Naval Strikes and Security Alarms — The Surge of Concern Over U.S. Military Tactics Under Pete Hegseth

In recent weeks, a wave of revelations about U.S. military conduct has stirred major controversy — from insecure communications of war plans to deadly maritime strikes that raise serious legal and ethical questions. At the center stands the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, whose decisions are drawing criticism from both sides of the political aisle and alarm from human‑rights observers.

📱 “Signal‑gates”: sharing war plans on an unsecure app

A recent inspector‑general report from United States Department of Defense (DoD) found that Hegseth violated internal communications protocols by sharing sensitive operational details via the messaging app Signal — a platform not approved for classified information. The Guardian+2Financial Times+2
According to the investigation, in March 2025, Hegseth used his personal phone and Signal to distribute exact timing and logistical details of a planned airstrike against Houthi movement forces in Yemen. The group chat included senior officials, and — in a major blunder — a journalist was mistakenly added. الجزيرة نت+2الجزيرة نت+2

Although Hegseth later claimed he had “original classification authority” and argued that the shared information was declassified at his discretion, the watchdog concluded that the method of communication alone — using a non‑secure commercial app and a personal device — breached DoD rules and exposed U.S. forces to risk. AP News+2Financial Times+2
Critics say the episode, dubbed “Signalgate,” reflects dangerous laxity in operational security, and warn that intercepted communications could jeopardize lives or compromise ongoing missions. The Guardian+2الجزيرة نت+2

⚓ Maritime strikes and the “drug‑boat war” — or war‑crimes?

The scrutiny on Hegseth intensified after a separate maritime operation targeting suspected drug‑trafficking vessels near Venezuela. In September 2025, the U.S. military launched a strike on a suspected narcotics-smuggling boat; reports indicate that a follow‑up missile strike targeted survivors of the first hit — a decision allegedly ordered by Hegseth himself. Reuters+2Politico+2

The result: dozens killed. Amid fierce debate in Congress and among legal experts, many raise the alarm that such an act could amount to a war crime — in particular, under international law and the U.S. “Law of War,” which prohibits attacks on shipwrecked or incapacitated individuals no longer posing an imminent threat. Reuters+2Politico+2
Even within his own party, Hegseth faces growing pressure. Some Republican lawmakers have distanced themselves — urging transparency, releasing strike footage, and calling for accountability. The Washington Post+1

🏛️ Political repercussions and demands for transparency

The dual controversies — the “Signalgate” leaks and lethal boat strikes — have reignited debate over military oversight, civilian control of the armed forces, and the boundaries of executive power. Several Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans are demanding the release of unredacted videos of the maritime strikes to clarify whether “kill‑all” orders were given. Politico+1

On the other hand, Hegseth’s defenders argue that the operations were lawful, necessary, and aimed at combating narcotics trafficking and regional security threats. The White House has backed this line, while insisting the Pentagon remains within its rights. TIME+2The Washington Post+2

But the report from the Pentagon’s own watchdog casts serious doubt — not only on the judgment of the Secretary of Defense, but on the institutional safeguards meant to prevent exactly these kinds of risks.

🌐 What this means for U.S. global posture and trust in military oversight

These developments come at a sensitive time for U.S. foreign‑policy — with operations spanning from the Middle East to Latin America. The combination of secretive strikes, leaks of operational planning, and contested legality threatens to undercut U.S. credibility, both domestically and abroad.

• Operational security under scrutiny: If war plans can be accidentally exposed via a casual messaging app, adversaries may exploit similar lapses.

• Legal and moral peril: Maritime operations that kill survivors pose serious risk under international humanitarian law — potentially exposing nations to accusations of war crimes.

• Institutional trust eroded: The fact that a high‑level official within the defense establishment appears to openly flout official protocol provokes doubts about whether oversight and accountability mechanisms remain effective.

As Congress launches investigations and rights groups demand transparency, the coming weeks may determine whether this episode marks a temporary scandal — or a turning point in how U.S. military power is governed and perceived.