Unlocking Security: How Hegseth’s New Adviser Facilitated Signal Setup at the Pentagon

After Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth allegedly used Signal to discuss sensitive military operations, a significant request was made. Col. Ricky Buria, a key military aide to Hegseth, reached out to the Department of Defense’s CIO. He asked for an exception to the policy that prohibited Hegseth from using Signal. The situation drew attention, especially since it involved a uniformed officer making the request instead of Hegseth’s civilian chief of staff.

Weeks prior, before the issues became public, Buria had also pushed for Hegseth to receive an additional desktop computer. The official explanation was that it was for personal communications so Hegseth could stay in touch with family and friends. However, this raised questions about the appropriateness of such requests in a secure government space where cell phones are generally not allowed.

The use of Signal, while recommended for highly targeted individuals by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, is against Pentagon policy for transmitting non-public information. It explicitly states that requests for exceptions can be made but doesn’t clarify if Hegseth ever received one to continue using Signal for military discussions.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell confirmed that Hegseth uses classified communication systems but denied that he uses Signal on government computers. Despite this, questions linger about why a computer with Signal was set up in Hegseth’s office.

Buria, with a strong military background as both a Marine and an aide to former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, took the unusual step of transitioning toward a civilian advisory role. This move is particularly noteworthy as many military aides typically maintain a strictly non-political stance.

When Buria announced his retirement and planned to remain at the Pentagon, he was seen as a strong candidate for Hegseth’s chief of staff, especially following the departure of Hegseth’s former chief. Some officials express concerns about Buria’s readiness for such a political position. They argue that a chief of staff role typically requires a deep understanding of the political landscape, essential for navigating high-stakes situations in government.

Interestingly, Buria’s ascent within Hegseth’s inner circle appears influenced by Hegseth’s concerns over loyalty and security amidst rising paranoia about leaks. Some insiders have commented on Buria’s casual demeanor in interactions with fellow military officers, a stark shift from his more reserved approach when working with Austin.

In recent months, Buria has also become active on social media, sharing posts that support Hegseth and other political figures. This shift in behavior highlights his growing engagement in the political realm, which raises questions among officials regarding his qualifications for a chief of staff role.

Buria’s case emphasizes how military personnel can transition into political roles, often leading to mixed opinions within the defense community. As the balance between military protocols and political expectations continues to evolve, the implications for roles like Buria’s will be crucial to watch.

For more insights into the complexities of military and political transitions, you can refer to the official Department of Defense guidelines on communication protocols here.

Source link