Trump's Signal Scandal: Why No Amount Of Encryption Can Save This Administration From Itself

"So this was not classified," President Donald Trump said at the White House this week. He was talking about an incident where a journalist was accidentally added to a group chat discussing military operations plans. Across two lengthy articles from The Atlantic, said journalist has detailed the entire conversation chain, which includes highly sensitive information about mission targets, offense timing, and the weapons systems involved.

Experts across the political spectrum are now engaged in a hot debate over the "classified" status of the military discussions. The most sensitive details of the operation were shared by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who accused the journalist of "peddling hoaxes time and time again." Yet, a couple of top intelligence officials have confirmed that the leaked material was legitimate. The mistake came courtesy of national security advisor Michael Waltz, who later took full responsibility for his error.

So far, the debate is focused more on the sensitivity of the information, bad-mouthing about a journalist, and deriding concerns about the whole fiasco. The bigger question, however, is why such a sensitive discussion was carried out on a commercial messaging app in the first place. The turn of events is rather interesting because back in 2023, the Defense Department published a memo that warned government officials from discussing sensitive topics on Signal, the chat platform on which this week's security scandal unfolded. As it happens, earlier in March, yet another Pentagon memo asked staffers to stay away from Signal, citing security risks.

The whole turn of events is genuinely bizarre, while the official debate around it is equally misdirected. There's a difference between leaks and sloppy security ethics. For example, your WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, which means not even the folks running the show at Meta can take a peek at your conversations. The only way your sordid chats can leak is if one of the participants deliberately does so, or your phone's password is cracked after someone physically gets their hands on it.

Now, imagine your private conversation occurred on Signal, a platform that is used by activists, journalists, and whistleblowers to protect their identity and sensitive conversations. Next, change the participants and the chat's topic to highly sensitive military operations. Finally, add a journalist who was mistakenly invited to the chat. 

Operations like the one discussed in the group chat are usually top secret affairs and planned meticulously. They are planned and executed in safe rooms with strict access protocols and anti-surveillance measures. So why was this chat happening on Signal? Typically, phones in the hands of government officials either come installed with special security guardrails, or they are simply prohibited from installing commercial apps, especially those with perceived risks. Signal, for example, is not approved as a platform for discussing classified information. Yet, government officials continue to use it, as per interviews conducted by The Washington Post.

It doesn't take a lot of digging around to understand the importance of tight security protocols, especially around the platforms where such sensitive information can be discussed. The involvement of Signal in the latest security blow-up is even more perplexing because top-ranking government officials are already told to avoid commercially available platforms for discussing sensitive matters. Moreover, personal devices are considered a big no-no for top-secret communications. 

That begs the question: Is the compliance around security protocols so lax that details about military operations are still discussed on Signal? And if Signal is not deemed secure, which is what the internal memo to staffers suggests, why is it still accessible to high-ranking government employees? In the wake of the incident, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, told House Intelligence Committee members that Signal comes pre-installed on government-owned devices.

Back in 2021, the Defense Department Office of the Inspector General criticized a top Pentagon official for using Signal. In a bulletin, the National Security Agency also warned employees about the risks of using Signal. Regardless of Signal's security, it's pretty alarming that some of the highest members of the current administration were discussing highly sensitive military plans on a platform not approved for classified information. If the top of the food chain is ignoring security rules, how likely is it that those under them are doing the same?

Maybe, the complacency stems right from the top? During his first Presidential term, Trump was reportedly using an unsecured Android phone, despite warnings against doing so. A year later, he was again cautioned that calls made from his unsecured phone were being eavesdropped upon by Chinese and Russian intelligence members. The latest Signal flub, maybe, wasn't truly an unexpected accident, after all.