Hegseth, a former National Guard infantryman, should have understood.
Beyond the security implications, critics point to Hegseth’s response as evidence of his unfitness for the role. Rather than accepting accountability, he deflected blame onto Goldberg, reverting to what The Washington Post called his “Fox News firebrand” persona. This, combined with his rocky tenure—marked by efforts to “out-Trump Trump” and push controversial Pentagon reforms—has fueled arguments that he lacks the judgment and professionalism required of a Defense Secretary.
A public watchdog group has also filed a lawsuit against Hegseth and other officials, alleging the unauthorized use of Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. For many, this incident is the tipping point, proving Hegseth is a liability who must go.
The Case for Keeping His Job
On the other side, Hegseth’s defenders argue that the controversy is being exaggerated for political gain. President Trump has stood by both Hegseth and Waltz, stating, “It can happen,” and emphasizing that no classified information was shared—a claim supported by Gabbard and Ratcliffe during Senate testimony. If the information wasn’t classified, they contend, the breach, while embarrassing, doesn’t rise to the level of a firing offense.
Hegseth’s supporters also highlight Waltz’s admission of responsibility for adding Goldberg, suggesting the Defense Secretary shouldn’t bear the full brunt of the fallout. In a Fox News interview, Hegseth brushed off the incident, saying, “I know exactly what I’m doing,” and framing it as a minor misstep in an otherwise effective tenure. Republican lawmakers, like Representative Don Bacon, have criticized the breach but stopped short of calling for resignation, with most GOP leaders offering a “collective shrug,” per The New York Times.
Some argue that Hegseth’s outsider status and willingness to challenge Pentagon norms are precisely why he should stay. His supporters see the leak as a symptom of a broader push for transparency and efficiency, even if it was mishandled.
Weighing the Evidence
The question of whether Hegseth should resign hinges on two key issues: the severity of the breach and his response to it. If the information shared was indeed unclassified, as the administration claims, the incident may be more of a procedural lapse than a catastrophic failure. However, Goldberg’s detailed account—describing targets and timing—suggests a level of specificity that many experts believe should have been protected, regardless of its formal classification status. The fact that the NSA had warned about Signal’s vulnerabilities just a month prior adds weight to the argument that Hegseth should have known better.
His response further complicates the picture. Accountability is a cornerstone of military leadership, yet Hegseth’s deflection and attacks on Goldberg undermine his credibility. For a Defense Secretary who has vowed to crack down on leaks within the Pentagon—issuing a memo on March 21 about polygraph tests and prosecutions—this incident exposes a troubling double standard.
Conclusion: A Tough Call
Pete Hegseth’s fate as Defense Secretary remains uncertain as of March 26, 2025. The Signal leak was undeniably a blunder, one that exposed weaknesses in the Trump administration’s national security apparatus. For those prioritizing competence and trust, his resignation seems a necessary step to restore confidence in the Pentagon. Yet for those who value his loyalty to Trump’s agenda and see the leak as an overblown mistake, keeping him in place aligns with a broader resistance to establishment pressure.
Ultimately, the decision may rest with President Trump, who has so far signaled support. But as lawsuits mount and congressional scrutiny intensifies, Hegseth’s ability to lead effectively could erode, forcing a reckoning—whether he resigns or not. For now, the nation watches, weighing the cost of a leak against the value of a controversial but committed Defense Secretary.
Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor for Veritas Expositae. You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com
Comments