Explainer/Analysis: Signalgate

The Pentagon Press Briefing Room at the the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., July 7, 2020. (DoD photo by Lisa Ferdinando)

What is everyone talking about?

The short version is this: Military battle plans were shared in a group chat on an unapproved, unsecure app, a chat that accidentally included a journalist.

The chat occurred on a commercially available app called Signal that is used for group chats, direct messaging, and video chats. 

There’s a reason battle plans are “top secret” and require “clearance” to be viewed at all. It’s because they contain information that puts United States military personnel in danger and reduces chances of mission success. It gives the target time to run away or prepare. It gives America’s enemies a window into its strategy.  

According to Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, one such leak has just occurred. 

How was the data leaked? According to Jeffrey Goldberg,  National Security Advisor Michael Waltz created a group chat on an app called Signal. The chat included several high profile US government officials,  Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, United States Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, presumed Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and United States Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkof. 

Most, if not all of these people, have the credentials to be involved, that’s not the problem. The problem is that the app is not authorized by the Pentagon for sensitive national security information. That is because it is a publicly available app that can be hacked. In fact, one day before the attack, the Defense Department warned that Russia was attempting to hack it.

The other major problem is that Waltz included someone without security credentials in the chat, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. And despite claims of the opposite by Trump administration officials, the leak contained important sensitive information, relevant to a planned March 15th attack in Yemen. To prove this, on March 24, 2025, Jeffrey Goldberg published a partially redacted transcript of what he saw.

According to the article, the leak contained a location, specific timing, real-time reports, and the name of a CIA operative. The leak occurred just hours before the operation. 

Why does it matter? People may think that the information was theirs to leak, given their positions. Some people might think that it was inconsequential to the overall mission, since it seemed to have gone as planned anyway. Those people would be ignoring the fact that a CIA asset was named. They would also be ignoring the inherent danger posed by leaking battle plans on an unsupported platform that has spotty record keeping and can be hacked. 

What else will our enemies find? What other information might they be passing through unauthorized means? Who else has been added by accident and can we trust them to raise the alarm in the same way Jeffrey Goldberg did? All of these questions are now on the table. The Trump administration shows little or no interest in correcting these mistakes and that is the most alarming thing about it. 

People go to jail for things like this.

Despite concerns from media, politicians, and military personnel, there have been no consequences for these actions. In today’s political climate, it's possible punishment or accountability can come through the ballot box.