On Monday morning, Washington woke up to extraordinary revelations in the pages of The Atlantic. Screenshots of text messages between cabinet-level officials of the United States discussing the authorization and operational details of imminent military strikes on Yemen, which took place earlier this month. Not everything in the Signal thread was contained in the screenshots that The Atlantic released to the public. Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, who had inadvertently been added to the text message group, said he would not make public some of the messages because of the extraordinary risks that might pose. But he did say Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s communications to the group “contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S.would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”
The Atlantic’s Shane Harris has explained in a subsequent interview with Goldberg that the communications included “the number of aircraft that are involved, the kinds of munitions that are being dropped, specific times … specific targets on the ground … names of individuals—of U.S. officials—who should not have been put in an unclassified chain because of their status as intelligence officers.”
In short, it appears that the Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and other cabinet members, including the administration’s two most senior intelligence officials, purposefully chose an unsecure commercial messaging app on their devices to communicate about highly sensitive (and almost certainly classified) matters preceding a military attack in Yemen.
What’s more, CBS News has now reported that White House Ukraine envoy Steve Witkoff was in Moscow at the time he was added to the Signal group, and while he was in Russia, CIA John Ratcliffe named an active CIA intelligence officer in the chat. Note: It is not clear whether Witkoff took the relevant device(s) with him to Moscow. It is also not necessary to step foot in Moscow for Russian intelligence to gain access to such Signal communications.
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the authenticity of the Signal message chain to The Atlantic. The following day, Ratcliffe confirmed his participation in the Signal group in a congressional hearing, which had been pre-scheduled to discuss other matters.
What law applies
A range of federal laws were enacted precisely to guard against such “shocking recklessness,” in the words of Goldberg. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a Republican Armed Services Committee member and a former Air Force brigadier general, told Axios, “None of this should have been sent on non-secure systems. Russia and China are surely monitoring his unclassified phone.” To add to it, the Pentagon sent out an email notification a week ago warning personnel about the vulnerability of using the Signal app.
Two sets of criminal laws are directly applicable if – and I emphasize, if – The Atlantic’s reported accounts of the Signal group are accurate (notably, there is currently no reason to believe otherwise).
I. Espionage Act – “Gross Negligence” in Mishandling National Defense Information
The most potentially relevant provision of law is 18 U.S.C. 793(f)(1) of the Espionage Act, which proscribes:
“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed…
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
The greatest legal liability for participants in the group is purposefully using the Signal app for these communications; it is a bit of a red herring, or distraction, to focus on the accidental admission of a journalist to the group. That said, the unauthorized disclosure to Goldberg matters for national security policy and can be an aggravating factor for prosecutors.
The most important factor in applying that law to the reported facts in Signal Gate is the definition of the mental element: “gross negligence.” The Department of Justice Inspector General report on the FBI investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described a fairly high and hard-to-meet standard. The report summarized the conclusions of the federal prosecutors in the investigation:
They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems.
The Inspector General report stated approvingly, “the interpretation of the gross negligence requirement of Section § 793(f)(1) used as a basis to decline prosecution of former Secretary Clinton was consistent with interpretations applied in prior cases under different leadership.”
That said, one of the criminal cases that most closely matches the alleged facts in Signal Gate is that of former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) John Deutch. While head of the CIA, Deutch allegedly used his home computer to store classified information. After Attorney General Janet Reno’s Justice Department first attempted to decline prosecution, pressure from Congress resulted in the appointment of a special prosecutor. Paul Coffey, serving in that role, reportedly recommended indicting Deutch under § 793(f)(1). Deutch reportedly agreed to plead guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, only to be saved by a presidential pardon hours later by President Bill Clinton in Clinton’s final day in office. (For more details, see the lengthier description of the Deutch case and special prosecutor Paul Coffey report on pp. 95-96 a report several colleagues and I produced in 2023).
Although it is hard to believe, Director Gabbard told Congress on Tuesday, “there was no classified materials[sic] that was shared in that Signal chat.” President Trump later also told reporters, “There was no classified information as I understand it.” However, § 793(f)(1) turns on the content being “national defense information,” and does not depend on its being classified. It also defies belief that specific targets, weapons systems, and other matters reference by The Atlantic prior to the commencement of airstrikes would be unclassified.
II. Destruction of government records
One of the features of the Signal messaging app is the ability of users to set it to automatically delete messages. According to a screenshot made public by Goldberg, some of these messages were set to automatically delete in 4 weeks; and the app shows who decided to change those settings. The Atlantic story also states: “There was another potential problem: Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four.”
That said, the above screen shot contained some of the most innocuous communications by the group to be disclosed, and were potentially of a personal rather than official nature. However, if the communications of official decision-making involving war plans or any other official government conduct (e.g., relations with European countries) were set to disappear and were not otherwise captured and retained, the following laws would presumably apply.
On this the law is clear. Presidential records and other federal records containing written communications between administration officials on official matters are property of the United States government. These records must be preserved, and their destruction can result in criminal liability. The criminal statutes are clearly worded, including:
18 U.S. Code §2071. Destruction of government records:
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States….
18 U.S. Code § 641. Public property or records:
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; …
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both….
18 USC §1361. Depredation against government property:
Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
Due to the betrayal of the public trust, violations of the first offense listed can result in a custodian of government records having to “forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
IMAGE: Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe (R), accompanied by FBI Director Kash Patel (L), and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (C), speaks during a Senate Committee on Intelligence Hearing on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)