The “signal gate” scandal could still get much worse for Pete Hegseth

President Donald Trump's decision, Mike Waltz from his position as a national security advisor to a Plum appearance as a UN ambassador, could try to end some elements of the ongoing “signal gate” controversy. But in the Ministry of Defense, the episode could still lead to great headaches – if not entirely rolling the heads completely.

In short, the incumbent General Inspector of the Ministry of Defense, Steebbins, a career officer, has announced that his office will carry out an assessment in the use of a messaging app (presumably signaling) of DOD employees, including Defense Minister Pete Hegseth. The review seems to deal with the messages in which the prospective information dealt with the incoming strikes and those of Houthi rebels.

This review should not only ask the specific security problems – and potentially identify violations – to use signal for sensitive communication, but will probably record a more urgent problem: whether the Trump administration allows a fair, objective and independent supervision in its activities.

This is a crucial question that alarm bells should raise for all Americans, especially in view of the discharge of 18 general inspectors by the president (I myself included) at the beginning of his term.

As a threshold, checking the check is Exactly What is needed. General inspectors are built for this type of review because they are independent and do not have a dog in the proverbial struggle. You have no incentive to find a specific answer, be it relief or inculpation. In addition, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is occupied by professional judges who are regulated according to strict standards – and whose work is regularly checked by external experts.

The responsibility of a general inspector is limited to the programs and operations of his agency, which means that this review only deals with the Ministry of Defense and his civil servants. And yes, the OIG could be exposed to pressure from the department – government agencies often behave that way. But I hope and expect that this will have little or no influence on the process, which will be fair and transparent.

The congress and the American public can trust the results. In a matter that is so top -class and sensitive, this independent assessment is exactly what is needed.

It is important to note that the OIG is initiated Evaluationnot a Investigation. These are very different things in the general world of the inspector – and they provide different results against which it is important to meet expectations.

In general, an investigation examines certain incidents to determine whether people have violated a law, rule or a guideline. It is carried out by federal special agents or other investigators who collect evidence in order to determine whether misconduct has occurred. If you uncover evidence of criminal activities, you are obliged to forward the matter for potential law enforcement to the Ministry of Justice.

In contrast, the evaluations focus on the efficiency and compliance of laws, rules and guidelines of a program – in this case DODS use of a messaging app available in stores. If the assessment identifies systematic errors such as inadequate documentation, inconsistent implementation or incorrect use of relevant rules, the agency is made available. Consider it as an exam. (If a general inspector receives evidence during an evaluation that indicates that a criminal or administrative misconduct may have occurred, the matter is forwarded to its investigators or the Ministry of Justice for the development. However, this is generally not the goal.)

Reviews can still be persistent and serious problems with material recommendations for correction measures. What the IG reveals could be embarrassing for Hegseth or others at Dod. However, the Americans should not expect a scandalous narrative like some IG determination reports.

Here is the big wrinkle: whether the general inspector has unrestricted access to all relevant materials. In general, a general inspector is authorized to obtain all relevant materials from the agency when performing his supervision. However, the competent law contains specific provisions for the Ministry of Defense, which enable the Defense Minister to stop such a review or to obtain the obtaining such materials. “If the secretary determines that such a ban is required to receive the United States national security interests.” No defense minister has recently asserted this authority, if at all.

So this is the key question that Americans should ask: Will the Minister of Defense call these provisions to conclude the evaluation of the OIG? This would be an unprecedented step – and a Hegseth would have to publicly justify it later. But even if Hegseth does not switch off the review completely, will the general inspector be given access to all relevant documents, including classified materials? Will you have the opportunity to interview all relevant witnesses – and these witnesses can speak freely without fear of retaliation?

And do you feel crucial to spend your report regardless of the results without fear of retaliation? I know the acting a little from my term as chairman of the General Council of the Inspection Council – he is a direct shooter, and exactly the type of sober, fair guide needed this sensitive review. But Trump fired the former USAID IG Paul Martin, a fair stalwart in the IG Community, less than 24 hours after its edition of a report with negative conclusions about the reduction of the agency by the administration. This could have a serious effect on supervision, especially on sensitive, top -class matters like this.

And that's a nightmare scenario. Without fair, objective and independent supervision of the IG community, we will lose a critical part of our American checks. The general inspectors offer our federal government a significant accountability and draw that this function would send a terrible “signal” to the sending of the American public.