Latest news with #NedPrice
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
'It's Donald Trump's favorite interval,' Nicolle Wallace questions 2 week timeline for Iran decision
New York Times Diplomatic Correspondent Michael Crowley and former State Department Spokesman Ned Price join Nicolle Wallace to discuss the latest on President Trump's thinking about whether to involve the U.S. in the Israel-Iran conflict - and who the president is listening to as he denies the truth of intelligence from his own officials.
Fox News
15-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Former Biden officials offer rare praise for Trump's bold Middle East moves
Former top officials in the Biden administration admitted they were impressed by President Donald Trump's bold moves this week during his historic tour in the Middle East, according to a new report. In a dramatic policy shift, Trump announced on Tuesday he would be lifting U.S. sanctions on Syria, before meeting with Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa on Wednesday, becoming the first U.S. president to meet with a Syrian president in 25 years. He also secured a $600 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia to invest in the U.S., and agreed to sell Saudi Arabia an arms package worth nearly $142 billion, Reuters reported. Axios spoke to several top Biden administration officials about Trump's "audacious" foreign policy moves which have "astounded even some of his harshest critics," according to the outlet. "Gosh, I wish I could work for an administration that could move that quickly," one official admitted. "It's hard not to be simultaneously terrified at the thought of the damage he can cause with such power, and awed by his willingness to brazenly shatter so many harmful taboos," Rob Malley, former special envoy to Iran under Biden, also said. "He does all this, and it's kind of silence, it's met with a shrug," Ned Price, a former State Department spokesperson in the Biden administration, added. "He has the ability to do things politically that previous presidents did not, because he has complete unquestioned authority over the Republican caucus." Trump's visit to the Middle East is his first major overseas trip since retaking office. The White House says he hopes to strengthen strategic partnerships in the region for stability and economic prosperity. Trump said Tuesday during a speech in Saudi Arabia that he was dropping U.S. sanctions on Syria, implemented under ousted President Bashar al-Assad, "in order to give them a chance at greatness." "In Syria, they've had their share of travesty, war, killing many years. That's why my administration has already taken the first steps toward restoring normal relations between the United States and Syria for the first time in more than a decade," Trump said. Former Obama administration officials Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes hailed the move on their "Pod Save the World" podcast Wednesday. "It's a very big deal," Vietor said. "So I think Trump deserves a lot of credit for this decision. It was politically difficult… but it's unequivocally the right thing to do." "It's so clearly the right decision," Rhodes agreed. "I don't know why Joe Biden didn't do this." "I don't like Trump's motivations for lots of things he does," Rhodes added. "But one thing you will say is he's not tied to this constant fear of some bad-faith right-wing attacks or stupid Blob-type, 'we don't do this, we must leverage the sanctions for blah blah blah.' No! Sometimes you just have to try something different." Despite their praise, the former Democratic officials who spoke with Axios also questioned Trump's motives for the foreign policy shifts, as the president faces backlash for planning to accept a luxury jet, on behalf of the U.S. government, as a gift from the Qatari royal family. On Thursday, Trump arrived at his final stop of his tour, the United Arab Emirates, becoming the first U.S. president to travel to the nation in nearly 20 years.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This Former CIA Officer Let People Ask Him Anything About "Signalgate," Government Intelligence, And Where We Go From Here
Recently, former CIA, White House, and State Department veteran Ned Price invited people on Reddit to ask him anything about Signalgate, and it led to a really eye-opening conversation. Signalgate refers to the scandal that began when Trump officials discussed attack plans on the messaging app Signal without realizing that a journalist from The Atlantic had also been added to the chat. Price shared a photo of himself and started the thread by writing, "Hi Reddit! I'm Ned Price, an intelligence and national security professional who spent more than a decade at the CIA, served at the White House's National Security Council, U.S. Department of State, and was the Deputy to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations." "My head exploded when I heard the Trump Administration carelessly leaked classified information about a planned U.S. military operation against the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen. This was a massive national security breach that endangered the lives of U.S. troops. I'm sure you have questions about this 'Houthi PC small group' and what this leak means for the safety and security of all Americans. I'm here to share my perspective, having handled classified materials at all levels of government and worked to protect the United States against adversaries. Ask me anything about Signalgate, but nothing classified, of course." 1.Q: What are the standards for communicating between officials? I know Signal is clearly NOT the standard, but does the US use a specific thingy to have group chats like these? A: There are ways for US officials to have secure exchanges, but none of them involve non-secure technology like Signal. For example, there are both SECRET-level and TOP SECRET-level phone lines for either one-on-one calls or conference calls. There are also separate SECRET and TOP SECRET-level networks, which allow officials to email one another or even chat with one another on an instant messenger-like platform. Of course, the most secure means of communicating is in-person, which is why meetings of the so-called "Principals Committee" are always held in the White House Situation Room. If a principal — such as the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense — happens to be traveling overseas, he or she can always join the discussion via Secure Video Teleconference, which allows them to be beamed in on a TOP SECRET network. 2.Q: Can you help us understand what would happen to an average CIA analyst caught in a similar scandal? What would the repercussions be there? A: It's pretty simple: he or she would almost certainly be disciplined and probably fired. Just ask the DHS employee who may lose their job after accidentally including a reporter on a chain about deportations. There's a double standard at play that applies a different set of rules to top administration officials than our career professionals are subjected to. 3.Q: In your professional opinion, what is the chance that any of the participants will get convicted for attempting to circumvent The Presidential Records Act and/or the Federal Records Act for using Signal? A: Given the damage to our national security this practice may have caused, I'm actually less worried about violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you're right that the records-retention practices (or lack thereof in this case) also probably ran afoul of the law. Will someone get charged on this basis? I think the odds are perhaps only slightly better than a snowball's on a hot day in the desert. I say that in large part because President Trump has stacked his Cabinet with loyalists. He put them there precisely so that they will protect his interests above all. That, unfortunately, is clearly the case with the new FBI Director, Kash Patel, and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. I cannot envision either of these individuals launching an investigation into SignalGate, and, in fact, AG Bondi has said as much publicly. In terms of previous cases, the irony is that Trump himself was previously investigated for violations of the Presidential Records Act as part of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Ultimately, however, the charges didn't include reference to that statute. 4.Q: It's been widely reported that a member of the chat was visiting the Kremlin when the chat was active. What's the best and worst-case scenario given this piece of information? Beyond actively sharing the information, could the chats have been intercepted due to the recipient's location? A: The best case scenario is that this individual, Steve Witkoff, adhered to protocol and brought neither his regular personal nor government-issued phone into Russia. When U.S. officials travel to places like Russia where there's a high counter-intelligence threat, they instead bring single-use or "burner" phones with them to make sure our adversaries can't exfiltrate data or continue to keep tabs on their regular device. In very brief comments, Witkoff seems to have suggested that he followed this protocol. I sure hope he did. The worst case scenario is that he brought his regular devices into Russia, and the Kremlin has since been able to gain access to this Signal chain — as well as all of the other sensitive discussions he and his Trump Administration colleagues have been having on non-secure networks over the past two months. If so, that would promise to be an intelligence goldmine for Russia. 5.Q: Just discovered National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has been using his personal Gmail for government communications!! How shambolic can our National Security get? A: We really shouldn't be surprised at this latest revelation. The hypocrisy that Waltz and his colleagues have put on display in recent years when it comes to their purported concern for information security is pretty staggering. But this latest revelation does bring us back to what perhaps is the most concerning element of all of this: what else don't we know at this point? Are there other classified Signal chats? How else are they flouting policies and even laws when it comes to the protection of our national security? Is there any formal process whatsoever when it comes to the weighty decisions of national security? All of these questions are a good reminder of why we need to stay on this issue – we cannot give them a pass on Signalgate, just as we continue to search for answers on these broader questions. 6.Q: What impact do you see this having on other nations sharing intelligence with the US? Israel is stated to be very upset about this, and the EU didn't seem pleased with the way it was being discussed in the chat. How would the US go about correcting any issues with our allies after this? A: I worry about this a lot. When it comes to intelligence sharing, trust is the coin of the realm. It's hard-earned and easily lost. I obviously can't speak to the details of what National Security Advisor Waltz and Secretary Hegseth shared in the chat, but there are reports that at least some of the information was derived from an Israeli source – in other words, a spy our Israeli partners had recruited. If true, this is someone who is risking his/her life to help fight a brutal terrorist group, and now these top Trump administration officials have placed the source at greater risk by revealing details that might be able to help our adversaries piece together his/her identity. So, yes, countries will grow wary of sharing intelligence with us if they don't think our senior leaders are able to protect it. I don't want to overstate the extent to which countries will curtail their cooperation. Our closest partners will continue to do so – in large part because they need us more than we need them. But there may be edge cases in which a foreign counterpart has an EXTREMELY sensitive source whose information they choose not to share with us. If that happens routinely, it will hamper our understanding of the threats we face. 7.Q: In your opinion, how much of this is sheer incompetence versus "we want the bad guys to hear?" A: I have NO DOUBT that this wasn't intentional or some effort to play 4-D chess. The use of this platform was nothing more than reckless, careless, dangerous, and also lazy. Think about it: every single one of these principals has ready access to classified systems — at their residence, in the car, on their planes, and, of course, in their offices. And, yet, they chose to use Signal for this highly sensitive discussion. There's no excuse for that. 8.Q: How worried are you about the future of national security within the next 5-10 years? I'm sure I already know the answer, but why do I have the feeling that Signalgate won't be the last or even the worst national security breach of the second Trump administration? A: Am I worried? Yes! And the chaos this time around does seem to go beyond what we endured during the first Trump term. You're also right to point out that this scandal is emerging just a couple months into Trump's second term. This is a matter less of "what" they were doing – but rather, "how" they were doing it (entirely recklessly and dangerously). To your question, I do worry that months or years from now, we'll be confronted more and more with 'what' they've done. In other words, we'll have a better sense of how their approach to Russia and Ukraine will have left Moscow stronger and Kyiv weaker, how they will have squandered a broader set of allies and partners, and how they will have left a huge opening for China to exploit. 9.Q: Are there safety features built into these agencies to protect the country from the underqualified people appointed to run them? I really want to sleep at night knowing that there are some competent people still involved, making sure the flames stay within the dumpster we call the Cabinet. A: In practice, not really. Presidents have pretty wide latitude to appoint whomever they wish to their Cabinet. The Senate is supposed to take seriously its obligation to provide advice and consent to the White House on these choices. But nearly all of Trump's nominees got through the GOP-controlled Senate, even if it took Vice President Vance to issue the tie-breaking vote to confirm Secretary Hegseth. The good news is that Presidents appoint or nominate "only" about 4,000 individuals across the Executive Branch, whose ranks, if you include uniformed military, are in the millions. So, even if the hand-picked leaders at the top are generally lacking in credentials and experience, they will be surrounded by career professionals who will want to do right by the national security and foreign policy of the United States. 10.Q: Do you think the active CIA as well as FBI are in as lockstep with the current administration as it appears? It seems the current administration is allowed to circumvent laws, endanger national security, and damage long-term relationships with our allies without a peep from those that I would assume rely on those relationships. A: Our career national security professionals — and I used to be one of them — are in a tough spot. They're where they are because they want nothing more than to do the work of protecting the country and advancing our interests. Rather than make that job easier, the chaotic, reckless, and dangerous way this Administration has approached what should be the solemn business of our national security has only added more challenges to what are already some of the highest-stress and highest-stakes roles. Many will choose to stay where they are because they are dedicated patriots, but this Administration will undoubtedly push out — by accident or design — countless professionals whose skills we need to protect and promote our interests around the world. But I can tell you with the utmost certainty that the Administration is going to encounter resistance from career professionals in the face of efforts to mislead the public and skirt and even violate the law. These are people who, by and large, are devoted to the country, not to a political party or ideology. And, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on, that's a very good thing. 11.Q: What does Musk visiting the CIA mean to you? A: I'm less concerned about his visit to the CIA and more worried about what may come of DOGE's desire to gut the federal government, including our national security and foreign policy agencies. If his visit to the CIA convinces Musk and his team of the essential role it and its Intelligence Community counterparts play, that's a good thing. There surely are ways to make the Intelligence Community more efficient, but wholesale decimation is not one of them. 12.Q: With the secretaries being what they are (using Signal for top secret communications), congress being controlled by Republicans, and Democrats unable to get their heads out of their butts, Supreme Court rulings, and a president where you could make the argument is a Russian asset, where do we go from here? What part of the government can actually help the people? A: You're right in that it sure seems like this Administration is able to act with impunity, putting our national security at risk in the process. With only a couple notable exceptions, the White House's GOP allies in Congress have stymied efforts to investigate SignalGate and other scandals. And the Supreme Court – in both this term and decisions issued under Biden – has afforded the President with extraordinary powers. So, the usual checks and balances aren't quite functioning as they should. That said, the lower courts every day are doing what they're there to do: uphold the law. And we've seen a number of cases in which judges have put a hold on what they deem to be illegal acts – just as they should. Finally, there are two additional sources of checks and balances: the media and the American people. Of course, it was a reporter who revealed Signalgate, and journalists have uncovered a number of other strategically, legally, and/or ethically questionable practices – from the inadvertent and accidental deportation of an individual to El Salvador to the chaos that the so-called DOGE is inflicting on our institutions. At the end of the day, though, the most important check on an Administration like this might be everyday Americans. The more people learn about the mistakes this Administration is making and the damage they're inflicting on our national security, foreign policy, and economy – among other realms – the more likely they are to put pressure on Members of Congress, take part in peaceful protests, and, ultimately, make sound decisions at the ballot box. Americans who are outraged will have a chance to have their voices heard at the national level in 2026 and 2028. Hopefully, this AMA will help more Americans understand the implications of a scandal such as this.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This Former CIA Officer Let People Ask Him Anything About "Signalgate," Government Intelligence, And Where We Go From Here
Recently, former CIA, White House, and State Department veteran Ned Price invited people on Reddit to ask him anything about Signalgate, and it led to a really eye-opening conversation. Signalgate refers to the scandal that began when Trump officials discussed attack plans on the messaging app Signal without realizing that a journalist from The Atlantic had also been added to the chat. Price shared a photo of himself and started the thread by writing, "Hi Reddit! I'm Ned Price, an intelligence and national security professional who spent more than a decade at the CIA, served at the White House's National Security Council, U.S. Department of State, and was the Deputy to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations." "My head exploded when I heard the Trump Administration carelessly leaked classified information about a planned U.S. military operation against the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen. This was a massive national security breach that endangered the lives of U.S. troops. I'm sure you have questions about this 'Houthi PC small group' and what this leak means for the safety and security of all Americans. I'm here to share my perspective, having handled classified materials at all levels of government and worked to protect the United States against adversaries. Ask me anything about Signalgate, but nothing classified, of course." 1.Q: What are the standards for communicating between officials? I know Signal is clearly NOT the standard, but does the US use a specific thingy to have group chats like these? A: There are ways for US officials to have secure exchanges, but none of them involve non-secure technology like Signal. For example, there are both SECRET-level and TOP SECRET-level phone lines for either one-on-one calls or conference calls. There are also separate SECRET and TOP SECRET-level networks, which allow officials to email one another or even chat with one another on an instant messenger-like platform. Of course, the most secure means of communicating is in-person, which is why meetings of the so-called "Principals Committee" are always held in the White House Situation Room. If a principal — such as the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense — happens to be traveling overseas, he or she can always join the discussion via Secure Video Teleconference, which allows them to be beamed in on a TOP SECRET network. 2.Q: Can you help us understand what would happen to an average CIA analyst caught in a similar scandal? What would the repercussions be there? A: It's pretty simple: he or she would almost certainly be disciplined and probably fired. Just ask the DHS employee who may lose their job after accidentally including a reporter on a chain about deportations. There's a double standard at play that applies a different set of rules to top administration officials than our career professionals are subjected to. 3.Q: In your professional opinion, what is the chance that any of the participants will get convicted for attempting to circumvent The Presidential Records Act and/or the Federal Records Act for using Signal? A: Given the damage to our national security this practice may have caused, I'm actually less worried about violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you're right that the records-retention practices (or lack thereof in this case) also probably ran afoul of the law. Will someone get charged on this basis? I think the odds are perhaps only slightly better than a snowball's on a hot day in the desert. I say that in large part because President Trump has stacked his Cabinet with loyalists. He put them there precisely so that they will protect his interests above all. That, unfortunately, is clearly the case with the new FBI Director, Kash Patel, and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. I cannot envision either of these individuals launching an investigation into SignalGate, and, in fact, AG Bondi has said as much publicly. In terms of previous cases, the irony is that Trump himself was previously investigated for violations of the Presidential Records Act as part of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Ultimately, however, the charges didn't include reference to that statute. 4.Q: It's been widely reported that a member of the chat was visiting the Kremlin when the chat was active. What's the best and worst-case scenario given this piece of information? Beyond actively sharing the information, could the chats have been intercepted due to the recipient's location? A: The best case scenario is that this individual, Steve Witkoff, adhered to protocol and brought neither his regular personal nor government-issued phone into Russia. When U.S. officials travel to places like Russia where there's a high counter-intelligence threat, they instead bring single-use or "burner" phones with them to make sure our adversaries can't exfiltrate data or continue to keep tabs on their regular device. In very brief comments, Witkoff seems to have suggested that he followed this protocol. I sure hope he did. The worst case scenario is that he brought his regular devices into Russia, and the Kremlin has since been able to gain access to this Signal chain — as well as all of the other sensitive discussions he and his Trump Administration colleagues have been having on non-secure networks over the past two months. If so, that would promise to be an intelligence goldmine for Russia. 5.Q: Just discovered National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has been using his personal Gmail for government communications!! How shambolic can our National Security get? A: We really shouldn't be surprised at this latest revelation. The hypocrisy that Waltz and his colleagues have put on display in recent years when it comes to their purported concern for information security is pretty staggering. But this latest revelation does bring us back to what perhaps is the most concerning element of all of this: what else don't we know at this point? Are there other classified Signal chats? How else are they flouting policies and even laws when it comes to the protection of our national security? Is there any formal process whatsoever when it comes to the weighty decisions of national security? All of these questions are a good reminder of why we need to stay on this issue – we cannot give them a pass on Signalgate, just as we continue to search for answers on these broader questions. 6.Q: What impact do you see this having on other nations sharing intelligence with the US? Israel is stated to be very upset about this, and the EU didn't seem pleased with the way it was being discussed in the chat. How would the US go about correcting any issues with our allies after this? A: I worry about this a lot. When it comes to intelligence sharing, trust is the coin of the realm. It's hard-earned and easily lost. I obviously can't speak to the details of what National Security Advisor Waltz and Secretary Hegseth shared in the chat, but there are reports that at least some of the information was derived from an Israeli source – in other words, a spy our Israeli partners had recruited. If true, this is someone who is risking his/her life to help fight a brutal terrorist group, and now these top Trump administration officials have placed the source at greater risk by revealing details that might be able to help our adversaries piece together his/her identity. So, yes, countries will grow wary of sharing intelligence with us if they don't think our senior leaders are able to protect it. I don't want to overstate the extent to which countries will curtail their cooperation. Our closest partners will continue to do so – in large part because they need us more than we need them. But there may be edge cases in which a foreign counterpart has an EXTREMELY sensitive source whose information they choose not to share with us. If that happens routinely, it will hamper our understanding of the threats we face. 7.Q: In your opinion, how much of this is sheer incompetence versus "we want the bad guys to hear?" A: I have NO DOUBT that this wasn't intentional or some effort to play 4-D chess. The use of this platform was nothing more than reckless, careless, dangerous, and also lazy. Think about it: every single one of these principals has ready access to classified systems — at their residence, in the car, on their planes, and, of course, in their offices. And, yet, they chose to use Signal for this highly sensitive discussion. There's no excuse for that. 8.Q: How worried are you about the future of national security within the next 5-10 years? I'm sure I already know the answer, but why do I have the feeling that Signalgate won't be the last or even the worst national security breach of the second Trump administration? A: Am I worried? Yes! And the chaos this time around does seem to go beyond what we endured during the first Trump term. You're also right to point out that this scandal is emerging just a couple months into Trump's second term. This is a matter less of "what" they were doing – but rather, "how" they were doing it (entirely recklessly and dangerously). To your question, I do worry that months or years from now, we'll be confronted more and more with 'what' they've done. In other words, we'll have a better sense of how their approach to Russia and Ukraine will have left Moscow stronger and Kyiv weaker, how they will have squandered a broader set of allies and partners, and how they will have left a huge opening for China to exploit. 9.Q: Are there safety features built into these agencies to protect the country from the underqualified people appointed to run them? I really want to sleep at night knowing that there are some competent people still involved, making sure the flames stay within the dumpster we call the Cabinet. A: In practice, not really. Presidents have pretty wide latitude to appoint whomever they wish to their Cabinet. The Senate is supposed to take seriously its obligation to provide advice and consent to the White House on these choices. But nearly all of Trump's nominees got through the GOP-controlled Senate, even if it took Vice President Vance to issue the tie-breaking vote to confirm Secretary Hegseth. The good news is that Presidents appoint or nominate "only" about 4,000 individuals across the Executive Branch, whose ranks, if you include uniformed military, are in the millions. So, even if the hand-picked leaders at the top are generally lacking in credentials and experience, they will be surrounded by career professionals who will want to do right by the national security and foreign policy of the United States. 10.Q: Do you think the active CIA as well as FBI are in as lockstep with the current administration as it appears? It seems the current administration is allowed to circumvent laws, endanger national security, and damage long-term relationships with our allies without a peep from those that I would assume rely on those relationships. A: Our career national security professionals — and I used to be one of them — are in a tough spot. They're where they are because they want nothing more than to do the work of protecting the country and advancing our interests. Rather than make that job easier, the chaotic, reckless, and dangerous way this Administration has approached what should be the solemn business of our national security has only added more challenges to what are already some of the highest-stress and highest-stakes roles. Many will choose to stay where they are because they are dedicated patriots, but this Administration will undoubtedly push out — by accident or design — countless professionals whose skills we need to protect and promote our interests around the world. But I can tell you with the utmost certainty that the Administration is going to encounter resistance from career professionals in the face of efforts to mislead the public and skirt and even violate the law. These are people who, by and large, are devoted to the country, not to a political party or ideology. And, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on, that's a very good thing. 11.Q: What does Musk visiting the CIA mean to you? A: I'm less concerned about his visit to the CIA and more worried about what may come of DOGE's desire to gut the federal government, including our national security and foreign policy agencies. If his visit to the CIA convinces Musk and his team of the essential role it and its Intelligence Community counterparts play, that's a good thing. There surely are ways to make the Intelligence Community more efficient, but wholesale decimation is not one of them. 12.Q: With the secretaries being what they are (using Signal for top secret communications), congress being controlled by Republicans, and Democrats unable to get their heads out of their butts, Supreme Court rulings, and a president where you could make the argument is a Russian asset, where do we go from here? What part of the government can actually help the people? A: You're right in that it sure seems like this Administration is able to act with impunity, putting our national security at risk in the process. With only a couple notable exceptions, the White House's GOP allies in Congress have stymied efforts to investigate SignalGate and other scandals. And the Supreme Court – in both this term and decisions issued under Biden – has afforded the President with extraordinary powers. So, the usual checks and balances aren't quite functioning as they should. That said, the lower courts every day are doing what they're there to do: uphold the law. And we've seen a number of cases in which judges have put a hold on what they deem to be illegal acts – just as they should. Finally, there are two additional sources of checks and balances: the media and the American people. Of course, it was a reporter who revealed Signalgate, and journalists have uncovered a number of other strategically, legally, and/or ethically questionable practices – from the inadvertent and accidental deportation of an individual to El Salvador to the chaos that the so-called DOGE is inflicting on our institutions. At the end of the day, though, the most important check on an Administration like this might be everyday Americans. The more people learn about the mistakes this Administration is making and the damage they're inflicting on our national security, foreign policy, and economy – among other realms – the more likely they are to put pressure on Members of Congress, take part in peaceful protests, and, ultimately, make sound decisions at the ballot box. Americans who are outraged will have a chance to have their voices heard at the national level in 2026 and 2028. Hopefully, this AMA will help more Americans understand the implications of a scandal such as this.
Buzz Feed
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Buzz Feed
This Former CIA Officer Let People Ask Him Anything About "Signalgate," Government Intelligence, And Where We Go From Here
Hot Topic 🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Politics Price shared a photo of himself and started the thread by writing, "Hi Reddit! I'm Ned Price, an intelligence and national security professional who spent more than a decade at the CIA, served at the White House's National Security Council, U.S. Department of State, and was the Deputy to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations." "My head exploded when I heard the Trump Administration carelessly leaked classified information about a planned U.S. military operation against the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen. This was a massive national security breach that endangered the lives of U.S. troops. I'm sure you have questions about this 'Houthi PC small group' and what this leak means for the safety and security of all Americans. I'm here to share my perspective, having handled classified materials at all levels of government and worked to protect the United States against adversaries. Ask me anything about Signalgate, but nothing classified, of course." 1. Q: What are the standards for communicating between officials? I know Signal is clearly NOT the standard, but does the US use a specific thingy to have group chats like these? A: There are ways for US officials to have secure exchanges, but none of them involve non-secure technology like Signal. For example, there are both SECRET-level and TOP SECRET-level phone lines for either one-on-one calls or conference calls. There are also separate SECRET and TOP SECRET-level networks, which allow officials to email one another or even chat with one another on an instant messenger-like platform. Of course, the most secure means of communicating is in-person, which is why meetings of the so-called "Principals Committee" are always held in the White House Situation Room. If a principal — such as the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense — happens to be traveling overseas, he or she can always join the discussion via Secure Video Teleconference, which allows them to be beamed in on a TOP SECRET network. 2. Q: Can you help us understand what would happen to an average CIA analyst caught in a similar scandal? What would the repercussions be there? A: It's pretty simple: he or she would almost certainly be disciplined and probably fired. Just ask the DHS employee who may lose their job after accidentally including a reporter on a chain about deportations. There's a double standard at play that applies a different set of rules to top administration officials than our career professionals are subjected to. 3. Q: In your professional opinion, what is the chance that any of the participants will get convicted for attempting to circumvent The Presidential Records Act and/or the Federal Records Act for using Signal? A: Given the damage to our national security this practice may have caused, I'm actually less worried about violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you're right that the records-retention practices (or lack thereof in this case) also probably ran afoul of the law. Will someone get charged on this basis? I think the odds are perhaps only slightly better than a snowball's on a hot day in the desert. I say that in large part because President Trump has stacked his Cabinet with loyalists. He put them there precisely so that they will protect his interests above all. That, unfortunately, is clearly the case with the new FBI Director, Kash Patel, and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. I cannot envision either of these individuals launching an investigation into SignalGate, and, in fact, AG Bondi has said as much publicly. In terms of previous cases, the irony is that Trump himself was previously investigated for violations of the Presidential Records Act as part of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Ultimately, however, the charges didn't include reference to that statute. 4. Q: It's been widely reported that a member of the chat was visiting the Kremlin when the chat was active. What's the best and worst-case scenario given this piece of information? Beyond actively sharing the information, could the chats have been intercepted due to the recipient's location? A: The best case scenario is that this individual, Steve Witkoff, adhered to protocol and brought neither his regular personal nor government-issued phone into Russia. When U.S. officials travel to places like Russia where there's a high counter-intelligence threat, they instead bring single-use or "burner" phones with them to make sure our adversaries can't exfiltrate data or continue to keep tabs on their regular device. In very brief comments, Witkoff seems to have suggested that he followed this protocol. I sure hope he did. The worst case scenario is that he brought his regular devices into Russia, and the Kremlin has since been able to gain access to this Signal chain — as well as all of the other sensitive discussions he and his Trump Administration colleagues have been having on non-secure networks over the past two months. If so, that would promise to be an intelligence goldmine for Russia. 5. Q: Just discovered National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has been using his personal Gmail for government communications!! How shambolic can our National Security get? A: We really shouldn't be surprised at this latest revelation. The hypocrisy that Waltz and his colleagues have put on display in recent years when it comes to their purported concern for information security is pretty staggering. But this latest revelation does bring us back to what perhaps is the most concerning element of all of this: what else don't we know at this point? Are there other classified Signal chats? How else are they flouting policies and even laws when it comes to the protection of our national security? Is there any formal process whatsoever when it comes to the weighty decisions of national security? All of these questions are a good reminder of why we need to stay on this issue – we cannot give them a pass on Signalgate, just as we continue to search for answers on these broader questions. 6. Q: What impact do you see this having on other nations sharing intelligence with the US? Israel is stated to be very upset about this, and the EU didn't seem pleased with the way it was being discussed in the chat. How would the US go about correcting any issues with our allies after this? A: I worry about this a lot. When it comes to intelligence sharing, trust is the coin of the realm. It's hard-earned and easily lost. I obviously can't speak to the details of what National Security Advisor Waltz and Secretary Hegseth shared in the chat, but there are reports that at least some of the information was derived from an Israeli source – in other words, a spy our Israeli partners had recruited. If true, this is someone who is risking his/her life to help fight a brutal terrorist group, and now these top Trump administration officials have placed the source at greater risk by revealing details that might be able to help our adversaries piece together his/her identity. So, yes, countries will grow wary of sharing intelligence with us if they don't think our senior leaders are able to protect it. I don't want to overstate the extent to which countries will curtail their cooperation. Our closest partners will continue to do so – in large part because they need us more than we need them. But there may be edge cases in which a foreign counterpart has an EXTREMELY sensitive source whose information they choose not to share with us. If that happens routinely, it will hamper our understanding of the threats we face. 7. Q: In your opinion, how much of this is sheer incompetence versus "we want the bad guys to hear?" A: I have NO DOUBT that this wasn't intentional or some effort to play 4-D chess. The use of this platform was nothing more than reckless, careless, dangerous, and also lazy. Think about it: every single one of these principals has ready access to classified systems — at their residence, in the car, on their planes, and, of course, in their offices. And, yet, they chose to use Signal for this highly sensitive discussion. There's no excuse for that. 8. Q: How worried are you about the future of national security within the next 5-10 years? I'm sure I already know the answer, but why do I have the feeling that Signalgate won't be the last or even the worst national security breach of the second Trump administration? A: Am I worried? Yes! And the chaos this time around does seem to go beyond what we endured during the first Trump term. You're also right to point out that this scandal is emerging just a couple months into Trump's second term. This is a matter less of "what" they were doing – but rather, "how" they were doing it (entirely recklessly and dangerously). To your question, I do worry that months or years from now, we'll be confronted more and more with 'what' they've done. In other words, we'll have a better sense of how their approach to Russia and Ukraine will have left Moscow stronger and Kyiv weaker, how they will have squandered a broader set of allies and partners, and how they will have left a huge opening for China to exploit. 9. Q: Are there safety features built into these agencies to protect the country from the underqualified people appointed to run them? I really want to sleep at night knowing that there are some competent people still involved, making sure the flames stay within the dumpster we call the Cabinet. A: In practice, not really. Presidents have pretty wide latitude to appoint whomever they wish to their Cabinet. The Senate is supposed to take seriously its obligation to provide advice and consent to the White House on these choices. But nearly all of Trump's nominees got through the GOP-controlled Senate, even if it took Vice President Vance to issue the tie-breaking vote to confirm Secretary Hegseth. The good news is that Presidents appoint or nominate "only" about 4,000 individuals across the Executive Branch, whose ranks, if you include uniformed military, are in the millions. So, even if the hand-picked leaders at the top are generally lacking in credentials and experience, they will be surrounded by career professionals who will want to do right by the national security and foreign policy of the United States. 10. Q: Do you think the active CIA as well as FBI are in as lockstep with the current administration as it appears? It seems the current administration is allowed to circumvent laws, endanger national security, and damage long-term relationships with our allies without a peep from those that I would assume rely on those relationships. A: Our career national security professionals — and I used to be one of them — are in a tough spot. They're where they are because they want nothing more than to do the work of protecting the country and advancing our interests. Rather than make that job easier, the chaotic, reckless, and dangerous way this Administration has approached what should be the solemn business of our national security has only added more challenges to what are already some of the highest-stress and highest-stakes roles. Many will choose to stay where they are because they are dedicated patriots, but this Administration will undoubtedly push out — by accident or design — countless professionals whose skills we need to protect and promote our interests around the world. But I can tell you with the utmost certainty that the Administration is going to encounter resistance from career professionals in the face of efforts to mislead the public and skirt and even violate the law. These are people who, by and large, are devoted to the country, not to a political party or ideology. And, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on, that's a very good thing. 11. Q: What does Musk visiting the CIA mean to you? A: I'm less concerned about his visit to the CIA and more worried about what may come of DOGE's desire to gut the federal government, including our national security and foreign policy agencies. If his visit to the CIA convinces Musk and his team of the essential role it and its Intelligence Community counterparts play, that's a good thing. There surely are ways to make the Intelligence Community more efficient, but wholesale decimation is not one of them. 12. Q: With the secretaries being what they are (using Signal for top secret communications), congress being controlled by Republicans, and Democrats unable to get their heads out of their butts, Supreme Court rulings, and a president where you could make the argument is a Russian asset, where do we go from here? What part of the government can actually help the people? A: You're right in that it sure seems like this Administration is able to act with impunity, putting our national security at risk in the process. With only a couple notable exceptions, the White House's GOP allies in Congress have stymied efforts to investigate SignalGate and other scandals. And the Supreme Court – in both this term and decisions issued under Biden – has afforded the President with extraordinary powers. So, the usual checks and balances aren't quite functioning as they should. That said, the lower courts every day are doing what they're there to do: uphold the law. And we've seen a number of cases in which judges have put a hold on what they deem to be illegal acts – just as they should. Finally, there are two additional sources of checks and balances: the media and the American people. Of course, it was a reporter who revealed Signalgate, and journalists have uncovered a number of other strategically, legally, and/or ethically questionable practices – from the inadvertent and accidental deportation of an individual to El Salvador to the chaos that the so-called DOGE is inflicting on our institutions. At the end of the day, though, the most important check on an Administration like this might be everyday Americans. The more people learn about the mistakes this Administration is making and the damage they're inflicting on our national security, foreign policy, and economy – among other realms – the more likely they are to put pressure on Members of Congress, take part in peaceful protests, and, ultimately, make sound decisions at the ballot box. Americans who are outraged will have a chance to have their voices heard at the national level in 2026 and 2028. Hopefully, this AMA will help more Americans understand the implications of a scandal such as this.
