That Signal Chat

Implications of a Signal chat about a forthcoming military campaign against the Houthis

Aircraft on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in the Red Sea. Source: U.S. Navy

In the last few hours, it has been revealed that a journalist was accidentally added to a Signal chat where senior U.S. decision makers were discussing a forthcoming military operation to target the Houthis, and to remove the threat to shipping in that region.

You can read the story at this link.

A few things about this chat stand out.

First, why are they using Signal for a discussion about a future military operation? I know it is a very useful and relatively secure communications tool employed by many of us. But how can it be that the most senior advisors to the President of the United States can discuss a sensitive military operation on a commercial app? Why aren’t they using more secure communications that are assured by the NSA or another government communications agency?

Second, by using Signal for such a sensitive issue, the participants demonstrate a cavalier attitude to operational security. For a Secretary of Defense who allegedly values a warfighting ethos, this shortfall in security is appalling. In normal times, this would see people sacked. I don’t expect that in this case though because these are not normal times.

Third, by communicating on devices which were transmitting information about a future operation in real time to a journalist, the conversation may also have been compromised by other foreign interested parties. As a result, might the entire operation to strike the Houthis have been compromised, and the lives of military personnel put at risk?

A fourth issue is that of ‘extracting a return’ from Europe, as one of the participants of the conversation described it. I know we are now in a ‘no values, all transaction’ strategic environment, but if you are going to get someone to pay for something, perhaps you might consult with them first.

Related to this was JD Vance’s continuing discourse on ‘bad Europe’. As he made clear in Munich, this guy has a real thing against Europe and Europeans. If I was him, I would not be holding out for any invitations back to the Continent any time soon.

The conversation also revealed yet again this administration’s unwillingness to play the role that American governments have for the past three quarters of a century - to help secure the major seaways of the world for free trade. Where once this was seen as responsibility for U.S. administrations, and something that was good for America and everyone else, this administration sees such responsibilities as an albatross around its neck.

There will also be many allies looking at this and wondering how secure their conversations with the administration are. They will be wondering about the security of their information shared with this administration. What impact does this have on the trust between senior administration members and their counterparts in allied nations?

In the past, there would have been an investigation into this security breach. Changes would have been made. People would have been sacked. What are the chances of this in the current environment?

The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has already stated that he doesn’t think that the conversation participants should be punished.

Finally, there is one glaring issue that should also be tackled. That is the role of the journalist involved. At what point should he have notified other participants that he wasn’t sure he should be in this chat? Clearly he would have divined pretty quickly the national security implications of the conversation he had accidentally been included in.

The participants of the conversation did not knowingly share sensitive information with him, despite his accidental addition to the address list. Should concerns about compromising a military operation have imposed a greater responsibility on him to declare his presence in the chat, or do journalistic imperatives over ride such issues?