Accountability for Thee, Not for Pete
Hillary Clinton’s private email server drew outrage. Pete Hegseth’s Signal leaks draw dismissals and deflection of criticism. The Trump administration isn’t interested in applying the rules.
When Donald Trump returned to the White House, he promised his administration would be the most transparent and accountable in history.
Then came Signal-gate – the March incident in which senior national security officials were caught using a public messaging app to coordinate a U.S. military attack on Houthi rebels.
One official, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, mistakenly added The Atlantic editor Jeff Goldberg to the group. During the exchange, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed equipment and scheduling details of the Navy strike group conducting the operation in Yemen.
What did the Trump administration do? Brushed it off as a mistake, claimed no harm was done, and insisted the officials involved had learned their lesson. “Move on” was the response.
Put a pin in that for a moment, and let’s step into the time machine.
In 2016, I took a lot of heat for criticizing Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server. I was equally critical of the Democratic National Committee for the security lapses that led to the exposure of sensitive internal communications, including those of John Podesta.
Using a private email server for government business was, in my view – and still is – reckless and irresponsible. When I served in the Army, I was responsible for maintaining the security of my unit’s classified documents. Had I used unofficial channels even once – even for routine communication – I could have faced severe consequences, including court-martial.
Even the justification that Clinton wasn’t intentionally bypassing official systems, and that emails were preserved under the Federal Records Act, only begged the question: if you’ve got a secure, taxpayer-funded system, why not just use it?
Then came the Podesta emails, published by WikiLeaks after they were stolen by Russian hackers. Among them was evidence that Donna Brazile, then a CNN contributor, shared debate questions with the Clinton campaign. The emails also revealed close coordination between the DNC and the Clinton team, reinforcing the belief that the primary process was slanted against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
No one told Clinton to use a private server. She made that decision herself. She invited the criticism and the consequences.
No one instructed Podesta to put in writing details that exposed the DNC's bias. Yes, the emails were stolen – but they weren’t fabricated. They were real, and they made the Democrats look bad in the middle of a tight election.
The fallout was immediate. The incident became a defining issue of Trump’s 2016 campaign, which famously adopted the “Lock her up!” chant. Unforgettable was Mike Flynn – former general and briefly National Security Advisor – flailing his arms as he led the chorus. The refrain remains a staple at MAGA rallies to this day.
OK – back in the time machine to return to the present.
Hegseth is once again in lukewarm water over his use of Signal. Over the weekend, Politico reported that the former Fox News commentator had resumed using the encrypted messaging app, this time to discuss sensitive military plans for additional strikes in Yemen. The group chat reportedly included his wife, Jennifer Rauchet, a former Fox News producer, and his brother, neither of whom holds any official role in national security.
Again – and so far – the reaction has been nothing. President Trump publicly reaffirmed his full support for Hegseth, calling reporters who questioned the incident “hucksters.”
"He's doing a great job — ask the Houthis how he's doing," Trump said, according to NPR.
In his defense, Hegseth recycled a response he first used during his contentious Senate confirmation hearing. When asked about allegations of sexual misconduct and alcohol abuse, he blamed them on “anonymous smears.” Confronted with the second Signal breach, he offered the same line: “anonymous smears.”
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the incident as another manufactured scandal by the so-called “Deep State” working to undermine the administration.
“This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and against the monumental change you’re trying to implement,” Leavitt said.
Let’s entertain that theory for a moment – that Hegseth is being targeted by entrenched interests threatened by his mission to slash billions in defense contracts, remove career officials, and reorient U.S. military focus toward Asia. It’s plausible.
But just like Clinton and Podesta, no one told Hegseth to use a commercial messaging app for official communications. No one told him to share operational details with his wife and brother.
To date, there’s been no consequence – not for the first Signal-gate, and not for the second. While a few reports suggest Trump may be preparing to cut Hegseth loose, they remain isolated and uncharacteristic. So far in his second term, Trump has demonstrated unwavering resolve in deflecting criticism and protecting loyalists.
In this administration, accountability isn’t just elusive – it’s irrelevant. The only real crime is disloyalty. President Trump will only hold someone in his inner circle accountable if there’s a political price to pay. While a few Republican members of Congress have voiced criticism of Hegseth and his actions, it’s hardly a groundswell, not enough to make Trump lose sleep over consequences.
Accountability isn’t a partisan principle. It either applies to everyone or it applies to no one. If Clinton’s emails were disqualifying, then Hegseth’s Signal chats should be too. But in Trump’s Washington, loyalty is currency, and the rules are just weapons to be turned on enemies. The question isn’t whether Hegseth should face consequences. It’s whether anyone in this administration ever will.