When news broke about a group chat on the Signal messenger app where government officials discussed a military operation in Yemen, those involved downplayed the story, claimed no confidential information, and deflected blame toward the reporter. Soon after, when Americans were given the texts to judge for themselves, they doubled down on their rhetoric, and conservative news outlets ran with it—emphasizing that no classified information was shared and suggesting that the journalist may have hacked his way in. Others, including some Republican government officials, acknowledged that those in the chat had made a mistake but insisted this was purely the Democrats making much ado about nothing.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t change the fact that the National Security Advisor set up a group chat to discuss details and updates about a military strike on an unsecured messaging app with 19 government officials, including the Defense Secretary, Vice President, CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of State.
It also doesn’t change that no one questioned discussing sensitive information on an unsecured channel, nor did they question Jeffrey Goldberg’s presence—or lack of participation. It also didn’t change that these concerns weren’t raised while the Secretary of State was attending the G7 meeting in Quebec, the Director of National Intelligence was in Thailand, and the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East was in Moscow, having met with President Vladimir Putin earlier that day at the Kremlin. And no one raised concern that the group chat was set to be deleted after one week.
No one voiced concerns until Goldberg published the article “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.” However, even then, there was no reflection on their own actions—just more deflection. After being assured that no classified information was shared, Goldberg followed up with “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal”
The truth was unveiled for all to see. But the louder voices in the room press on, insisting that the real villains in this story are the reporter and the Democrats.
However, secure and classified information protocols exist for a reason. History has shown time and again that even seemingly minor lapses in security can lead to catastrophic consequences—compromising U.S. military operations, exposing intelligence sources, and putting American lives at risk. Even if the administration chose not to classify this information, it doesn’t change what it was—or the potential consequences.
These are consequences that those defending this behavior should be fully aware of, making mastering news literacy more important than ever.
Types of Classified Information
Classified information includes high-stakes intelligence, operational plans, and national security secrets that could compromise U.S. interests and endanger lives if disclosed. Under Executive Order 13526, access to classified information is restricted to those deemed eligible on a need-to-know basis—even for those with the highest level of security clearances.
To safeguard national security, classified material is divided into three levels based on the potential damage that unauthorized disclosure could cause:
- Confidential: Damage to national security by compromising sensitive information, such as diplomatic communications or military logistics, which could undermine U.S. interests and disrupt international relations
- Secret: Cause serious harm to national security by exposing critical intelligence, military operations, or technological advancements, potentially allowing adversaries to exploit vulnerabilities, endangering U.S. personnel, and disrupting strategic objectives
- Top Secret: Cause exceptionally grave damage to national security by revealing highly sensitive information, such as nuclear protocols, covert operations, or intelligence sources, which could result in catastrophic consequences, including the loss of life, operational failure, and severe harm to national security infrastructure
Communicating about Classified Information
When discussing classified information, Executive Order 13526 and Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705 state that communication about classified information can only be discussed in the following ways:
- Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System: Used for Top Secret/SCI communications
- Secret Internet Protocol Router Network: Used for Secret-level communications
- Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities: Secure physical spaces where sensitive discussions take place
These systems are rigorously monitored, encrypted, and protected against foreign and domestic threats to ensure the security of classified information and does not include commercially encrypted apps like Signal.
Classified or Not, Cybersecurity and Operations Protocols Were Violated
Even if the information shared in the Signal group chat wasn’t officially classified, it still violated critical cybersecurity and operational protocols to safeguard sensitive military information and prevent national security risks. These protocols protect classified and sensitive, unclassified information that could compromise U.S. military operations or give adversaries a strategic advantage.
- Cybersecurity Protocols: Mandate the use of secure, encrypted communication channels for sensitive information. Using an unsecured app like Signal bypasses these protections, increasing the risk of interception, foreign surveillance, and unauthorized disclosures.
- Operational Protocols: Govern the planning, execution, and communication of military operations by ensuring mission-critical information is only shared through approved systems and with individuals with the proper security clearance and a demonstrated need-to-know. Even unclassified operational details, such as troop movements or strike confirmations, are subject to strict control to prevent adversaries from gaining actionable intelligence.
Ignoring these protocols undermines national security, exposes military operations to unnecessary risks, and erodes trust among U.S. allies who expect rigorous protection of shared intelligence.
Risks from Mishandling Classified Information
- Compromised National Security: Adversaries can gain access to sensitive operational details
- Loss of Allied Trust: Allies may lose confidence in U.S. intelligence protection
- Risk to U.S. Personnel: Leaked information can endanger American troops and diplomats
- Political and Diplomatic Fallout: Protocol breaches lead to investigations, media scrutiny, and loss of public trust
Laws, Regulations and People Charged for Mishandling
Several laws and regulations govern the handling, transmission, and storage of classified information to protect national security and ensure accountability:
- Executive Order 13526 requires that classified information only be accessed, transmitted, and stored on authorized systems.
- Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793) criminalizes improper handling, transmission, or storage of classified national defense information.
- Federal Records Act mandates that official government communications be properly recorded and archived.
Violating these laws, whether through negligence or intentional misconduct, can result in serious legal consequences, including imprisonment. Several individuals have faced prison sentences for mishandling classified information, including:
- Reality Winner (2018): A former NSA contractor who leaked a classified intelligence report on Russian election interference to the media. Winner was sentenced to five years and three months in federal prison for violating the Espionage Act.
- Chelsea Manning (2013): A U.S. Army intelligence analyst who disclosed thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, though her sentence was later commuted after serving seven years.
- Harold Martin (2019): A former NSA contractor who took home troves of classified material over two decades. Martin pleaded guilty to willful retention of classified information and was sentenced to nine years in prison.
- Terry Albury (2018): An FBI agent who leaked classified documents about the agency’s surveillance practices to the press. Albury was sentenced to four years in prison for unauthorized disclosure of national defense information.
Fallout from the Signal Group Chat
Despite assurance from many Republicans and the Trump administration that there was no wrongdoing when it came to the Signal group chat over the strike in Yemen, there already has been serious and compromising outcomes that put national security, diplomacy, and U.S. operations at risk:
- Exposure of Sensitive Military Operations: High-level officials shared mission go-aheads, operational timelines, and confirmations on an unsecured platform, making it easier for adversaries to intercept or exploit the information.
- Goldberg’s Presence in the Chat: By being mistakenly added to the chat, Goldberg was given access to real-time details about an ongoing military strike.
- Unsecured Communication While Key Leaders Were Abroad: Sensitive information was shared while the Secretary of State was at the G7 meeting in Quebec, the Director of National Intelligence was traveling in Thailand, and the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East was in Moscow, where he had met Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin earlier that day.
- Potential for Foreign Espionage: The use of an unsecured app increased the risk that foreign intelligence services, particularly Russia or China, could have intercepted metadata or communications to track U.S. strategy or identify vulnerabilities.
- Lack of Accountability and Oversight: No one questioned why sensitive information was being shared on an unclassified platform, why Goldberg was included, or why the group chat was set to auto-delete in one week.
- Risk of Diplomatic Fallout: U.S. allies may now question the reliability of U.S. security practices and may be more hesitant to share intelligence or cooperate closely in future operations.
- Increased Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities: Allowing senior officials to communicate on an unapproved platform like Signal could normalize risky behavior, making it easier for adversaries to exploit these practices in the future.
