SecDef Signal messages came from email classified "SECRET," watchdog

HELLFIRE

Usual preface, sharing strictly and solely from a security interest, to the exclusion of everything else : https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/23/hegseth-signalgate-classified-secret/

… The “SECRET” classification of Kurilla’s email, which has not previously been reported, denoted that the information was classified at a level at which unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause serious damage to national security; the “NOFORN” label means it also was not meant for anyone who is a foreign national, including senior officials of close allies of the United States. In accordance with government regulations, Kurilla sent his sensitive message over a classified system, the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, four people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisal by the Trump administration. …

Reminder again about what The Espionage Act S793 says about this kind of stuff, specifically points (d) and (f), which – despite of my Law And Order level of legal education – seems pretty specific, no ANDS, IFS, BUTS or MAYBES : https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Regards

Blackbird

From the WaPo article:

The message included a rundown of strike plans for the day, including when bombing was expected to begin and what kind of aircraft and weapons were to be used.

If details of the order of battle prior to engagement aren’t classified, nothing is. What occurred was a security leak, plain and simple. Such leaks must always result in disciplinary actions for the personnel involved, though the nature of that discipline will depend on the details surrounding the disclosure and the actions of the personnel involved.

HELLFIRE

To continue this story, again within the same confines mentioned earlier – [SecDef] needs to go to secure messaging school, report says

… The Pentagon Office of Inspector General on Thursday released two reports, one specifically dealing with the “Signalgate” incident, and a second that found [the SecDef] ’s massive OPSEC failure was just the latest in a long line of similar failures among DoD employees with regard to the use of improper methods of communication. … That’s all well and good, but even though [SecDef] insisted he’d declassified what he sent, the OIG found he still broke Pentagon rules by using both a personal device and a nonapproved commercial messaging app to share it. …

Regards

egeezer

In order to have access to classified information in DoD, everyone is required to complete an online ‘course’ that covers the rules about security, personal devices, information sharing etc. There are also significant penalties for violations, including loss of clearance.

See https://blogs.usfcr.com/security-clearance-guide

Edit - for applicable requirements, see Part 41, Subparts 930.301 through 930.305 of Title 5, CFR, DoDD 8140.01, and DoDI 8501.

Astyanax

egeezer In order to have access to classified information in DoD, everyone is required to complete an online ‘course’

Except when you’ve been confirmed as the SecDef. You get that access if you’ve been trusted well enough to be nominated and confirmed to such a high office.

At least that’s how it’s supposed to work. 😉

egeezer

Astyanax I haven’t seen any specific exception for the Secretary in the rules, legislation or oath of office.

Astyanax

egeezer I haven’t seen any specific exception for the Secretary in the rules, legislation or oath of office.

There isn’t any for the POTUS either who has powers of declassification also and who nominates him but Happy Hunting.

egeezer

Astyanax

egeezer

Astyanax There isn’t any for the POTUS either who has powers of declassification also and who nominates him but Happy Hunting.

In summary, if it it’s assumed to be legal, it isn’t stupid or dangerous or a national security issue. I would add happy hunting in finding law that exempts presidential appointees from laws regarding classified information and security. There’s also the matter of the oath taken by those entrusted with the information and the office they assume.