The National Security Breach: Worse than I Thought

A week ago, news broke that a serious security breach of U.S. intelligence had taken place. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had disclosed war plans in a group chat to 18 senior members of the Trump administration. This took place on SIGNAL, a commercial app platform. Participating in that chat were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, the National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the head of the CIA John Ratcliffe, and other senior officials. The information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”.  Part of the breach happened because Waltz had inadvertently added a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, to the chat list. Of course, Goldberg, a private citizen, did not have security clearance.

The fallout has been striking. Recent polls indicate that 74-76% of American citizens believe this breach was “serious”, including 60% of all Republicans. The daily drip, drip, drip of mistakes are contributing to the growing lack of public trust. Faced with this problem, the White House wants the issue to disappear, and hopes the public just “forgets” the breach. On the other hand, Democrats want a thorough investigation to take place and necessary consequences to be applied. The following is my attempt to summarize the facts as we know them so that my readers can make up their own minds.

SIGNAL

SIGNAL is a commercial app. It is portrayed as a fairly safe platform because messages are encrypted from the source phone, and then kept encrypted throughout the transmission until they reach the receiving phone. Many people who work in the federal government, both Republicans and Democrats, utilize SIGNAL for ordinary transmissions.

The government has issued many warnings against using SIGNAL for sending sensitive, classified information for the following reasons:

1. The transmission is encrypted and, therefore, fairly secure. Nevertheless, the source phone and the receiving phones are vulnerable to attack and hacking. These phones must also meet high security criteria.
2. Federal security laws require that sensitive, high-level communication be retained for posterity. SIGNAL is programed to erase the contents shortly after the chat conversation has ended. This means that SIGNAL must not be used for the transmission of classified intelligence. All senior officials are made aware of this restriction.
3. Each person on a chat must be aware of the identity of all the other participants on the chat in order to fulfill security requirements. If there is any breach, participants should immediately raise an alarm and communicate the breach to the person who organized the chat.

THE BREACH

Everyone knew that SIGNAL should not be used to transmit sensitive, classified information.

1. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz made a big mistake of adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the list of recipients, thereby violating security criteria. Waltz has appropriately admitted that he was responsible for the mistake.
2. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth introduced the highly sensitive “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”.  According to the Department of Defense’s own definitions, intelligence on imminent military strikes is designated “Top Secret”. Hegseth clearly violated security norms.
3. It appears that some of the participants were using their personal phones for the chat. These phones are susceptible to hacking and their use is a clear violation of the security guidelines. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Russia during the chat. There is concern that the phone he was using was vulnerable to Russian surveillance.

THE RESPONSE

1. Last Monday Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published brief segments of the chat text in the Atlantic. These did not compromise sensitive intelligence, but were sufficiently explicit to demonstrate that he had mistakenly been admitted to the chat. At first, the White House accused him of lying. Hegseth accused him of being a deceitful “so called journalist” who peddles lies. Trump called him a “sleazebag”. Goldberg responded that his integrity (and the integrity of the Atlantic) were on the line and that he felt goaded to publish the entire transcript. He made the appropriate agencies aware of his plans (the White House, the CIA, the DOD, etc) in order not to put U.S. military personnel in danger. The CIA made a request to omit an identification and Goldberg complied with their wish. The text was then published in the Atlantic and is now available for everyone to study. The text shows that in addition to military plans, sensitive derogatory comments were made about our European allies, and a disagreement between Vance and Trump was made public.
2. After the incendiary White House attack on Goldberg as a liar backfired, the official line has been to deny, deny, deny. They have minimized the seriousness of the breach: as if no classified intelligence had been communicated. A few voices were raised in protest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the breach a “big mistake”. Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Armed Services Committee, was even more explicit. He signed onto a letter to the acting inspector general at the Department of Defense for an inquiry into the potential “use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know.” I invite my readers to study the entire transcript and decide for themselves whether the contents should have been designated as “Top Secret” or not.
3. Our relationship with allies has been damaged. Israel provided much of the intelligence information that Hegseth shared on a non-classified platform. They and our European allies have stated they will re-evaluate what kind of intelligence they will share with us in the future. Are we a trustworthy ally?
4. The Wall Street Journal reported that “Waltz has created and hosted multiple other sensitive national security conversations on Signal with cabinet members, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine as well as military operations.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the breach to be serious, I agree with Senator Wicker that, at the very least, the Department of Defense Inspector General conduct a thorough investigation of the breach. They should also assign penalties if warranted. I would prefer a bipartisan investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would probably be more balanced and just. May the truth win out!