The White House wants to move on from Signalgate and insists the case is closed. But with congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for investigations—and new allegations emerging about government communications on private email accounts—the scandal is not going away anytime soon.
In the meantime, Signalgate has also raised alarm among U.S. allies. Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says he has spoken with “friends abroad who are very concerned with what they saw happen.” He told Foreign Policy in an interview that the scandal has major potential implications for intelligence sharing—a critical aspect of U.S. national security.
Panetta also discussed other aspects of the escalating fallout from Signalgate, President Donald Trump’s push to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, the new administration’s approach to climate change, and more.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Foreign Policy: Last week, you said there should be firings over the Signalgate scandal. As we learn more, is there anyone in particular who you think needs to go?
Leon Panetta: When this kind of event takes place, what is absolutely required is an investigation to determine exactly what happened. Under any other administration, that would have been the approach that would have been taken. That’s what I did when I was [CIA] director or secretary of defense and something happened that raised questions about whether or not we were adhering to proper security protections.
What’s required now is not ignoring what happened, not walking away from it. And as far as I know, what this administration has decided is that they’re not going to investigate. The Justice Department’s not going to investigate, the FBI’s not going to investigate. The White House is not even conducting an investigation. I’m glad that the Armed Services Committee on the Senate side, both the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member have asked for an investigation by the inspector general to at least determine what took place.
What is required is a thorough investigation that determines how this happened, how a civilian journalist was added to a list of national security leaders and was exposed to highly classified information. Secondly, how was the decision made to use a nonsecure internet network like Signal to conduct this kind of conversation when it was not cleared for handling classified information?
My view is when that investigation finds out who is responsible for those mistakes, then those individuals ought to be fired.
FP: Who should be investigating this?
LP: What I would do, in the absence of any action by the administration, is ask the responsible committees, either the Armed Services Committee or the Intelligence Committee, to put together a task force that would do the investigation with subpoena authority to be able to determine exactly what happened.
The American people are entitled to know that. For the sake of dealing with our allies in the world, they need to know just exactly what happened so that ultimately our credibility can be restored.
FP: What impact do you think Signalgate will have on intelligence sharing, especially in relation to Five Eyes and NATO? Have you heard from any U.S. allies or partners who are concerned about this?
LP: I’ve talked to friends abroad who are very concerned with what they saw happen in this situation. I can tell you that—critical to our ability to provide the best intelligence necessary to our leaders—it is incredibly important to be able to share intelligence with our allies abroad. That information is extremely critical to our ability to really understand what the threats are. And if they have questions about whether or not a highly classified material that they’ve been sharing in the past could possibly be mishandled with the kind of carelessness we saw with the Signal event, they are going to withhold some sensitive information that ultimately could be very important to our ability to protect our security.
FP: Another big subject in Washington and beyond right now is Trump’s obsession with Greenland. Trump says the United States needs Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, for national security purposes and he has not ruled out the use of force to acquire it. To put it another way, the president of the United States is leaving the door open for using military force against a NATO ally. Can NATO survive Trump?
LP: I have some confidence in the ability of our allies in NATO to be able to continue to work together and to develop both the resources and the weaponry necessary in order to make NATO an effective alliance, with or without the United States. I’m glad that they’re taking those steps.
Rather than President Trump seeking Greenland, it would make a lot more sense for our national security if he strongly supported the NATO alliance. That would be a hell of a lot more important for our security, particularly when it comes to dealing with the threat from Russia.
FP: Trump in recent days offered rare criticism of Vladimir Putin amid a lack of progress in his push for an end to the war in Ukraine, stating that he’s angry with the Russian president for questioning Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s legitimacy (though Trump has called Zelensky a “dictator”). Is Trump getting played by Putin as he rapidly pushes for an end to the war?
LP: When I was director of the CIA and saw the intelligence on Putin and saw the same intelligence when I was secretary of defense, the bottom line is that Putin could never be trusted—never be trusted. Putin’s fundamental goal is to undermine the United States of America and to undermine democracies in the world.
He is not somebody who will respond to “pretty please.” The only thing Putin really understands is force. Ultimately, President Trump is going to find that out, like every other president who has had to deal with Putin.
FP: Trump is threatening to bomb Iran if a nuclear deal is not reached in the near future. Is this really the best option right now? Would this not risk sparking a war at an already precarious moment in the Middle East?
LP: From my own experience, the best way to deal with Iran is by building a strong alliance with others—with Israel, with some of our European friends—that can send a very clear message to Iran that ultimately they do have to negotiate. Because if they develop a nuclear weapon, it’s not just the United States, it is the United States and our allies that will respond.
FP: Democrats in Congress have characterized Trump as a threat to national security. Do you agree?
LP: One of the problems now is that there’s a lot of confusion and uncertainty about just what exactly his strategy is for trying to protect our national security. I’m not sure I have an answer to that now. He says tariffs will produce a better economy. He’s hoping that somehow his relationship with Putin can produce peace, but none of that’s panning out—not even his negotiations with Iran.
Then on top of that is the Signal event that raises real questions about whether or not the administration has the competence to protect highly classified information. Because there are so many questions about just exactly what is the strategy of this administration, that confusion is creating a real credibility problem for the United States, not only with our allies, not only with our adversaries, but with the American people as well.
FP: Is there anything that Trump has done or is doing that you see as boosting U.S. national security?
LP: In the last administration, he did lay the groundwork for the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. I believe that alliance, if we could expand it to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, could perhaps be a very important alliance with Israel to try to develop a more permanent solution to peace in that area. If he could at least follow through on that, that might represent an important step toward protecting our security and the security of Israel in the future.
FP: You recently wrote an op-ed about the threat that climate change poses to global security. What has motivated you to continue raising alarm about this issue?
LP: When I was director of the CIA, I established a climate operation because of my concerns about the impact on security and the need to get better intelligence on what was happening with regards to the impact of climate change. I did the same thing when I became secretary of defense—established a climate office there in order to consider the security threats that are arising from just everything we see happening in the world as a result of climate change, whether it’s droughts in Sudan, flooding in Afghanistan, flooding in Pakistan, wildfires in Chile, hurricanes here in the United States. All of it represents a basic truth, which is that climate change is a grave security threat and it’s getting worse. It’s not getting better.
FP: How concerned are you that Trump’s foreign aid cuts will hurt efforts to combat climate change around the world?
LP: I don’t think there’s any question that these cuts are making it much more difficult to try to address the threat that I’m concerned about, and that’s the threat to our security. Because the failure to provide needed assistance—particularly to those countries that are impoverished and where hunger is a real threat every day—what it’s leading to is an increase in migration of people trying to escape what they’re confronting. Whether it’s droughts, wildfires, or the storms that have increased in danger.
What we’re seeing as a result of that is increased resource competition, increased crime and economic instability. And all of that represents factors that are ultimately going to threaten our security. It destabilizes entire communities, gives rise to violence and the recruitment of extremist groups. Terrorists feed on these kinds of problems. And it’s overburdening those countries that are trying to deal with these challenges.
When people begin to migrate in huge numbers from one part of the world to another in order to escape this crisis, it is a destabilizing force in the world that creates even greater insecurity, not only in the countries that are impacted—it threatens our security as well.
The post Ex-Pentagon Chief Says ‘Friends Abroad’ Are Concerned by Signalgate appeared first on Foreign Policy.
