Regarding the scandals of the Trump administration, the unrepentant reactions to “Signalgate” — where senior officials discussed an imminent military operation in Yemen in a group chat, oblivious to a well-known journalist’s presence — should raise serious concerns about both audacity and incompetence.
In a particularly shocking moment, Tulsi Gabbard, the United States’ director of national intelligence, had to retract her statement during a congressional hearing when she claimed there was no specific information regarding a military strike in the Signal chat. Shortly after, Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published the entire conversation, directly contradicting Gabbard’s assertion that no classified information or weapons systems had been discussed.
Q&A
What is Signal?
Show
Signal is a messaging app founded in 2012 that allows users to transmit texts, photos, videos and documents, as well as make audio and video calls. It uses end-to-end encryption, which protects messages against hackers and cyberattacks via an extra layer of security. Several other privacy features, such as the ability to automatically delete messages, have made it popular among communities such as journalists and activists that frequently deal with sensitive information.
Signal is run by the non-profit Signal Foundation and relies on donations to function, giving it a different business model than other encrypted messaging services such as Meta-owned WhatsApp. It does not track user data to the same extent as Meta and publishes its code to allow for public auditing of its security measures. Signal, like any messaging app, is still vulnerable to human error through methods like phishing attacks or spyware which can allow hackers to gain access to users’ devices. The Signal Foundation’s president called the addition of The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief a user error rather than a problem with her app’s security.
“My statement yesterday stemmed from my memory, or lack thereof, regarding the details posted there,” Gabbard explained. “What was shared today highlights that I wasn’t directly involved with that segment of the Signal chat.”
Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looked straight into the camera and bluntly asserted: “Nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.” The following day, Goldberg unveiled that Hegseth had indeed texted the exact timing of the attacks and the weaponry to be utilized, specifically F-18 jets and MQ-9 drones.
Additionally, Michael Waltz, the White House national security adviser, appeared flustered during a live Fox News segment when asked how Goldberg’s number appeared on his phone. “You’ve never talked to him before, so how did his number end up on your device?” conservative anchor Laura Ingraham questioned. “It gets sucked in,” Waltz replied, a former congressman and army special forces soldier, without clarifying how this “sucking in” process occurs.
Notwithstanding all this, there seems to be little serious consideration for an investigation. Ultimately, this boils down to politics, as Democrats currently lack the votes and influence needed to deliver a significant blow to the administration.
It’s improbable that anyone will be held accountable. Donald Trump has reportedly instructed his aides that he doesn’t want to provide the Atlantic with a figurative scalp, while Vice President JD Vance forcefully stated during a recent trip to Greenland: “If you think you can persuade the president of the United States to fire anyone, you’re mistaken … I’m the vice president saying it here on Friday: we are standing by our entire national security team.”
For decades, national security had been regarded as a rare area of bipartisan agreement in Washington, a realm where Democrats and Republicans often set aside their differences to support the national interest. Members of Congress on intelligence and foreign affairs committees have commonly maintained friendly relationships. There was a collective understanding that significant scandals could transcend party lines and lead to severe consequences even amidst heightened tensions between parties.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, served prison time following an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity. Under Barack Obama, the Department of Justice initiated more investigations under the Espionage Act for leaking sensitive information than all preceding administrations combined.
Additionally, the FBI conducted an extensive investigation into Hillary Clinton for storing emails on a private computer server, a matter that some argue may have influenced the election outcome. “It’s not the hypocrisy that bothers me; it’s the stupidity,” Clinton expressed in a New York Times op-ed on Friday. “We’re all shocked — shocked! — that President Trump and his team are indifferent to safeguarding classified information or adhering to federal record retention laws … Far more concerning is that senior Trump administration officials jeopardized our troops by exchanging military strategies on a commercial messaging app and inadvertently allowed a journalist into the chat. That’s not only dangerous, it’s incredibly foolish.”
Experts have noted that if this scandal had occurred at a lower level within the intelligence community, the fallout would have been significantly harsher. Mid-level officers and defense officials would likely face severe consequences for leaking the information that Hegseth did, including details about the timing of the strikes and the weapons systems involved.
However, the Trump administration seems to believe it can simply divert and distract public attention until a new controversy arises. This strategy could prove effective; Trump is set to announce tariffs this week, which are likely to dominate media coverage for weeks. At the same time, his deputies are consistently appearing on cable news, rebutting reports about the scandal and suggesting that Goldberg somehow infiltrated the chat instead of being invited by Waltz, the national security adviser.
“They have treated this as a media event to be spun rather than a grave error to be corrected,” noted Phil Klay, a military veteran and guest columnist for the New York Times. Initial indications suggest that the Trump administration will evade serious repercussions from this scandal, stepping into new territory in Washington where even a significant security breach can be reframed as the media’s fault for reporting on it.
