Judge mandates Trump administration maintain preservation of Signal messages
The directive was issued following a lawsuit initiated by a pro-transparency organization.
TroibNews 
A federal judge has directed the Trump administration to preserve chats held by senior officials on the Signal messaging app, including a notable conversation that was inadvertently shared with a reporter earlier this month regarding a forthcoming military operation in Yemen.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued the preservation order on Thursday following a request from a transparency organization that filed a lawsuit claiming the app’s automatic deletion feature posed a risk of violating the Federal Records Act by potentially destroying these messages.
During a brief hearing, Justice Department attorney Amber Richer informed Boasberg that such an order might not be necessary as the involved agencies were already taking measures to preserve the records. However, she indicated no objection to the judge formalizing this with a court order.
“We are still in the process of working with agencies to determine what records they have, but we are also working with the agencies to preserve whatever records they have,” Richer noted.
However, the government lawyer seemed to recognize a Treasury Department statement from earlier in the day indicating that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent currently possesses only a portion of the message chain concerning the Yemen strike.
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, who was included in the message chain, reported that the conversation began on March 11. Bessent, however, seemingly has only retained messages beginning the afternoon of March 15. The reason for the absence of earlier messages, and whether other senior officials have retained them, remains unclear.
“I just want to caveat that we are still ascertaining what records the agencies have,” Richer reiterated to Boasberg.
The Atlantic published some of the messages this week and the remainder on Wednesday, following the White House's assertion that it did not classify the communications, even though they outlined the scope and timeline of a military operation that had yet to take place.
The Atlantic also conveyed that national security adviser Mike Waltz, who initiated the conversation, initially set the app to auto-delete messages after a week before changing it to four weeks.
From the bench, Boasberg issued a directive to the defendants in the case—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—“to preserve all Signal communications between March 11 and March 15.” This instruction likely extends beyond just the messages shared with Goldberg, potentially encompassing other Signal communications sent or received during that period.
Additionally, a Pentagon attorney submitted a declaration indicating that the Defense Department was also aiming to preserve the records, though it did not imply they had recovered any. The administration contended that the Atlantic’s publication of the full exchange, aside from the redaction of a CIA officer’s name, had guaranteed the messages would be preserved.
Boasberg's order was a response to the lawsuit filed on Tuesday by the pro-transparency group American Oversight, which claimed that the messages were at risk of deletion in violation of the Federal Records Act and that Trump administration officials appeared to be utilizing the ephemeral messaging app to sidestep federal recordkeeping regulations.
During the hearing, Richer did not concede that the messages were legally obligated to be preserved, stating that government lawyers “have not fully evaluated that issue.” It is important to note that federal law does not mandate the preservation of every email or message sent or received by federal employees, even if the content pertains to official matters.
In a rare prelude to the hearing, Boasberg addressed a social media post from President Donald Trump, who had suggested without substantiation that Boasberg had improperly assumed control of the politically sensitive case. Trump described it as “disgraceful” that Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has been assigned several civil cases of interest to the White House recently. Boasberg is not only overseeing the Signal case but also the matter of Trump’s attempts to expedite deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
"Boasberg … seems to be grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself,” Trump remarked. “Is there still such a thing as the ‘wheel,’ where the judges are chosen fairly and at random?”
Boasberg subtly acknowledged that “some questions have been raised” about the court's case assignment process. He explained that, in nearly all instances, cases are assigned randomly across various categories “to assure a more even distribution of cases” for the 15 active judges on the court. Clerks utilize an electronic deck of cards for each category to determine which judge will handle a newly filed case.
“That’s how it works and that’s how all cases have continued to be assigned in this court,” Boasberg stated, having served as chief judge since 2023.
Litigation associated with actions taken by the administration and Trump himself has surged since he entered office in January, with over 70 notable cases filed in D.C. federal court. Nearly all judges in that court now have at least one Trump-related case.
Trump and his allies have launched a public campaign against Boasberg, calling for his impeachment following a recent ruling—upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday—prohibiting the administration from executing deportations based on Trump’s assertion of war powers.
In that case, Justice Department lawyers have contended that the government was not obligated to adhere to an oral order issued by Boasberg, maintaining that only a subsequent docket entry holds relevance. Boasberg appeared to refer to this Thursday as he reassured Richer that she wouldn't need to meticulously note every detail he provided regarding his order about the Signal messages.
“Don’t worry, it’ll be in writing,” the judge assured.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued the preservation order on Thursday following a request from a transparency organization that filed a lawsuit claiming the app’s automatic deletion feature posed a risk of violating the Federal Records Act by potentially destroying these messages.
During a brief hearing, Justice Department attorney Amber Richer informed Boasberg that such an order might not be necessary as the involved agencies were already taking measures to preserve the records. However, she indicated no objection to the judge formalizing this with a court order.
“We are still in the process of working with agencies to determine what records they have, but we are also working with the agencies to preserve whatever records they have,” Richer noted.
However, the government lawyer seemed to recognize a Treasury Department statement from earlier in the day indicating that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent currently possesses only a portion of the message chain concerning the Yemen strike.
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, who was included in the message chain, reported that the conversation began on March 11. Bessent, however, seemingly has only retained messages beginning the afternoon of March 15. The reason for the absence of earlier messages, and whether other senior officials have retained them, remains unclear.
“I just want to caveat that we are still ascertaining what records the agencies have,” Richer reiterated to Boasberg.
The Atlantic published some of the messages this week and the remainder on Wednesday, following the White House's assertion that it did not classify the communications, even though they outlined the scope and timeline of a military operation that had yet to take place.
The Atlantic also conveyed that national security adviser Mike Waltz, who initiated the conversation, initially set the app to auto-delete messages after a week before changing it to four weeks.
From the bench, Boasberg issued a directive to the defendants in the case—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—“to preserve all Signal communications between March 11 and March 15.” This instruction likely extends beyond just the messages shared with Goldberg, potentially encompassing other Signal communications sent or received during that period.
Additionally, a Pentagon attorney submitted a declaration indicating that the Defense Department was also aiming to preserve the records, though it did not imply they had recovered any. The administration contended that the Atlantic’s publication of the full exchange, aside from the redaction of a CIA officer’s name, had guaranteed the messages would be preserved.
Boasberg's order was a response to the lawsuit filed on Tuesday by the pro-transparency group American Oversight, which claimed that the messages were at risk of deletion in violation of the Federal Records Act and that Trump administration officials appeared to be utilizing the ephemeral messaging app to sidestep federal recordkeeping regulations.
During the hearing, Richer did not concede that the messages were legally obligated to be preserved, stating that government lawyers “have not fully evaluated that issue.” It is important to note that federal law does not mandate the preservation of every email or message sent or received by federal employees, even if the content pertains to official matters.
In a rare prelude to the hearing, Boasberg addressed a social media post from President Donald Trump, who had suggested without substantiation that Boasberg had improperly assumed control of the politically sensitive case. Trump described it as “disgraceful” that Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has been assigned several civil cases of interest to the White House recently. Boasberg is not only overseeing the Signal case but also the matter of Trump’s attempts to expedite deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
"Boasberg … seems to be grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself,” Trump remarked. “Is there still such a thing as the ‘wheel,’ where the judges are chosen fairly and at random?”
Boasberg subtly acknowledged that “some questions have been raised” about the court's case assignment process. He explained that, in nearly all instances, cases are assigned randomly across various categories “to assure a more even distribution of cases” for the 15 active judges on the court. Clerks utilize an electronic deck of cards for each category to determine which judge will handle a newly filed case.
“That’s how it works and that’s how all cases have continued to be assigned in this court,” Boasberg stated, having served as chief judge since 2023.
Litigation associated with actions taken by the administration and Trump himself has surged since he entered office in January, with over 70 notable cases filed in D.C. federal court. Nearly all judges in that court now have at least one Trump-related case.
Trump and his allies have launched a public campaign against Boasberg, calling for his impeachment following a recent ruling—upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday—prohibiting the administration from executing deportations based on Trump’s assertion of war powers.
In that case, Justice Department lawyers have contended that the government was not obligated to adhere to an oral order issued by Boasberg, maintaining that only a subsequent docket entry holds relevance. Boasberg appeared to refer to this Thursday as he reassured Richer that she wouldn't need to meticulously note every detail he provided regarding his order about the Signal messages.
“Don’t worry, it’ll be in writing,” the judge assured.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
