The Trump administration misused the commercial chat app Signal in an unprecedented manner. They used the platform to discuss sensitive military plans, provoking serious security issues. Signal, known for its secure encrypted messaging capabilities, was used by 18 members of the Trump cabinet to coordinate and deliberate on strategies concerning the Houthi armed group in Yemen. In that same “Houthi PC Small Group” chat, noted provocateur and journalist Jeffrey Goldberg’s name-swapper raised some eyebrows. His participation underscored the importance of having a non-governmental member participate in such critical discussions.
Since then, Signal has established itself as the premier platform for private and secure communications. The US government refuses to certify it for transmitting sensitive information. This new decision to use Signal is an extraordinary step, especially considering that even the app’s encryption is not perfect. The harm here is not in Signal itself, but in the phones that Signal is installed on, as they are at risk of being compromised. Despite this risk, the administration proceeded to use the app for discussions that coincided with actual US attacks on Yemen.
In fact, the use of Signal even went so far as to provide sensitive information, such as the identity of a senior CIA officer. The conversations delved into issues like operational security, which has incredible charge in the US military space. This practice contravenes the strict rules governing communication of classified material and discussions related to operational security as mandated by the US military.
The perceived inclusion of journalist Jeffrey Goldberg’s participation in these discussions further muddies the waters. His participation shows the extent to which confidentiality has already been compromised. It raises really crucial questions about who gets to participate in these high-stakes conversations. Letting a non-official member into a chat group planning highly classified plans is a break from established protocol.
In making Signal the primary venue for meaningful deliberation, the organizers have spotlighted its shortcomings. Though its encryption capabilities make iOS inherently secure, the risk of vulnerabilities on the device itself are unavoidable. This decision is a paradigmatic departure from longstanding norms. Much worse, it raises deeply concerning questions about the handling of classified information.
The controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s assault on public lands has raised important questions about how to balance access and security. The decision to use a commercial app, not approved for the kind of sensitive communications that are sometimes required, is definitely a judgement failure. It raises the question of why we should not expect deviation from the stated procedures that protect national security interests.