logo
Here's What Happened to Those SignalGate Messages

Here's What Happened to Those SignalGate Messages

WIRED15-04-2025

Apr 15, 2025 5:27 PM A lawsuit over the Trump administration's infamous Houthi Signal group chat has revealed what steps departments took to preserve the messages—and how little they actually saved. Photograph:Attorneys suing the United States government over its use of vanishing Signal messages to coordinate military strikes last month in Yemen allege new court filings by the government reveal a 'calculated strategy' by Trump administration officials to evade transparency laws through the illegal destruction of government records.
US defense and intelligence agencies on Monday submitted supplemental declarations in court outlining their individual efforts to preserve the messages at the center of the 'SignalGate' scandal. American Oversight, a watchdog organization whose attorneys are suing the government, claim the declarations reveal 'troubling inconsistencies' in efforts by US officials to archive the material, with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in particular alleging that it had archived no messages of any substance.
'Using encrypted, disappearing messages on Signal for official government business violates the Federal Records Act and represents a calculated strategy to undermine transparency and accountability,' claims the group's interim executive director, Chioma Chukwu.
The use of the private group chat—in which some messages were configured to automatically delete before they could be archived—was first revealed by Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg on March 24, after he was inadvertently added to the group by Trump's national security advisor, Michael Waltz. American Oversight subsequently filed Freedom of Information Act requests over the chats and then sought a temporary restraining order in a Washington, DC federal court in an effort to compel the government to salvage any messages yet to be deleted.
In addition to Waltz, known participants in the chat group include, among others, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
WIRED has requested comment from the Justice Department, the Office of the National Intelligence Director, and the White House. The departments of Defense and State declined to comment. The CIA could not be immediately reached for comment.
The declarations filed by the government late Monday show a scattershot attempt by multiple agencies to comply with the court's demands, with several days elapsing during their various individual efforts to obtain and preserve the messages.
Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, issued his initial order to preserve the communications on March 27, while giving each agency four days to describe what actions were being taken to obey. 'We were really trying to seek preservation of Signal chats more broadly,' American Oversight's deputy chief counsel, Katie Anthony, tells WIRED. 'But the court was not willing to step outside the one specific chat we all knew about for certain."
The declarations ultimately offered scant information about the methods that were employed to preserve the messages, or the degrees to which those methods are forensically sound. And it is unclear from the disclosures what portion of the chat—alleged to cover five days in early March—might have been irretrievable by that time. According to reporting by The Atlantic, some of the messages concerning the military strikes, which targeted Houthi fighters in Yemen, were set to delete automatically after four weeks. Others were reportedly set to disappear after only one.
The US Treasury Department was initially alone in providing the court a timeline of the messages that it was able to retrieve. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had received a preservation memo on March 26, his acting general counsel said, as well as advice regarding his fundamental duty to preserve records. Resultingly, "images were taken from the phones of Secretary Bessent and Mr. [Daniel] Katz," Bessent's chief of staff. The messages begin at 1:48 pm EST on March 15, 2025.
"The Atlantic article was about a chat that took place the 11th through the 15th,' Anthony says, 'so pretty much everything was gone—from the only defendant who gave us clear and specific information about what they were able to save.'
The Department of Defense told the court last month that its attorneys were "in the process" of complying with the agency's preservation rules, and that Secretary Hegseth's communications team had been asked to forward the Signal messages to an official DoD account. Pressed by the court for further details last week, DoD said Monday that a search of Hegseth's device had been conducted "on or about March 27," adding that screenshots of the "existing Signal application messages" had been preserved.
American Oversight's lawyers had urged the court to seek greater specificity, arguing on April 4 that "vague, incomplete assertions" in the government's original declarations had only cast fresh doubts on its "purported efforts" to preserve the chats. In light of new reporting, the group argued, the government's response seemed otherwise "grossly inadequate." Politico had reported two days prior that as many as 20 private Signal chat groups had been started by Waltz's team with a slew of cabinet officials.
'It seems very likely that the individuals who are defendants in our lawsuit are probably involved in some of those other chats, and we have this problem on a much wider basis,' Anthony says.
The Department of Justice, meanwhile, opposed the court's involvement, arguing that its efforts on behalf of a watchdog group were legally confused and that the question of whether any laws were broken is in any case moot. Members of the public, it argued, have no "enforceable rights' when it comes to challenging the destruction of specific government records. A court order was unnecessary, the department said, because the government was already taking steps to do what is required. A 'partial version of the chat' had already been committed to a federal record keeping system, it said, by 'at least one agency.'
Among other new details, Monday's disclosures provided a range of dates for the preservation efforts at multiple agencies, including the date that Hegseth's phone was finally 'searched.'
Screenshots of chats on Marco Rubio's phone were likewise captured on March 27, the State Department said. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said its screenshots were taken the following day, on March 28. The CIA said it took a screenshot of the chat on March 31; however, it also clarified one of its previous declarations to the court, revealing the image shows mainly the name of the chat group, some of its members and settings, but not any of its 'substantive messages.'
American Oversight previewed a case to amend its initial complaint during a hearing last week, with plans to encourage the court to expand the scope of its review to include the now-reported widespread use of Signal by top officials across the national security state.
'This attack on government transparency threatens the very foundation of our democracy,' Chukwu says. 'And we are committed to using every legal tool available to expose the truth and hold those responsible accountable.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

CBS News

time5 minutes ago

  • CBS News

GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.

Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters

CBS News

time8 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters

Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.

Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests
Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests

The FBI says it will act on its own to squash the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. FBI Director Kash Patel issued an ominous threat to the city and its residents late Sunday night, claiming that his agency would intervene in the multiday anti-Trump display without explicit direction. 'Just so we are clear, this FBI needs no one's permission to enforce the constitution,' Patel posted on X. 'My responsibility is to the American people, not political punch lines. LA is under siege by marauding criminals, and we will restore law and order. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' In a move that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should agree with, California announced it would sue the federal government Monday, arguing that the Trump administration's order to send hundreds of National Guard troops toward Los Angeles, without coordination with the state's governor, was an unconstitutional breach of power. Hours earlier, FBI Public Affairs Assistant Director Ben Williamson shared that Patel had gotten off a call with 'senior leadership' addressing what they referred to as 'riots' in L.A., specifying that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino had 'offered all necessary resources from FBI HQ' to address the situation. Williamson said the pair 'reiterated the position that any perpetrator who attacks or interferes with law enforcement will be aggressively pursued and brought to justice.' Bongino made it plain that one of the agency's primary targets would be individuals suspected of assaulting officers, writing on X that he and Patel had notified all FBI teams to pursue suspected individuals 'long after order is firmly established.' 'We will not forget. Even after you try to,' Bongino posted. But Republicans have so far not been very successful at pinpointing wrongdoing in Los Angeles. Instead, some viral videos circulating in conservative circles of protest-related violence in the city are actually not from the weekend at all, but were instead taken in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store