“This is something that, when they say ‘incidents happen,’ it innovates us and urges us to make the requirement, and make the devices, and make the technology available. So, this is something that we are taking as a priority,” Katie Arrington, the senior official performing the duties of Pentagon CIO, told lawmakers Thursday.

She shed new light on those and other near-term plans during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing about the DOD’s current IT and AI posture.

Reports first emerged in March that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared high-stakes military operational plans in a group chat — via the encrypted but unclassified texting app Signal — with several of his counterparts in the Trump administration and an American journalist (who unveiled the ordeal after he was accidentally added to the group chat). Cybersecurity advocates, former military officials and members of Congress immediately raised concerns about the messages and warned that sharing classified or sensitive information on non-government platforms about planned military operations could put servicemembers’ lives at risk.

With support from President Donald Trump, Hegseth repeatedly pushed back on criticism about his Signal use — and news reports have since surfaced that the SecDef has texted in multiple other chats on the app, where Pentagon business was discussed. 

In April, the Pentagon inspector general opened an investigation into Hegseth’s participation in transferring details about impending military operations on unclassified networks. Officials involved are also reviewing whether DOD’s official policies and procedures were followed and if records retention requirements were met.

“The way we have traditionally communicated is going into a [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF] and having a high-side communication, and that has been the way we have worked it for many, many, many, many years. And we’re evolving. The technology is evolving. And I will just say that it is [up to] my office, along with many others, to ensure that we come up with a real capability in real-time to allow that communication to go forward. It’s paramount,” Arrington said.

“And I’m not really fond of voice [communications]. I think that there’s enough microphones and people out there in the world that I really like the idea of text messaging and ensuring that our elite senior leaders can communicate effectively away from their offices, because the government doesn’t [just] function within the building, within the Pentagon, or within the White House, or within this building itself,” she added.

Earlier this week, Trump named Kirsten Davies to serve as the DOD’s next CIO in a permanent capacity. Until she takes the helm, Arrington is currently wearing dual hats as acting CIO and chief information security officer. During Trump’s first term, Arrington served as the department’s CISO for acquisition and sustainment. In 2021, under the Biden administration, it was disclosed that her clearance was suspended as “a result of a reported Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information and subsequent removal of access by the National Security Agency.” Public details are sparse, but a lawsuit associated with the scandal was settled between Arrington and the DOD in 2022.

At the hearing on Thursday, she told lawmakers that — behind one other “classified endeavor” — finding a way for senior government leaders across agencies and the White House, as well as members of Congress, “to have true secure communications on a day-to-day basis” is considered the “number two priority” in her office.

“That’s what I’m doing right now, sir, because it is paramount for me,” Arrington reiterated.

She didn’t expand on what the unfolding efforts to accelerate secure texting options currently entail. In her written testimony, Arrington pointed to one key modernization initiative that will involve producing an enterprise-wide Mission Partner Environment to underpin secure information exchanges between U.S. officials and international allies at various classification levels.

“My office’s job is to make sure that we do better for both you, the secretary of defense, the deputy, the president — everyone across the board — it’s a forcing function. It is something that is a priority for our office to make sure that we have that in rapid time. I would be more than happy to give you a classified brief on all of the efforts that we’re doing to ensure security of communications,” Arrington told lawmakers at the hearing.

The post Post-Signalgate, Pentagon CIO prioritizes secure platforms for sensitive instant messaging appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Caine is more of a mystery than some previous nominees for the post who held more high-profile positions prior to being picked for the job. He recently retired from the Air Force as a three-star and he’s never served as a combatant commander, service chief or vice chief, although he held a variety of roles during his long military career.

Trump surprised many in February when he announced Caine as his choice for chairman after firing Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown, who had been elevated to that position by President Joe Biden.

The commander-in-chief officially submitted Caine’s nomination to the Senate March 10, and the nominee has been meeting privately with lawmakers in the run-up to Tuesday’s hearing.

Caine’s oral and written testimony will offer the public and members of the national security community more insights into his thinking on a variety of defense issues.

Here are a few of the hot topics that may come up when the nominee goes under the spotlight:

SignalGate

There is bipartisan concern among lawmakers about a recent incident that came to light when it was revealed by the Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg that he was included in a message chain on Signal — an encrypted but unclassified messaging app — where some of the president’s closest advisers discussed forthcoming strikes targeting Houthi militants in Yemen. The group included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, national security adviser Michael Waltz and other officials.

Some have dubbed the controversy “SignalGate”.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-R.I., sent a letter last week to the Pentagon’s acting inspector general requesting a probe of the incident and raising questions about the use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information and sharing such info with people who don’t have proper security clearance.

Although Caine wasn’t involved in the controversial Signal chat, he may be asked his opinions on the use of certain information technologies by DOD officials for communications and related security issues.

Current and former defense officials told DefenseScoop last week that SignalGate underscores a need for secured chat options for government and military insiders.

AI and autonomous weapons

Caine will have a forum at the hearing to air his views on the Defense Department’s modernization initiatives, which are wide-ranging and include new weapons platforms as well as software, networking tools and other enablers.

Of particular interest to some will be his perspective on using artificial intelligence and highly autonomous systems for military applications.

Pentagon leaders are keen on developing and deploying AI capabilities for back-office functions and battlefield operations. However, there have been longstanding concerns about the risks involved with allowing military platforms — particularly lethal ones — to have a large degree of autonomy.

The Defense Department defines an autonomous weapon system as “a weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator. This includes, but is not limited to, operator-supervised autonomous weapon systems that are designed to allow operators to override operation of the weapon system, but can select and engage targets without further operator input after activation.”

Meanwhile, the military is also exploring generative AI technology, including large language models.

For example, the Defense Information Systems Agency is launching an experimental cloud-based chatbot for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command that will allow users to test the tool on classified networks.

However, there are concerns in the national security community and elsewhere about the potential downsides of genAI, including the risk of “hallucinations” where models produce inaccurate, misleading or biased results that could create problems for the humans who are trying to leverage them.

Caine may offer his views on the best use cases for AI and any guardrails that he feels are important to mitigate risks.

DOGE

The Pentagon, like other federal agencies, is pursuing controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts, which include cuts to programs and the workforce.

Pentagon leadership is aiming to reduce DOD’s civilian workforce by 5-8 percent — or upwards of 50,000 employees — via multiple pathways.

On March 28, Hegseth signed a new memo about “Initiating the Workforce Acceleration and Recapitalization Initiative.” The SecDef is reopening the deferred resignation program and also offering early retirement to eligible civilian workers as he seeks to “maximize participation.”

Hegseth has also instituted a civilian hiring freeze — while allowing for some exemptions — and the department intends to fire certain probationary workers.

The Pentagon chief has said he wants to reinvest the savings from these efforts into high-priority warfighting capabilities.

Caine will likely be asked for his views on DOGE and other personnel issues, which could include how he thinks any savings should be reinvested and which parts of the workforce should be protected from cuts.

Combatant command reorg

The U.S. military has seven geographic combatant command: Indo-Pacific Command, European Command, Central Command, Africa Command, Northern Command, Southern Command and Space Command.

The other CoComs include Cyber Command, Special Operations Command, Strategic Command and Transportation Command.

Multiple media outlets have reported that Pentagon officials are considering consolidating some of the combatant commands, including folding together U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command as well as Southern Command and Northern Command — among other organizational changes — as a cost-cutting measure.

Wicker and others have expressed concerns about such reports. It would be surprising if members of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn’t ask Caine for his views on how such a reorganization of the CoComs and other components would impact readiness and U.S. military capabilities.

America’s role on the world stage

As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of Caine’s most important tasks would be to provide the president advice on international conflicts and tensions.

At Tuesday’s hearing, he’ll have an opportunity to offer his thoughts on various geopolitical hotspots — from the war in Ukraine to tensions with China in the Pacific.

Caine’s confirmation process is taking place as the Pentagon is trying to prepare for a potential fight with the People’s Liberation Army, a highly advanced adversary. Some U.S. officials are concerned that Chinese forces may try to invade Taiwan sometime in the next few years. In such a scenario, the United States could be draw into a major war in the region.

However, the American military is also being tasked to conduct operations in the Middle East against groups like the Houthis and ISIS. Meanwhile, tensions are running high with Iran after Trump recently threatened to bomb the country if it doesn’t reach a deal regarding its nuclear program.

The Trump administration is also pushing Europeans to take on more of the leadership burden in NATO as Washington seeks to focus more on the Indo-Pacific and the homeland. At the same time, it’s pressuring Ukraine to reach a peace agreement with Russia, but some lawmakers, including Wicker, are wary of Moscow’s intentions.

Meanwhile, Trump has expressed interest in annexing Greenland and asserting American control over the Panama Canal. And closer to home, U.S. troops have been deployed to the border with Mexico to bolster security and the administration has designated drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

Historically, as uniformed military officers, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been expected to be apolitical and nonpartisan. Nevertheless, Caine may face questions from lawmakers trying to gauge his level of support for the MAGA and America First movements.

Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, previewed a potential line of questioning during an appearance on ABC News’ “This Week” in February.

“There are obviously a great many questions that we’re going to raise with him, but I think we have to give him the opportunity to make his case and also to make clear that he is going to be willing to speak truth to power, willing to give his best military advice to the president, not just tell the president what he wants to hear — and also to be open and share with the Congress the facts on the ground, not be a political spokesperson for the president. So those are part of the issues that we’ll address as we go forward,” Reed said.

Barring a disastrous permanence at the hearing, Caine is expected to garner enough votes to get confirmed. Republicans have a majority in the Senate with 53 GOP members. Apart from Hegseth, who narrowly won confirmation in January, Trump’s nominees for top Pentagon posts during his second term have been confirmed by comfortable margins during final voting, including his picks for deputy secretary of defense, secretary of the Army and secretary of the Navy.

The post 5 hot topics Dan ‘Razin’ Caine might address during his confirmation hearing Tuesday appeared first on DefenseScoop.

In interviews this week, DefenseScoop spoke to current and former defense officials — many who requested anonymity to speak freely — about the incident revealed by the Atlantic magazine’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who was included in a message chain earlier this month on the encrypted but unclassified messaging app Signal, where some of the president’s closest advisers discussed forthcoming strikes targeting Houthi militants in Yemen.

“This, of course, is a political hot potato — because both sides are going after each other. But I want to move beyond the politics and say, let’s acknowledge the gravity of this,” a former senior defense official said in reference to the implications of classified plans being shared on Signal.

Mixed Signals

Congressional hearings and follow-up statements from the government continue to paint a picture of exactly what happened regarding the “Houthi PC Small Group” chat, as it was named. The conversation Goldberg was added to with more than a dozen top Trump officials included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and national security adviser Michael Waltz. 

In the view of the former senior defense official, who requested anonymity to speak openly about the matter, this blunder is “a sign of people [who lack] serious experience at those levels.”

“Because I just cannot think of the people that I used to work with ever doing something like this. I just can’t — whether it’s in the intel community or in the [Defense Department] — a lot of us took this as seriously as anything we ever dealt with as operational security, because people will die if you get it wrong,” the official said Tuesday.

While it’s difficult to get mobile devices with adequate security to transmit classified material, the former senior official said they did have access to “clunky” capabilities designed for exactly that during their own military service.

“And anybody who’s been around the intel community knows that when senior people travel, they have access to all sorts of communication devices,” they noted. 

“So, there is always a temptation to do the quick solution — but the quick solution is not the right solution. You’re violating all sorts of acts and policies and legislation about releasing classified information via unclassified devices or an application that” is not government-approved for sharing sensitive information that could put people or assets at risk, the former senior defense official said.

Regarding exceptions to existing rules, the official said the only scenario they could come up with would be an emergency situation where information had to get out quickly because troops’ lives were on the line.

“But even there, those who know what they’re doing would mask the information by code words or just saying the target is struck, and it would be clear to those who were considered in the ‘need-to-know’ what happened — without revealing anything sensitive,” the former senior defense official said. 

Multiple times in the interview, the official emphasized how shocked and frustrated they were about the administration’s choices during and amid the aftermath of the incident.

A current military official expressed similar sentiments in a separate conversation with DefenseScoop on Wednesday.

“We have classified systems that can do this. We have [a version of the Microsoft Teams chat platform for DOD’s Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet]. This is just laziness,” the military official said.

However, in an interview Tuesday, another current defense official said they think the U.S. government needs a broader arsenal of options for platforms that go farther than simple encryption and can be trusted for rapid text exchanges that incorporate sensitive and classified information.

“It is nearly impossible for U.S. government agencies all over the world to chat in real time with current U.S. government-provided systems,” said the defense official.

They added that they were not surprised by what happened, because so many federal agencies and officials — as well as lawmakers, journalists and diplomats — use Signal daily to transmit what they refer to as “official communications” about work. 

“There is no efficient way for agencies to chat in real time. For example: Most of your embassies use WhatsApp for communication with DOD, due to the need to be in real-time communication. Most of your staffs across the U.S. government use WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, Facebook Messenger, etc. — and they have for decades,” the defense official said.

Pointing to a potential solution to this challenge, they said that the government needs its own “cross-agency chat or text system that is owned by one agency, but mandated for all.” The system they envision would have classified and unclassified versions, and would be something internal and secure, requiring an official government email to gain access.

The defense official further suggested the government could partner with existing industry platforms — like Signal — because, in their experience, websites and apps created by the U.S. government in the past have “not been good at all.”

Separately, the former senior defense official said that they “completely agree” that it would be helpful for American officials to have approved access to more dynamic tools that meet the expectations of the modern “chat-driven world.”

“We’ve welcomed the help from technology companies, but there’s a different vetting process between classified systems, and Signal and WhatsApp — as good as their encryption are — they’re still not what I would call meant for classified information,” they said. “And I think we’re in a world today where we’re always working with partners and allies, and it can be very cumbersome to get them the information they need. And so you’ll turn to whatever you have.” 

‘There will be no secrets.’

Details about all that was discussed in the administration officials’ “Houthi PC Small Group” chat continue to emerge Wednesday. But since Goldberg’s first story was published Monday, questions and concerns have swirled about the legality and possible unforeseen consequences of the high-level officials’ use of the unclassified messaging app.

“There’s going to be great hay made of the fact that this particular group of individuals with security clearances transmitted top-secret information on a commercial, encrypted software. That’s just the reality of politics. Underscoring that is that we need to have government-secured communications, well-encrypted with strong algorithms, that are going to be used for the transmission of federally protected information amongst agencies — and that is an absolute requirement,” Scott White told DefenseScoop on Tuesday.

White served as an officer with the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command and is currently an associate professor and director of George Washington University’s cybersecurity program. He and the other officials who DefenseScoop interviewed highlighted how the issue that underpins this entire incident has been a problem for previous administrations and across political parties.

“President Obama loved to use his Blackberry — and that’s got probably some of the best encryption in the world,” White said. 

“In fact, the Saudi government told BlackBerry that they wouldn’t allow them to sell their product in Saudi Arabia unless they gave them the de-encryption codes, and Blackberry said, ‘We’re not giving them to you,’” he explained. “It has one of the strongest encryptions in the world — and even that encryption program, when Obama wanted to use his own Blackberry, they disallowed that.”

President Donald Trump and members of his administration have largely downplayed any critiques of wrongdoing associated with the controversial Signal chat.

When asked if his team’s decision to use the app put U.S. national security at risk during a White House press briefing on Tuesday, Trump responded: “I don’t know anything about Signal. I wasn’t involved in this, but I just heard about it, and I hear it’s used by a lot of groups. It’s used by the media a lot. It’s used by a lot [in] the military, and I think, successfully — but sometimes somebody can get onto those things. That’s one of the prices you pay when you’re not sitting in the Situation Room with no phones on, which is always the best, frankly.” 

In response to reporters’ questions about whether he’ll move to mandate an investigation into the matter, the president said, “It’s not really an FBI thing,” so he would instead like to know more about the platform’s security.

“Like, will somebody be able to break in? Are people able to break into conversations? And if that’s true, we’re going to have to find some other form of device, and I think that’s something that we may have to do. Some people like Signal very much, other people probably don’t, but we’ll look into it,” Trump said.

At a press gaggle with reporters in Hawaii on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Hegseth doubled down on his rebuttal that “nobody’s texting war plans.” 

Prior to his statements, the Atlantic published screenshots of his texts in the Signal group, where the secretary revealed U.S. Central Command’s schedule for attacks, as well as information about specific targets and locations.

“If you define ‘war plan’ as an ‘O-plan,’ an operational plan, it was definitely not a war plan. It was, however — if I believe Goldberg from the Atlantic and I have every reason to believe them — it included targets, timing, weapons platforms, which are classified. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There’s no parsing this one out. That information will put lives at stake if somebody has access to it,” the former senior defense official told DefenseScoop.

They noted that there are people who served in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 15 years “who were petrified about polygraphs because they had to do something in the heat of battle — to release information to an ally or a partner, but had no choice — because people were going to die if they didn’t do something.”   

“To think that people at the most senior levels in the government would not acknowledge what they did was wrong. That’s what really is beginning to bug me more than anything else, is this refusal to acknowledge what was done was wrong,” the official said. “It almost feels like it’s another blatant disregard for the rules that everybody else has to follow. I would be led off in handcuffs if I had done what they did, there would be no doubt in my mind — I would be held accountable for sucking up that magnitude of having a reporter in on the classified chat.”

Further, they called the fact that Steve Witkoff — the American real estate investor, lawyer, and Trump’s pick to serve as the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East  — was in Russia for meetings with President Vladimir Putin while participating in the group text “absolutely stunning.”

“I would assume everything from the chat has been compromised, because it’s Russia and they’re really good at this stuff. So if you’re not paying attention to that, what else has been compromised?” the former senior defense official said.

Hegseth and other members of Trump’s cabinet have also said that the success of the attacks in Yemen discussed in the chat show that the group message was not compromised. 

However, the officials who spoke to DefenseScoop this week pointed out that it’s possible U.S. adversaries could have been hiding in those types of text chains over long periods to learn about the tactics, techniques and procedures that will better position them next time to counter future operations.

“And most people don’t write about this aspect of it, but they can also learn from it and use information operations right back at the president, which they know how to target him very personally and convince him to do things or not do things. So there’s a lot in play here, which is well beyond just this one initial strike,” the former senior defense official said.

White said there’s an onus on government officials, now more than ever, to continue to handle sensitive, classified and top-secret information and distribute that information as securely as possible — because China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are constantly working to intercept U.S. communications for their benefit.

He and other cyber experts also expect major disruptions in the potentially not-so-distant future when quantum computing is fully realized and can be used with AI to break existing encryption services, including those that enable text messages to seemingly disappear after they are sent. 

“There will be no secrets. So in the same vein, we’re going to have to use artificial intelligence and quantum computing to create a robust encryption,” White said.

The officials who DefenseScoop interviewed additionally called on the government to use this incident as an opportunity to spotlight one concise policy about what is and isn’t permissible when using unclassified mobile apps for work-related chats. 

According to an official DOD memorandum published in 2023, “unmanaged messaging apps” including iMessage, Signal and WhatsApp are “NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information.”

“To me, it probably is clear already — but why not take advantage of this to come out with a policy that says, ‘here’s guidance,’” the former senior defense official said.

“We can’t afford to do this when we’re going against the Chinese adversary in the South China Sea — so we’ve got to learn from this,” they said. “We have to put some things in place to make sure something like this never happens again.”

The post Signal leak sparks new calls for modernized messaging options from defense officials appeared first on DefenseScoop.