Cyber Experts Evaluate the Security of Signal Amid Trump Administration's Usage for War Strategy Planning
Experts highlight that sharing U.S. military plans in non-classified forums poses a significant security risk, regardless of app security measures.
TroibNews 
Signal, an encrypted messaging app that emphasizes privacy, is often regarded as one of the most secure messaging platforms available to the public. However, recent developments have raised concerns among lawmakers and experts after it was revealed that members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet utilized Signal to coordinate a recent U.S. government military operation.
A first-hand account by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic on Monday described how he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat featuring high-ranking officials from the Trump administration who were deliberating plans for military strikes in Yemen. This conversation contained “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing,” leading Goldberg to characterize the use of an open-source app for such discussions as “shocking recklessness.”
Mark Montgomery, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, commented, “I guess Signal is a few steps above leaving a copy of your war plan at the Chinese Embassy — but it’s far below the standards required for discussing any elements of a war plan.”
The app has gained traction in Washington recently, especially following the uncovering of a significant breach linked to the Chinese government that allowed hackers to steal a vast amount of Americans’ cell phone records and surveil conversations from senior U.S. political figures, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Consequently, U.S. officials have suggested using encrypted platforms like Signal to enhance protection against hackers.
Signal is generally perceived to possess strong security, thanks to its solid privacy features, minimal data collection, and default end-to-end encryption for all messages and voice calls. Additionally, it offers a feature that automatically deletes conversation messages after a specific time, providing further data security. Despite these attributes, experts emphasize that government officials should not rely on Signal as a substitute for more secure and authorized communication channels.
“It’s so unbelievable,” a former White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss The Atlantic’s report candidly, stated on Monday. “These guys all have traveling security details to set up secure comms for them, wherever they are.”
The former official highlighted the likelihood that Trump’s Cabinet members — including the vice president, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard among others — were using personal devices, as Signal is generally not permitted on federal devices. This creates significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
“Their personal phones are all hackable, and it's highly likely that foreign intelligence services are sitting on their phones watching them type the shit out,” the former White House official warned.
Jacob Williams, a former hacker with the NSA and now vice president of research and development at cybersecurity consulting firm Hunter Strategy, noted that Signal is not “accredited for classified data.”
Among the chief dangers of using Signal, according to Williams, is the potential location of data storage.
"People can link Signal messaging to a desktop application," he explained. "This means that Signal data is being delivered to potentially multiple desktop and laptop computers where it isn't being stored in a phone's secure enclave. That data is then at risk from commodity malware on the system."
Williams added that Signal users cannot discern which contacts have their accounts connected to a desktop, preventing a thorough assessment of associated risks.
Signal did not respond to requests for comment. According to its Terms of Service, users “are responsible for keeping your device and your Signal account safe and secure.”
Top Democrats quickly criticized the decision to use a Signal group chat for discussing sensitive military activities, particularly given the lack of careful vetting of participants added to the group.
“It should go without saying that administration officials should not be using Signal for discussing intelligence matters reserved for the situation room — not to mention doing so incompetently by including members of the public,” stated House Homeland Security ranking member Bennie Thompson, who has oversight over the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Gregory Meeks urged Chair Brian Mast to convene a hearing on what he termed “the most astonishing breach of our national security in recent history.”
Both Senate and House Intelligence committees have hearings scheduled for this week regarding the 2025 Annual Worldwide Threats Assessment — a report detailing major emerging global threats that is released annually by the director of national security — with Gabbard and other top administration intelligence officials slated to testify as witnesses.
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes expressed that he was “horrified” by the Trump administration’s discussions of strategic military planning on Signal and intended to inquire about the app's usage during the Yemen attack.
“These individuals know the calamitous risks of transmitting classified information across unclassified systems, and they also know that if a lower ranking official under their command did what is described here, they would likely lose their clearance and be subject to criminal investigation,” Himes remarked.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who until January served as the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not attending this week’s witness panel but was part of the Signal chat.
A former intelligence and security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address the management of potentially classified information, indicated that the incident could have been avoided if the U.S. government had access to a chat service certified for handling classified data.
“In the absence of a solution and given the fast pace of national security affairs, people will resort to balancing their perception of the risk with the operational pressures of the day,” said the former intelligence and security official.
Regardless of the app's inherent security, discussing U.S. government military plans in a non-classified environment presents a substantial security risk.
“Forget Signal, just do it over a dating app, you might as well, that would be just as secure as what you’re doing,” remarked the former White House official.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
A first-hand account by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic on Monday described how he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat featuring high-ranking officials from the Trump administration who were deliberating plans for military strikes in Yemen. This conversation contained “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing,” leading Goldberg to characterize the use of an open-source app for such discussions as “shocking recklessness.”
Mark Montgomery, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, commented, “I guess Signal is a few steps above leaving a copy of your war plan at the Chinese Embassy — but it’s far below the standards required for discussing any elements of a war plan.”
The app has gained traction in Washington recently, especially following the uncovering of a significant breach linked to the Chinese government that allowed hackers to steal a vast amount of Americans’ cell phone records and surveil conversations from senior U.S. political figures, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Consequently, U.S. officials have suggested using encrypted platforms like Signal to enhance protection against hackers.
Signal is generally perceived to possess strong security, thanks to its solid privacy features, minimal data collection, and default end-to-end encryption for all messages and voice calls. Additionally, it offers a feature that automatically deletes conversation messages after a specific time, providing further data security. Despite these attributes, experts emphasize that government officials should not rely on Signal as a substitute for more secure and authorized communication channels.
“It’s so unbelievable,” a former White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss The Atlantic’s report candidly, stated on Monday. “These guys all have traveling security details to set up secure comms for them, wherever they are.”
The former official highlighted the likelihood that Trump’s Cabinet members — including the vice president, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard among others — were using personal devices, as Signal is generally not permitted on federal devices. This creates significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
“Their personal phones are all hackable, and it's highly likely that foreign intelligence services are sitting on their phones watching them type the shit out,” the former White House official warned.
Jacob Williams, a former hacker with the NSA and now vice president of research and development at cybersecurity consulting firm Hunter Strategy, noted that Signal is not “accredited for classified data.”
Among the chief dangers of using Signal, according to Williams, is the potential location of data storage.
"People can link Signal messaging to a desktop application," he explained. "This means that Signal data is being delivered to potentially multiple desktop and laptop computers where it isn't being stored in a phone's secure enclave. That data is then at risk from commodity malware on the system."
Williams added that Signal users cannot discern which contacts have their accounts connected to a desktop, preventing a thorough assessment of associated risks.
Signal did not respond to requests for comment. According to its Terms of Service, users “are responsible for keeping your device and your Signal account safe and secure.”
Top Democrats quickly criticized the decision to use a Signal group chat for discussing sensitive military activities, particularly given the lack of careful vetting of participants added to the group.
“It should go without saying that administration officials should not be using Signal for discussing intelligence matters reserved for the situation room — not to mention doing so incompetently by including members of the public,” stated House Homeland Security ranking member Bennie Thompson, who has oversight over the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Gregory Meeks urged Chair Brian Mast to convene a hearing on what he termed “the most astonishing breach of our national security in recent history.”
Both Senate and House Intelligence committees have hearings scheduled for this week regarding the 2025 Annual Worldwide Threats Assessment — a report detailing major emerging global threats that is released annually by the director of national security — with Gabbard and other top administration intelligence officials slated to testify as witnesses.
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes expressed that he was “horrified” by the Trump administration’s discussions of strategic military planning on Signal and intended to inquire about the app's usage during the Yemen attack.
“These individuals know the calamitous risks of transmitting classified information across unclassified systems, and they also know that if a lower ranking official under their command did what is described here, they would likely lose their clearance and be subject to criminal investigation,” Himes remarked.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who until January served as the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not attending this week’s witness panel but was part of the Signal chat.
A former intelligence and security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address the management of potentially classified information, indicated that the incident could have been avoided if the U.S. government had access to a chat service certified for handling classified data.
“In the absence of a solution and given the fast pace of national security affairs, people will resort to balancing their perception of the risk with the operational pressures of the day,” said the former intelligence and security official.
Regardless of the app's inherent security, discussing U.S. government military plans in a non-classified environment presents a substantial security risk.
“Forget Signal, just do it over a dating app, you might as well, that would be just as secure as what you’re doing,” remarked the former White House official.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
