Signal chat group affair: unprecedented security breach will seriously damage US international relations

Plans for an attack against an enemy target are classified in America. But the private views of high-ranking officials about allies, communicated within government, must also count as intelligence to be protected.

The recent communication of this category of information over the Signal messaging app has been dismissed by the US president, Donald Trump as a mere “glitch”. It is definitely that. But it also raises the prospect that in his first two months of office, key parts of the administration might have inadvertently been leaving sensitive information vulnerable to enemy interception. That would be one of the most serious intelligence breaches in modern history.

National security advisor, Mike Waltz, has subsequently “taken responsibility” for the episode – but, so far at least, remains in post. Instead, the administration has decided to launch bitter ad hominem attacks against the journalist that revealed this breach of security, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.

Trump called Goldberg a “total sleazebag”, defense secretary Pete Hegseth referred to him as “deceitful and highly discredited”. Walz called him “the bottom scum of journalists”.

The recent chat group reported exchange involved the adminstration’s most senior national security officials: Waltz, Hegseth, Vice-President J.D. Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others.

As we know now, it also, accidentally, included Goldberg, himself a storied national security reporter before he took up the editorship of the Atlantic. It’s a national security blunder almost without parallel.

Interestingly, some of the people on this chat were among those who savaged Hilary Clinton’s use of a personal email address during her time as secretary of state. This was controversial, but did not meet the standard for prosecution. Most of her work-related emails were archived into federal records by their recipients on government email. It was poor practice, and regulations were significantly tightened after.

If an inquiry is set up about this most recent incident, it will be interesting to see whether these messages are treated as federal records. This would be signficant because the messages would need to be handed over to officials to classify and archive as part of the public record. That would certainly clear up whether this was indeed a “glitch” or whether classified information was indeed shared – something the administration still denies.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

For such an elevated group of US government officials to use a consumer messaging app to talk business invites an easy win for enemy intelligence agencies. America’s key intelligence competitors invest billions of dollars in techniques and technologies to break the toughest encryption. For phone-based communications, we know that apps such as NSO Group’s Pegasus can be used to bypass the encryption on phones.

The Guardian newspaper’s investigative work has highlighted how journalists and activists were targeted by countries using this technology and the interception capability of capable intelligence nations is far stronger. So the standard security induction to officials would cover communications, devices and protocols.

It is not clear whether the protocols cover the use of emojis. Waltz’s use of a fist, fire and flag emoji is certainly unusual in diplomatic cables that have been aired publicly.

Even worse, the communication between these officials was prior to a deployment of US military assets against an enemy target, the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This potentially placed the success of the operation and those assets at risk.

That the Yemenis did not move assets that had been targeted does not conclusively prove that the communications remained safe. It has long been a practice to pick and choose when to risk revealing that communications are being intercepted.

Zero accountability

An ordinary intelligence officer who communicated about highly sensitive and classified deployments through a platform with security that is not accredited or controlled by the intelligence community, would certainly face disciplinary action. An officer who accidentally invited a journalist into this chat would be likely to face even stiffer sanctions. Trump seems to have rallied around his officials, however.

The US has recent form in vigorously pursuing journalists who publish classified materials. The Edward Snowden leaks caused considerable damage to transatlantic intelligence and Snowden was forced to take up residence in Moscow to avoid prosecution.

The newspapers who published his papers were subject to strong action from the governments in their countries. The publication of Chelsea Manning’s leaked cables – known as Cablegate – by Julian Assange and Wikileaks resulted in a lengthy process to try and prosecute Assange (Manning herself was prosecuted and was sentenced to 35 years in jail, serving seven).

But instead, Trump has chosen to spearhead a backlash against The Atlantic – the “messenger”. It fits in with Trump’s antipathy towards the mainstream media and his strong preference for some social media outlets. It might also signal a more serious turn towards intolerance to investigative journalism.

Diplomatic disaster

What the Signal messages also reveal is a contempt for European allies among Trump’s most senior people. That will be difficult to repair. Describing allies who have lost thousands of soldiers supporting American foreign policy aims as “pathetic” and “freeloaders” will make it very difficult for those governments to underplay the significance of the comments.

What we have seen in the Signal messages might herald a new era of diplomacy and policy making, by officials who are not afraid to break established patterns. What we can definitely say is that it is radically different to the diplomacy the rest of the west is used to, and it will be nearly impossible to unsee.

The western allies will be accelerating their plans to be less dependent on the US – and this will be to America’s detriment.

Robert Dover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.