Latest news with #NationalSecurityCounselors
The Hill
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Signal chat spurs lawsuit
The suit asks for the Signal messages from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top Trump officials, requesting the totality of messages in their accounts 'regardless of sender or recipient.' 'When news first broke about Signalgate, the first question on a lot of national security people's minds wasn't, 'How did this happen?' We knew how it happened. Our question was, 'How often did this happen?'' said Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors. The nonprofit brought the suit after filing a similar public information request on behalf of a journalist. 'The heads of at least five of the most powerful agencies in the national security community were freely texting over an app that was not approved for sensitive communications and setting it to automatically delete everything they said,' McClanahan added. 'And since then we've learned that we were right to be worried, thanks to the news about Hegseth's Signal chat with his wife and personal lawyer about bombing plans,' he continued. The suit is the first filed since reporting indicating Hegseth discussed the same strike in a Signal chat with his wife, brother and personal lawyer. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are also named in the suit, alongside Hegseth. Rubio, Ratcliffe and Gabbard were among those added to the initial chat, which became public last month when Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, revealed he was mistakenly invited to join the Signal group. In a bombshell report, Goldberg said Hegseth had sent details about forthcoming strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen, including weapons used, targets, and timing, over the encrypted messaging app. Hegseth's problems were compounded when The New York Times reported the existence of the second Signal chat Sunday. The Hill's Rebecca Beitsch has more here.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Signal chat participants sued for three months of app records
Participants on a Signal group chat discussion about a strike on Houthi targets in Yemen are facing a lawsuit over a request to turn over all conversions they had on the encrypted app over the past three months. The suit is the first filed since reporting indicating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed the same strike in a Signal chat with his wife, brother and personal lawyer. The suit asks for the Signal messages from Hegseth and other top Trump officials, asking for the totality of messages in their accounts 'regardless of sender or recipient.' 'When news first broke about Signalgate, the first question on a lot of national security people's minds wasn't, 'How did this happen?' We knew how it happened. Our question was, 'How often did this happen?'' said Kel McClanahan, executive director of the nonprofit National Security Counselors, who brought the suit after filing a similar public information request on behalf of a journalist. 'The heads of at least five of the most powerful agencies in the national security community were freely texting over an app that was not approved for sensitive communications and setting it to automatically delete everything they said. And since then we've learned that we were right to be worried, thanks to the news about Hegseth's Signal chat with his wife and personal lawyer about bombing plans.' The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are also named in the suit. Offices for the other officials listed on the lawsuit did not immediately respond to request for comment. The same figures are also in litigation with the group American Oversight, which argued the Signal chat, which had some messages set to automatically delete, violated public records laws and sought an order directing the government to preserve or recover any related records. But the group said the messages appear to have been deleted from Ratcliffe's phone, citing a declaration from Hurley Blankenship, the CIA's chief data officer, who said that only 'residual administrative content' remained visible in a screenshot but that the chat no longer showed 'substantive messages from the Signal chat.' When McClanahan filed his initial records request, he expressed concern officials may be regularly seeking to dodge public records laws by routinely discussing government business on Signal. He also noted the ease of destroying those records. 'This administration has proven again and again that it is allergic to accountability and transparency,' he said, 'and we are bringing this case to make sure that they can't just put national security at risk for their own convenience and then destroy all the evidence afterwards.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Signal chat participants sued for three months of app records
Participants on a Signal group chat discussion about a strike on Houthi targets in Yemen are facing a lawsuit over a request to turn over all conversions they had on the encrypted app over the last three months. The suit is the first filed since reporting indicating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed the same strike in a Signal chat with his wife, brother and personal lawyer. The suit asks for the Signal messages from Hegseth as well as other top Trump officials, asking for the totality of messages in their accounts 'regardless of sender or recipient.' 'When news first broke about Signalgate, the first question on a lot of national security people's minds wasn't, 'How did this happen?' We knew how it happened. Our question was, 'How often did this happen?'' said Kel McClanahan, executive director of the nonprofit National Security Counselors, who brought the suit after filing a similar public information request on behalf of a journalist. 'The heads of at least five of the most powerful agencies in the national security community were freely texting over an app that was not approved for sensitive communications and setting it to automatically delete everything they said. And since then we've learned that we were right to be worried, thanks to the news about Hegseth's Signal chat with his wife and personal lawyer about bombing plans.' The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are also named in the suit. Offices for the other officials listed on the lawsuit did not immediately respond to request for comment. The same figures are also currently in litigation with the group American Oversight, which argued that the Signal chat, which had some messages set to auto-delete, violated public records laws and sought an order directing the government to preserve or recover any related records. But the group said the messages appear to have been deleted from Ratcliffe's phone, citing a declaration from Hurley Blankenship, the CIA's chief data officer, who said that only 'residual administrative content' remained visible in a screenshot but that the chat no longer showed 'substantive messages from the Signal chat.' When McClanahan filed his initial records request, he expressed concern officials may be regularly seeking to dodge public records laws by routinely discussing government business on Signal. He also noted the ease of destroying those records. 'This administration has proven again and again that it is allergic to accountability and transparency,' he said, ' and we are bringing this case to make sure that they can't just put national security at risk for their own convenience and then destroy all the evidence afterwards.'
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nat sec officials discussion of ‘clearly classified' information violated law, experts say
The inadvertent inclusion of a journalist on a Signal group chat discussing attack plans means officials likely violated the Espionage Act and public records laws while flouting guidance on how to discuss sensitive information. The contents of the discussion, shared by The Atlantic, show the group chat started by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz included discussions about the timelines and targets of an impending airstrike on Houthi rebels in Yemen as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave the 19 members on the chat a rundown of operations. 'I can't fathom it doesn't violate the Espionage Act,' Mark Zaid, a national security law expert, told The Hill. 'You should also think of whether it violates the Federal Records Act by the fact that they had the messages set to destroy, with no indication, as far as we know, that they were preserving them, which is required.' The administration has denied that the chat contained classified information — a claim congressional Democrats have called laughable. 'I mean, it is very clearly classified under the executive order,' that governs such information, Zaid said. 'I couldn't think of something more obvious.' However, the Espionage Act — the law the Trump administration would most likely turn to as it vows to ramp up its own prosecution of leakers — doesn't rely on classification. Instead, it allows prosecution of those who share national defense information, whether intentionally or inadvertently. 'While you can argue that it wasn't classified — probably in bad faith — you cannot argue that it was not national defense information,' said Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, a non-profit law firm. McClanahan said members of the chat group may have violated different sections of the law, even as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth contributed the bulk of the information about the impending attack. 'Waltz plainly violated [Section] 793(f) of the Espionage Act, the gross negligence,' law, he said. 'That's the 'don't be a dumb a–' law.' But he noted that the law also requires reporting from those aware classified information was leaked, something that the group may have been alerted to when Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg left the chat Sunday and reached out for comment from the administration on Monday. 'I'll be curious to find out if any of them reported that,' McClanahan said. Government watchdogs are also focused on the group chat's sidestepping of records retention laws — another potential violation, and a broader sign officials may be using such platforms to avoid review of their communications under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Both Zaid and McClanahan said the group chat's disappearing message function for some of its content also likely violated the Federal Records Act. American Oversight filed a suit Tuesday to block any destruction of the records of the chat, which have since been shared by The Atlantic. 'This isn't just reckless, it's illegal. And it's part of a disturbing pattern from this administration, a calculated effort to hide the truth, erase paper trails, and govern from the shadows, far from the reach of Congress, the courts and the American people,' Chioma Chukwu, the interim executive director of the group, told reporters Thursday. McClanahan said he requested the records of the chat almost immediately, saying a denial would require FOIA officials to say whether the information in classified, has been deleted, or was discussed on a personal device — violating policy while using less secure devices to discuss the highly sensitive mission. 'You know, every argument they can throw at it is a win for us,' he said.'Because if they say it's a personal device, then, ha-ha, hello! If they say it's classified, then they lied in the hearing, and if they say, 'it's already been deleted, we can't recover it' then they did not back it up the way that even [CIA Director] John Ratcliffe said in testimony they are required to do.' But McClanahan said even the use of Signal at all confirms a suspicion that officials are routinely turning to unofficial channels to discuss government business. 'I think this is indicative of a bigger problem. Until yesterday, there were lots of people saying the Trump administration is using Signal. They're using all these non-official channels to conduct business because they're trying to avoid record keeping, they're trying to avoid FOIA, they're trying to avoid all the things that make them accountable. But we could never prove it,' he said. 'This is proof that they're using Signal. Because not only did they use it, but every single person added to that signal chat, not a single one of them said, 'This is strange — I am surprised we're using Signal.'' The news about the Signal group chat dropped the day before Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe appeared before Congress for the annual worldwide threats hearing, during which both consistently denied that the chat had any classified information. At one point, House Intelligence ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) pulled up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's own classification guidance, which says that advance warning of an attack should be labeled as top secret. And Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the two officials lied in implying such information wouldn't be classified. 'The idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified — y'all know it was a lie,' he said. Gabbard ceded Wednesday that including a journalist on the group chat was a mistake, but she did not directly address the wisdom of using an encrypted app, saying only that employees should 'apply best practices.' 'It was a mistake that a reporter was inadvertently added to a signal chat with high-level national security principles, having a policy discussion about imminent strikes against the Houthis and the effects of the strike,' she told House lawmakers. 'Ideally, these conversations occur in person. However, at times fast-moving and coordination of an unclassified nature is necessary where in-person conversation is not an option,' she said. But lawmakers and other national security experts have called use of the app cavalier, noting that intelligence agencies have warned they are targets of foreign governments and that at least two participants in the group were overseas. 'There are all sorts of operational security policies concerning the use of electronics overseas,' Zaid said, noting use abroad can make it easier for adversaries to obtain information. 'So to have cabinet-level officials using a publicly available encrypted app for likely classified communications, when the system is not created for that use, about war plans where recipients were in foreign countries — it's got to be one of the most blatant operational security failures that we have seen in recent years,' Zaid said. 'The U.S. government should issue a thank-you note to Jeff Goldberg for not saying anything until after the operation had concluded,' Zaid said, noting that if anyone else posted the information immediately, 'they would have had to scuttle the entire operation.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Nat sec officials discussion of ‘clearly classified' information violated law, experts say
The inadvertent inclusion of a journalist on a Signal group chat discussing attack plans means officials likely violated the Espionage Act and public records laws while flouting guidance on how to discuss sensitive information. The contents of the discussion, shared by The Atlantic, show the group chat started by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz included discussions about the timelines and targets of an impending airstrike on Houthi rebels in Yemen as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave the 19 members on the chat a rundown of operations. 'I can't fathom it doesn't violate the Espionage Act,' Mark Zaid, a national security law expert, told The Hill. 'You should also think of whether it violates the Federal Records Act by the fact that they had the messages set to destroy, with no indication, as far as we know, that they were preserving them, which is required.' The administration has denied that the chat contained classified information — a claim congressional Democrats have called laughable. 'I mean, it is very clearly classified under the executive order,' that governs such information, Zaid said. 'I couldn't think of something more obvious.' However, the Espionage Act — the law the Trump administration would most likely turn to as it vows to ramp up its own prosecution of leakers — doesn't rely on classification. Instead, it allows prosecution of those who share national defense information, whether intentionally or inadvertently. 'While you can argue that it wasn't classified — probably in bad faith — you cannot argue that it was not national defense information,' said Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, a non-profit law firm. McClanahan said members of the chat group may have violated different sections of the law, even as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth contributed the bulk of the information about the impending attack. 'Waltz plainly violated [Section] 793(f) of the Espionage Act, the gross negligence,' law, he said. 'That's the 'don't be a dumb a–' law.' But he noted that the law also requires reporting from those aware classified information was leaked, something that the group may have been alerted to when Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg left the chat Sunday and reached out for comment from the administration on Monday. 'I'll be curious to find out if any of them reported that,' McClanahan said. Government watchdogs are also focused on the group chat's sidestepping of records retention laws — another potential violation, and a broader sign officials may be using such platforms to avoid review of their communications under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Both Zaid and McClanahan said the group chat's disappearing message function for some of its content also likely violated the Federal Records Act. American Oversight filed a suit Tuesday to block any destruction of the records of the chat, which have since been shared by The Atlantic. 'This isn't just reckless, it's illegal. And it's part of a disturbing pattern from this administration, a calculated effort to hide the truth, erase paper trails, and govern from the shadows, far from the reach of Congress, the courts and the American people,' Chioma Chukwu, the interim executive director of the group, told reporters Thursday. McClanahan said he requested the records of the chat almost immediately, saying a denial would require FOIA officials to say whether the information in classified, has been deleted, or was discussed on a personal device — violating policy while using less secure devices to discuss the highly sensitive mission. 'You know, every argument they can throw at it is a win for us,' he said. 'Because if they say it's a personal device, then, ha-ha, hello! If they say it's classified, then they lied in the hearing, and if they say, 'it's already been deleted, we can't recover it' then they did not back it up the way that even [CIA Director] John Ratcliffe said in testimony they are required to do.' But McClanahan said even the use of Signal at all confirms a suspicion that officials are routinely turning to unofficial channels to discuss government business. 'I think this is indicative of a bigger problem. Until yesterday, there were lots of people saying the Trump administration is using Signal. They're using all these non-official channels to conduct business because they're trying to avoid record keeping, they're trying to avoid FOIA, they're trying to avoid all the things that make them accountable. But we could never prove it,' he said. 'This is proof that they're using Signal. Because not only did they use it, but every single person added to that signal chat, not a single one of them said, 'This is strange — I am surprised we're using Signal.'' The news about the Signal group chat dropped the day before Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe appeared before Congress for the annual worldwide threats hearing, during which both consistently denied that the chat had any classified information. At one point, House Intelligence ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) pulled up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's own classification guidance, which says that advance warning of an attack should be labeled as top secret. And Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the two officials lied in implying such information wouldn't be classified. 'The idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified — y'all know it was a lie,' he said. Gabbard ceded Wednesday that including a journalist on the group chat was a mistake, but she did not directly address the wisdom of using an encrypted app, saying only that employees should 'apply best practices.' 'It was a mistake that a reporter was inadvertently added to a signal chat with high-level national security principles, having a policy discussion about imminent strikes against the Houthis and the effects of the strike,' she told House lawmakers. 'Ideally, these conversations occur in person. However, at times fast-moving and coordination of an unclassified nature is necessary where in-person conversation is not an option,' she said. But lawmakers and other national security experts have called use of the app cavalier, noting that intelligence agencies have warned they are targets of foreign governments and that at least two participants in the group were overseas. 'There are all sorts of operational security policies concerning the use of electronics overseas,' Zaid said, noting use abroad can make it easier for adversaries to obtain information. 'So to have cabinet-level officials using a publicly available encrypted app for likely classified communications, when the system is not created for that use, about war plans where recipients were in foreign countries — it's got to be one of the most blatant operational security failures that we have seen in recent years,' Zaid said. 'The U.S. government should issue a thank-you note to Jeff Goldberg for not saying anything until after the operation had concluded,' Zaid said, noting that if anyone else posted the information immediately, 'they would have had to scuttle the entire operation.'
