The ongoing Signal chat leaks of Hegseth aren’t just breaches of protocol, they’re inevitable. They are the result of placing someone fundamentally unsuited for high office, lacking basic competence, into a position where lives depend on sound judgment.
As I documented in my earlier post, Hegseth’s background reveals troubling patterns that directly connect to these security failures.
The man decorated himself with crusader tattoos after, and perhaps because, hate-based extremism concerns were raised. The man proudly claimed to leave the military because it “didn’t want him anymore”. The man now casually distributes sensitive operational details through commercial apps to family members and personal associates.
This isn’t coincidence, it’s about character.
When a defense secretary creates not one but two unauthorized channels to share Yemen strike information with individuals lacking proper clearance, including his “producer/podcaster” family members, we’re witnessing the security manifestation of a deeper problem. Military professionals understand that protocols exist for reasons written in blood. Circumventing them reveals either dangerous ignorance or deliberate rejection of institutional safeguards or both.
Most telling has been Hegseth’s contrite response to being caught red handed failing at his job. Rather than acknowledging a dangerous breach, he immediately attacks messengers as “disgruntled” and claims critics are attempting to “slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.” The Pentagon spokesperson follows suit, dismissing legitimate security concerns as politically motivated “hit pieces.” Imagine being so untouchable and privileged that nobody around you can speak the truth without being labeled emotional or biased.
This deflection strategy serves a clear purpose: transforming objective failures of conduct into subjective questions of loyalty. It’s the same approach evident throughout Hegseth’s history. When basic standards are enforced, claim persecution; when caught violating protocols, attack the messenger.
The defense community deserves leadership that understands the simple gravity of operational security. Service members risking their lives in combat zones shouldn’t have their missions compromised because their civilian leadership treats sensitive information like political social media content. The American people deserve defense officials who accept crystal clear accountability rather than wallowing in muddy deflection.
As the great General Creighton Abrams once said, “Soldiers are not in the Army. Soldiers are the Army.” Their safety demands leaders who respect the systems designed to protect them, not someone who views security protocols as a personal convenience with no accountability.
The conclusion is inescapable: Hegseth has demonstrated what has been said about him before, that he cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of a military office. No amount of him attacking critics will change the reality he carelessly compromised operational security and endangered American service members for no good reason. National security, let alone the troops he claims to support, by definition require that Hegseth must resign.
