Did the Pentagon or military prosecutors ever open criminal probes tied to incidents involving Hegseth’s unit?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows multiple official inquiries into incidents tied to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s unit — including a completed Pentagon inspector general review of his Signal messages and bipartisan congressional probes into a controversial September strike — but none of the cited sources report that the Pentagon or military prosecutors have opened a criminal prosecution tied to those incidents as of these articles [1] [2] [3]. The IG concluded Hegseth’s Signal use risked U.S. personnel and violated DoD rules; congressional committees have opened investigations into whether orders were lawful, and legal scholars have flagged potential criminal questions [4] [5] [3].
1. The Pentagon watchdog’s formal review: what it covered and what it found
The Department of Defense inspector general completed a formal review of Hegseth’s use of the encrypted app Signal after media reports that he shared operational details of strikes; that IG report found he violated Pentagon rules by using a personal device and Signal in ways that risked exposing sensitive operational details and could have endangered U.S. forces [2] [5] [4]. The unclassified write‑ups emphasize that the IG identified matching operational information that originated from a classified CENTCOM document and concluded Hegseth’s behavior “risks potential compromise of sensitive DOD information” [4] [6].
2. Did the IG open criminal charges? No reporting says so
None of the provided articles report that the inspector general or the Pentagon prosecutors initiated criminal charges against Hegseth or members of his unit as part of the Signalgate review. Coverage focuses on policy violations, risk assessments, and whether information was classified or properly declassified, not on referrals that produced criminal indictments in the public reporting cited here [1] [5] [4].
3. Separate scrutiny over the September boat strikes: congressional probes, legal alarms
A separate set of inquiries stems from reporting that a follow‑up strike on a suspected drug‑smuggling boat on Sept. 2, 2025, may have killed survivors after an alleged verbal order to “kill everybody.” Bipartisan congressional investigations have begun and committees have demanded answers; legal scholars highlighted in reporting say the action could implicate violations of U.S. and international criminal law [3] [7] [8]. Those congressional probes examine whether the follow‑up strike was lawful and whether senior officials, including Hegseth, bear responsibility [3].
4. Any military prosecutor action reported? Not found in current reporting
Available sources document IG findings and congressional and media investigations, and note calls from lawmakers for accountability, but they do not report that military prosecutors have opened criminal investigations or filed charges related to the strikes or the Signal disclosures [9] [10] [11]. If military or Justice Department prosecutors had opened criminal probes, these outlets — which emphasize investigative developments — would likely have reported that step; the sources provided do not.
5. Where the reporting diverges and why that matters
News outlets emphasize different legal frames: the IG focused on improper handling of sensitive information and policy violations [4] [5], while congressional and academic sources emphasize potential war‑crime or criminal law angles regarding operational decisions in the Caribbean strike [3] [7]. Some political actors call for criminal accountability [11], while the White House and allies stress lack of evidence of a compromise or improper declassification in public statements [10]. Those competing emphases explain why the public record shows active investigations and legal questions without a reported criminal prosecution in these pieces [1] [2] [3].
6. Limits of available reporting and next steps to watch
The sources show the IG report completed and circulated to lawmakers and that congressional inquiries are underway, but they explicitly note gaps — for example, whether Hegseth properly used his declassification authority is left unsettled in some write‑ups — and they do not indicate any criminal referral resulting in charges [4] [5]. Watch for: (a) whether the IG or DoD refers the matter to military or civilian prosecutors, (b) results of congressional hearings that might produce new evidence or referrals, and (c) any formal announcements from the Department of Justice or military justice system — none of which are reported in the sources provided here [2] [3].
If you want, I can compile a timeline of the public reporting to date from these sources or pull direct quotations from the IG and congressional statements cited above [2] [3].