What Everyone Has Missed About The Trump Administration Signal Scandal

Forbes

26-03-2025

When encrypted chats become government backchannels, transparency becomes the real casualty.
Recent events seem more like a Silicon Valley satire than a serious governance failure. By now, you're probably aware that high-ranking Trump administration officials recently used a Signal group chat to discuss sensitive military planning. The problem? They accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, in the conversation.
The scandal is still unfolding, but what has followed so far is a cascade of damage control, political deflection and, ultimately, distraction. Everyone wants to know: Was classified information shared? That is a valid question, but it is not the only question we need to answer. The real issue here isn't just about classification — it's about transparency and accountability.
Signal is a remarkable tool. Praised by privacy advocates, journalists and dissidents alike, it offers end-to-end encryption, open-source transparency and a user-friendly experience that puts privacy within reach of the average user. In a world of ubiquitous surveillance, the Signal Messenger app, owned by the Signal Foundation—an organizations with a stated mission to protect free expression and enable secure global communication through open source privacy technology—stands out as a lifeline for private communication.
But that doesn't make it invulnerable or foolproof. Especially not for state secrets. Government intelligence services can still exploit device-level vulnerabilities, access backups or leverage metadata to uncover patterns and participants. As Zak Doffman noted, Russia's GRU recently exploited group invite links to secretly join Signal chats.
Encryption protects the message in transit, not the device it lives on. And when national security is at stake, using a personal cell phone with a consumer-grade app — even one as robust as Signal — is grossly irresponsible.
Goldberg, the journalist mistakenly added to the Signal group, now possesses a record of the conversation that may or may not contain classified information.
Some of the officials involved have embraced a tactic of impugning Goldberg as a strawman diversion from the real controversy. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who seems to have inadvertently invited Jeffrey Goldberg into the Signal chat, called him 'the bottom scum of journalists' in a Fox News interview. It does seem curious that Waltz seems to have the contact info for this 'scum' journalist readily available on his phone, but that is an issue for a different article.
In response to the claims and accusations, Goldberg has published the full Signal transcript in The Atlantic, revealing that the chat did include specific details about planned military operations — missile strike targets, launch logistics and strategic goals. Though the administration continues to insist nothing was technically 'classified,' the operational nature of the conversation clearly falls within what most intelligence and defense experts would consider sensitive.
By releasing the more complete exchange, Goldberg has proven his credibility. At the same time, he demonstrated greater care for truth, transparency and OPSEC than the cabinet members involved. His decision to delay publication until well after the operation contrasts sharply with officials who used the insecure tool and pointing fingers when they got caught.
Let's be clear, though: whether administration officials shared classified information is not the only point. The obsession with that question serves as a convenient distraction from the broader implications of cabinet members or government officials communicating through private or unsanctioned channels.
Officials have rushed to claim that they didn't discuss anything classified, as if that absolves them of wrongdoing. But, as Senator Mark Kelly explained to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in a Senate hearing looking into this controversy, 'DOD policy prohibits discussion of even what is called 'controlled unclassified information,' or CUI, on unsecured devices.'
Aside from the fact that their claim is doubtful, based on the transcript Goldberg shared, in a government accountable to the people, all official communication is subject to documentation, preservation and oversight. The moment a conversation veers into government business, it becomes a public record.
Intentional or not, using of Signal in this context was an act of erasure—because without Jeffrey Goldberg being accidentally added to the list, the general public would never have any record of these communications or any way to know they even occurred.
The foundation of democratic governance rests on transparency. Official channels exist not just for security, but for history, accountability and the people's right to know. When senior leaders choose encrypted group chats on private phones over secure, sanctioned systems, they're not protecting state secrets — they're shielding themselves from public scrutiny.
It doesn't matter if they were discussing a Houthi strike or a cookie recipe for a state dinner. What matters is the process. If it's government work, it belongs to the American people.
The Freedom of Information Act isn't optional. It's a legal framework designed to prevent exactly this kind of obfuscation.
We've seen this movie before. From Hillary Clinton's private email server to disappearing messages on encrypted apps during the Trump era, the erosion of formal communication protocols has become a bipartisan affliction. Each instance chips away at public trust. And every time we let it slide, we normalize the idea that public service can be conducted in private shadows.
This latest Signal scandal is a symptom of a deeper problem: a growing willingness among officials to use technology not to serve the people, but to sidestep them.
Signal is not the villain here. In fact, it's one of the few digital tools that empowers citizens to reclaim privacy. But when public officials co-opt it as a backchannel for state business, they're not using it as intended. They're abusing it.
Good governance demands more than just secure apps — it demands secure habits, documented decisions and a culture of accountability.
This isn't about Signal. This is about transparency and trust. And the next time a government official opens an encrypted chat app to do the people's business, we should all be asking: what are they trying to hide?