On April 3, the Acting Department of Defense inspector general signed a memo to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, notifying the secretary that, "we are initiating" an "Evaluation of the Secretary of Defense’s Reported Use of a Commercially Available Messaging Application for Official Business."
According to the acting DoD IG memo, which somebody released to the press, "We are conducting this evaluation in response to a March 26, 2025 letter I received from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, requesting that I conduct an inquiry into recent public reporting on the Secretary of Defense’s use of an unclassified commercially available messaging application to discuss information pertaining to military actions in Yemen in March 2025."
Observations of this former DoD IG:
First, the March 26, 2025, letter from the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to the Acting DoD IG does not mention the secretary of defense, but only "members of the Security Council."
Second, the acting DoD IG is under no legal duty to initiate an evaluation based on the request from the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Of course, there are political considerations, but any IG must be careful not to appear too eager to dive into a highly politicized issue.
Third, the secretary of defense’s authority to prohibit actions of the DoD IG is recognized in the IG Act "if the Secretary determines that such prohibition is necessary to preserve the national security interests of the United States." 5 U.S.C. §408(b)(2).
Fourth, any inspector general needs to guard against any activities of his or her office that do not have clear answers to two questions: "By what authority and for what purpose?"
In this instance, I do not see good answers to either of these two questions, especially as the letter from the SASC chairman and ranking senator does not even mention the secretary of defense.
Fifth, the answer to the first question, "By what authority?," should ideally be in the IG Act. Nothing in the IG Act requires the Acting DoD IG to conduct the evaluation recently announced.
The answer to the second question, "For what purpose?," should be consistent with the IG’s statutory duty of independence, which is tethered independence in light of the IG’s service as an officer of the executive branch under the supervision of secretary of defense (or in some instances the deputy secretary).
If I were the DoD IG (again), without clear answers to these two questions, I would not touch this highly partisan political subject with a 10-foot pole — and I would have a principled explanation for any Senator.
Finally, a footnote on the acting DoD IG’s April 3, Memo indicates that, "We received similar requests from individual members of Congress and considered those requests in initiating this evaluation."
This footnote is antithetical to transparent government, and creates the appearance that the Acting DoD IG is engaging in hidden politics.
The acting DoD IG should identify all members of Congress who made "similar requests."
The American People deserve to know.
Joseph E. Schmitz serves as Distinguished Constitutional Fellow for The Oversight Project: It’s Your Government. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he served as foreign policy and national security advisor to Donald Trump. Mr. Schmitz served as Inspector General of the Department of Defense from 2002-2005. He graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy, earned his J.D. degree from Stanford Law School, and is author of, “The Inspector General Handbook: Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Other Constitutional 'Enemies, Foreign and Domestic'" (2013). Read Joseph E. Schmitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.