Current and former government officials are alarmed by the use of a commercial encryption platform by senior members of President Donald Trump’s administration to discuss sensitive and potentially classified national security matters.
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and other participants in a Signal group—among then Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratclifffe—erred in treating the platform as a secure venue to discuss internal policy deliberations, never mind possibly secretive military planning. Opinions vary on whether the Signal chat, initiated by Waltz to discuss preparations for a since concluded U.S. military strike on Yemen, exposed classified information by inadvertently including a journalist.
“I don’t personally use Signal. Blue bubbles on iMessage is just about as secure as Signal, which is to say not perfectly secure,” a Republican government official who has focused on national security issues told The Dispatch this week after the journalist mistakenly included in the Signal group chat, The Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, reported details of the conversation.
This Republican, requesting anonymity to speak candidly, is a Trump administration supporter who emphasized Signal is commonly used by many government officials in both political parties, including by Democrats while serving in former President Joe Biden’s administration. But the advice this official gives to others regarding commercial messaging applications and platforms is: “Don’t write things down that could embarrass you … or disclose sensitive matters.”
The White House is denying that classified information was discussed during the Signal chat in question. Yet in a statement provided to The Atlantic in response to additional reporting from Goldberg that could contradict that claim, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt conceded information in the Signal exchange was delicate and unfit for public view.
“As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation,” Leavitt said. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.”
The particulars of what government information is, or is not, classified—and which methods of communicating are permitted to discuss classified information—can be complex. Different government agencies may issue competing guidance. Additionally, presidents generally have the authority to classify or declassify government information as they see fit.
The conversation that took place over several days leading up to the March 15 strike on Yemen ordered by Trump to incapacitate Houthi terrorists who have been attacking Israel and disrupting Middle East shipping lanes. The senior Trump administration officials who took part in the exchange include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Steve Witcoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy and chief Russia-Ukraine negotiator.
John Bolton, former ambassador who served as White House national security adviser during Trump’s first term, is baffled that officials so high up the chain of command did not object to using Signal and did not (apparently) think to use a secure government platform. Bolton, fired by Trump in 2019 after the two clashed over administration policy, said doing so is no different than then-Secreatary of State Hillary Clinton using a private email server for government communications during the Obama administration.
“Every one of those participants should have known they shouldn’t be on Signal. And yet for the entire life of that group chat, nobody raised it, which in turn causes people to ask the question: Is this the first time they did it, or did they do it otherwise?” Bolton said.
“The idea that you’d set up anything on a commercial channel, whether it’s encrypted or not, is a nonstarter,” he added.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats have been highly critical, with Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona calling on Hegseth to resign. Conversely, most Republicans are defending the administration, saying the uproar over the Signal chat is overblown.
That is despite The Atlantic’s follow-up story that included specific information on battle plans and timing for the Yemen strike Goldberg viewed in the group chat. The Atlantic had originally withheld those details to protect U.S. national security and, presuming they were classified, to avoid breaking federal law that prohibits the disclosure of such information.
But the Trump administration’s own executive branch agencies have warned of the dangers of using Signal to communicate sensitive information. The National Security Agency warned employees against using Signal back in February, CBS News reported Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Pentagon warned employees on March 18 to avoid using Signal. Per a memorandum first reported by National Public Radio, the platform was vulnerable to Russian hackers and unsuitable for use, whether for classified or non-classified information.
Some top administration officials who joined the Signal group chat argued Wednesday that reporters and media outlets who oppose Trump were intentionally mischaracterizing both the danger of using Signal, and the information discussed, in an effort to undermine the president politically.
“It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,” Vance insisted in a post on X, Elon Musk’s social media platform.
“This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an “attack plan” (as he now calls it),” Hegseth said also on X. “Not even close.”
Waltz said much the same on the social media platform. “No locations; no sources & methods; NO WAR PLANS.” (Trump is expressing support for all officials involved and, at least publicly, downplaying the episode as inconsequential.)
Many attorneys who specialize in national security law disagree with the administration—and did so even prior to Wednesday’s reporting of the more sensitive military planning details for the Yemen strike. That’s because the officials on the group chat were debating the wisdom of Trump’s decision to authorize the attack; expressing contempt for U.S. allies and how eliminating the Houthi terrorists might impact American foreign policy down the line. Information like this can be considered classified.
“Given the description of the information and what it revealed, it would be difficult to believe this information would not be considered classified,” said Mark Zaid, an expert on national security law who periodically represents government whistleblowers in cases having to do with classified material. “While the participants are now denying the classified nature of the information, to me this appears to be an after-the-fact reaction designed to cover up their obvious mistakes.”
Zaid said there’s also the matter of the Federal Records Act and Presidential Records Act, both of which require administration employees to preserve official communications. Signal has a feature that allows users to designate text conversations for automatic deletion after a specified period of time. According to The Atlantic, the messages appeared set to disappear after anywhere from one to four weeks. But like others The Dispatch interviewed, it was the decision to use Signal in the first place that seems the most concerning, running afoul of typical best practices to maintain “operational security,” or “OPSEC.”
“It is unbelievably poor OPSEC,” Zaid said.
