Friday, March 28, 2025

On Signal Leak, Take the L

National Review Online

Thursday, March 27, 2025

 

Damage control is not supposed to cause more damage, but that is what President Trump’s team has created with its reaction to the Signal leak story.

 

As we all know, in the days before U.S. military forces conducted strikes against Houthi terrorists in Yemen, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited to a Signal text chat that included National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and other top officials.

 

The conversation was ostensibly intended to coordinate further high-level discussions of Trump’s policy toward the Houthis, but the chat descended — in full view of Goldberg — into a debate about the merits of striking the Houthis and disclosed operational details about the impending plan of attack. According to Goldberg’s initial report, Hegseth shared “information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

 

Signal is a commercial-grade, encrypted-messaging app that is commonly used to gain a degree of confidentiality. But it’s not an appropriate venue for senior government officials to discuss U.S. foreign policy or a surprise military action. Such a conversation outside of a secure government communications channel is at minimum very foolish; it would very plausibly be against the law.

 

Hegseth and various administration officials have repeatedly denied that any “classified information” or “war plans” whatsoever were ever disclosed on Signal. Even after Goldberg and The Atlantic released screenshots of the full Signal chat on Wednesday morning, the administration denied that any such information was inappropriately released. Hegseth, in particular, poured contempt on the notion that the Signal chain included war plans, insisting that it was impossible since the messages contained: “No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.”

 

But his assertion that no classified information was disclosed is very hard to square with the fact that he texted his colleagues materials that were almost certainly developed by and taken from the very CENTCOM planners coordinating the strike operation, including the timeline, sequence, and delivery assets of the coming strikes.

 

Whatever Hegseth and the White House may claim, the information he put out over this unclassified — and at that very moment, compromised — network was extremely sensitive. Indeed, it was classified prima facie; it was born classified by its very nature. If someone who meant us harm had received this information, it would have put American pilots at further risk.

 

As a matter of crisis communications, it would have been better if Trump officials had simply admitted that they had made a grievous error and promised to tighten up their communications methods and procedures to ensure that all highly sensitive conversations were conducted in the appropriate venue. The strikes on the Houthi terrorists were, after all, successful, and no American lives were lost in the operation.

 

But the Trump habit of always hitting back at perceived enemies and never admitting mistakes under any circumstances set administration officials up for what was easily predictable: Goldberg’s subsequent revelations proved that administration officials’ answers to the controversy were self-serving, Clintonian, and dishonest.

 

Obviously, Waltz, Hegseth, and every other administration official should now ensure that future sensitive conversations that touch on foreign policy and military planning are conducted in the appropriate, lawful venues, no matter the seeming inconvenience in the moment. Just because Signal can be a useful tool in some contexts, it does not follow that it is more secure than the official classified communications channels.

 

Hegseth, appropriately, wants to focus the military on warfighting. But this episode shows that some fights aren’t worth having. Sometimes it’s better to admit a mistake and take the L.

No comments: