The Possible Legal Consequences of the Signal Group Chat Leak
Below are the potential laws that could have been violated.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump is under intense political scrutiny following a decision by key national security officials to engage in informal text messaging regarding an upcoming military operation in Yemen.
Using the commercial app Signal for this conversation might have been ill-advised on its own, but inadvertently including Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg exacerbated the situation both politically and potentially legally.
Several Trump Cabinet officials involved—such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—were vocal critics of Hillary Clinton, labeling her reckless for using a private email account and server during her tenure as Secretary of State. This has provided Democrats, including Clinton, with an opportunity to highlight perceived hypocrisy.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has maintained that no “war plans” were discussed in the messages. Nevertheless, the central question is whether any legal repercussions will arise from the unusual use of Signal or the communications with Goldberg.
### 1. Did the Signal chat violate the Espionage Act, and will anyone be prosecuted?
There's a compelling argument that the careless use of Signal may have breached the Espionage Act, as it makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to manage national security secrets with such “gross negligence” that they could end up in unauthorized hands. Yet, actual prosecution seems unlikely.
While Trump administration officials claimed the chat contents were unclassified, Goldberg contends that the information he received included sensitive details about targets, weapons, and the timing of planned U.S. strikes.
Technically, violating the Espionage Act can occur even with unclassified information if it pertains to national defense and is “closely held.” However, such cases are uncommon. Given the broad language of the Act, prosecutors tend to avoid pursuing unintentional disclosures, even though these incidents may jeopardize careers.
Goldberg noted that the chats also revealed the name of an “undercover” CIA officer, which he chose to withhold. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act criminalizes the intentional disclosure of a covert agent's identity.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe reassured that the officer mentioned is one of his aides and is not undercover, deeming the use of her name in the discussions as “completely appropriate.”
Another reason the Trump officials might be less concerned is that any prosecution would need to be initiated by the Justice Department. Considering the White House’s efforts to downplay the incident, it appears improbable that Attorney General Pam Bondi would take action. FBI Director Kash Patel stated on Tuesday that he had no updates for senators regarding any ongoing investigations.
### 2. Is it legal for officials to use Signal for official communications?
While it's not inherently illegal, it can run into conflicts with the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act, which establish guidelines for the preservation of records.
The app's frequently used “disappearing messages” feature poses its own challenges. Goldberg published a screenshot indicating that the chat was set to delete messages automatically after four weeks.
A law signed by President Barack Obama in 2014 mandates that federal employees using personal accounts for official business must transfer those messages to an official account within 20 days for record-keeping purposes. Since the Signal conversations occurred about 10 days ago, there remains time for compliance.
The seemingly casual use of Signal by high-ranking Trump administration officials raises concerns regarding how previous communications about official business were managed and whether they were properly documented as required by law.
### 3. Which agencies would investigate this, and do they have any conflicts of interest?
Federal agencies are generally mandated to report unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the Justice Department. However, if the Trump administration asserts that the Signal information was unclassified, there would be no obligation to report.
Allegations of failures to preserve or maintain records lawfully fall under the purview of the National Archives and Records Administration, which keeps track of such complaints. A complicating factor is Rubio's role as a participant in the discussions about military strikes. While serving as Secretary of State, he is also acting head of the National Archives after being appointed following Trump’s dismissal of a Senate-confirmed official to that position.
As of Tuesday, a spokesperson for the National Archives had not responded to inquiries regarding whether the agency is investigating the use of Signal and whether Rubio intends to recuse himself.
### 4. Is this the same thing Hillary Clinton did?
There are significant parallels between the Trump officials’ use of Signal and Clinton’s private email account use during her time as Secretary of State. Both scenarios highlight the challenges of government systems for officials who travel abroad or need to handle sensitive discussions outside normal hours.
Details about the sensitivity of the exchanged information in both instances remain unclear. Clinton and her aides sent or received emails concerning drone strikes in Pakistan at times when discussions deemed classified were not explicitly marked as such.
The Signal chats theoretically offer greater security than a standard email account due to their end-to-end encryption. However, the National Security Agency cautioned last month that Signal could be compromised by snooping software. Additionally, mistakenly adding an unintended participant to the chat would undermine its security regardless of the app’s technology.
Critics argue that the lack of accountability and prosecution for high-level officials regarding their handling of national security secrets complicates the pursuit of justice against lower-level employees accused of similar breaches.
### 5. Do Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic face any legal exposure?
Experts suggest that Goldberg and his magazine are unlikely to face legal consequences from this incident primarily because he was merely on the receiving end of the war plans. First Amendment advocates believe the Trump administration might consider charging a journalist under the Espionage Act; however, the feasibility of such action in this case is questionable.
In fact, some argue that during Trump’s first term, his administration did utilize the law against journalists, such as when it indicted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who later pleaded guilty to a single felony count.
However, prosecuting a mainstream American journalist could evoke far more controversy than actions taken against Assange. In just a couple of months in office, the Trump administration has already made public the initiation of several leak investigations; however, as of now the Espionage Act remains untouched in this context.
Aarav Patel for TROIB News
Using the commercial app Signal for this conversation might have been ill-advised on its own, but inadvertently including Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg exacerbated the situation both politically and potentially legally.
Several Trump Cabinet officials involved—such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—were vocal critics of Hillary Clinton, labeling her reckless for using a private email account and server during her tenure as Secretary of State. This has provided Democrats, including Clinton, with an opportunity to highlight perceived hypocrisy.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has maintained that no “war plans” were discussed in the messages. Nevertheless, the central question is whether any legal repercussions will arise from the unusual use of Signal or the communications with Goldberg.
### 1. Did the Signal chat violate the Espionage Act, and will anyone be prosecuted?
There's a compelling argument that the careless use of Signal may have breached the Espionage Act, as it makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to manage national security secrets with such “gross negligence” that they could end up in unauthorized hands. Yet, actual prosecution seems unlikely.
While Trump administration officials claimed the chat contents were unclassified, Goldberg contends that the information he received included sensitive details about targets, weapons, and the timing of planned U.S. strikes.
Technically, violating the Espionage Act can occur even with unclassified information if it pertains to national defense and is “closely held.” However, such cases are uncommon. Given the broad language of the Act, prosecutors tend to avoid pursuing unintentional disclosures, even though these incidents may jeopardize careers.
Goldberg noted that the chats also revealed the name of an “undercover” CIA officer, which he chose to withhold. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act criminalizes the intentional disclosure of a covert agent's identity.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe reassured that the officer mentioned is one of his aides and is not undercover, deeming the use of her name in the discussions as “completely appropriate.”
Another reason the Trump officials might be less concerned is that any prosecution would need to be initiated by the Justice Department. Considering the White House’s efforts to downplay the incident, it appears improbable that Attorney General Pam Bondi would take action. FBI Director Kash Patel stated on Tuesday that he had no updates for senators regarding any ongoing investigations.
### 2. Is it legal for officials to use Signal for official communications?
While it's not inherently illegal, it can run into conflicts with the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act, which establish guidelines for the preservation of records.
The app's frequently used “disappearing messages” feature poses its own challenges. Goldberg published a screenshot indicating that the chat was set to delete messages automatically after four weeks.
A law signed by President Barack Obama in 2014 mandates that federal employees using personal accounts for official business must transfer those messages to an official account within 20 days for record-keeping purposes. Since the Signal conversations occurred about 10 days ago, there remains time for compliance.
The seemingly casual use of Signal by high-ranking Trump administration officials raises concerns regarding how previous communications about official business were managed and whether they were properly documented as required by law.
### 3. Which agencies would investigate this, and do they have any conflicts of interest?
Federal agencies are generally mandated to report unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the Justice Department. However, if the Trump administration asserts that the Signal information was unclassified, there would be no obligation to report.
Allegations of failures to preserve or maintain records lawfully fall under the purview of the National Archives and Records Administration, which keeps track of such complaints. A complicating factor is Rubio's role as a participant in the discussions about military strikes. While serving as Secretary of State, he is also acting head of the National Archives after being appointed following Trump’s dismissal of a Senate-confirmed official to that position.
As of Tuesday, a spokesperson for the National Archives had not responded to inquiries regarding whether the agency is investigating the use of Signal and whether Rubio intends to recuse himself.
### 4. Is this the same thing Hillary Clinton did?
There are significant parallels between the Trump officials’ use of Signal and Clinton’s private email account use during her time as Secretary of State. Both scenarios highlight the challenges of government systems for officials who travel abroad or need to handle sensitive discussions outside normal hours.
Details about the sensitivity of the exchanged information in both instances remain unclear. Clinton and her aides sent or received emails concerning drone strikes in Pakistan at times when discussions deemed classified were not explicitly marked as such.
The Signal chats theoretically offer greater security than a standard email account due to their end-to-end encryption. However, the National Security Agency cautioned last month that Signal could be compromised by snooping software. Additionally, mistakenly adding an unintended participant to the chat would undermine its security regardless of the app’s technology.
Critics argue that the lack of accountability and prosecution for high-level officials regarding their handling of national security secrets complicates the pursuit of justice against lower-level employees accused of similar breaches.
### 5. Do Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic face any legal exposure?
Experts suggest that Goldberg and his magazine are unlikely to face legal consequences from this incident primarily because he was merely on the receiving end of the war plans. First Amendment advocates believe the Trump administration might consider charging a journalist under the Espionage Act; however, the feasibility of such action in this case is questionable.
In fact, some argue that during Trump’s first term, his administration did utilize the law against journalists, such as when it indicted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who later pleaded guilty to a single felony count.
However, prosecuting a mainstream American journalist could evoke far more controversy than actions taken against Assange. In just a couple of months in office, the Trump administration has already made public the initiation of several leak investigations; however, as of now the Espionage Act remains untouched in this context.
Aarav Patel for TROIB News
