Clear Signal of Double Standards
The Trump administration is signaling that it doesn't care that senior security and defense officials used a public messaging app to plan military strikes in the Middle East.
In 2016, when Hillary Clinton was running for president, it was revealed that she had been using a personal email account for government business. After a lengthy investigation, it was determined that some sensitive information had passed through her private email server and backup system, but nothing substantial came of it.
It turns out that Hillary Clinton wasn’t alone. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star general, also used personal email for government communications. Several other government officials—Republicans and Democrats alike—admitted that this was a common practice.
Still, then-first-time candidate Donald Trump called the practice egregious (my word, not his) and launched his now-famous “Lock Her Up” chant, demanding her prosecution and incarceration for allegedly putting national security at risk.
That was the standard in 2016, a refrain repeated throughout Trump’s first presidency and during his interim years out of the White House.
Now, just 63 days into the second Trump presidency, the administration is facing its first major security leak. Michael Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, reports that the National Security team inadvertently added him to a classified text message group that deliberated and planned the weekend attack on the Houthis in Yemen.
The participants in the chat included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, a State Department representative designated by Secretary Marco Rubio, National Security Director Tulsi Gabbard, and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, among others. These are cabinet-level officials or their representatives. They were using Signal, a commercial messaging application with end-to-end encryption and settings that make messages disappear after a certain period.
While the chat participants dispute that this occurred, a spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed its authenticity.
“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” spokesman Brian Hughes wrote in a statement responding to The Atlantic’s inquiry. “The thread demonstrates the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
The military strikes on the rebel group, which has been disrupting Red Sea shipping lanes for the past two years, went off without incident. No American servicemen or assets were lost or damaged in the attacks, which were designed to weaken the group’s ability to target cargo ships passing through the high-traffic sea lanes.
The group involved in the thread is already disputing The Atlantic’s decision to report on the incident. Goldberg’s account highlights the differing opinions among the participants, their divergent views from President Trump, and dissent over carrying out a military operation that arguably benefits Europe more than the United States.
However, the real issue is protocol and legality. Hegseth, Gabbard, and Waltz are all former military officers. They understand the severity of operational and signal security. The government has secure communication systems for such messages—systems that are free (or presumably free) of foreign eavesdropping and automatically retain records for auditing and historical purposes.
Some observers have noted that conducting such communications over a commercial application could violate the Espionage Act and government record retention regulations.
Members of Congress are furious about the incident. Democratic leaders are calling for investigations and demanding that those involved face consequences. Some have even called for the resignation of Hegseth and Waltz.
Predictably, Republicans are downplaying the situation. Several GOP leaders have argued that the leak did no harm, dismissing it as a minor issue. House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged that the situation deserves attention but added, “They’ll tighten up and ensure it doesn’t happen again. I don’t know what else you can say about that.”
Some Republicans, however, are taking the matter more seriously. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska), a former Air Force general, said, “The unconscionable action was sending this info over non-secure networks. None of this should have been sent on non-secure systems. Russia and China are surely monitoring his unclassified phone.”
When I was in the military, I handled secret and sensitive materials. I was responsible for operational security for my unit. If I had breached security protocols like this, I would have faced severe consequences—up to and including jail time.
Trump, who claims he knows nothing about the incident because he doesn’t read The Atlantic, has said little on the matter. If his administration has any integrity and respect for the military, as it claims, it should demand the resignations of those involved and ensure the proper enforcement of security protocols. Congress, currently controlled by Republicans, should thoroughly investigate and hold administration officials accountable.
Instead, we’ll likely see the usual response: hunker down, wait out the storm, and wait for the next controversy to distract people from serious issues. This is more than just a disregard for security protocols and the law—it’s a disregard for accountability. Once again, it signals that there’s one set of rules for some and a different set for others.
Don’t worry—they’ll still chant, “Lock Her Up.”
UPDATE: The Signal application used by the National Security team planning military strikes were using a private version hosted on a National Security Agency server. However, experts say Signal, even in such a use case, is still inherently insecure compared to other government communications channels.