“Signalgate:” Sound and Fury, or Signifying Nothing?

In The Lord of the Rings, the wizards Gandalf and Saruman disagree over whether to use a palantír (Tolkien’s version of a crystal ball) to communicate across Middle-earth.

Gandalf warns Saruman — his superior — that, among other pitfalls, “we do not know who else may be watching.” For this, insolence, Saruman locks him up.

But Gandalf was ultimately proven right. It turned out that Sauron, the Dark Lord himself, was backdooring such devices and learning of the good side’s plans — and Saruman was on the take the whole time.

Recently, a similar scenario played out in the real world, when National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, in a Signal chat with several senior Trump administration officials (or at least their designated proxies), was discussing upcoming air strikes on the Houthis of Yemen.

Unfortunately for him, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg had also been added, inexplicably, to the chat group. Goldberg — editor in chief of the leftist publication The Atlantic — later shared that info with the public on March 24 and, in even greater detail, on March 26. Goldberg isn’t Sauron, although he seems to deem Trump as such. And while it’s fashionable to knock The Atlantic as a marginal magazine, it does have over a million paid subscribers, albeit mostly in the liberal ranks. That coverage has certainly helped give the story legs, as it was the main topic of conversation and contention at the Senate Intelligence Committee’s annual worldwide threats hearing earlier this week.

Democrats have been rejoicing, thinking they’ve finally found a salient way to attack the Trump administration. Republicans are repeating that it’s a “nothingburger” while simultaneously using the tu quoque counterattack that Democrats didn’t care about national security when they propped up an addled president whose administration was waving millions of unvetted illegals aliens across our borders.

Waltz’s Signal snafu isn’t the “Pentagon Papers,” and he isn’t Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, contra Democratic hyperventilating. But Republican insouciance is far too dismissive, as there are legitimates lines of concern here.

What Is Signal?

First, what exactly is Signal, and why is this an issue?

It is an “open source, encrypted messaging service” which evolved out of earlier systems, thanks in no small part to substantial US government (specifically CIA) funding through various cut-outs. Politicians and government officials of both parties started using it on their phones shortly after Joe Biden took office in 2021 to communicate on the “high side” instead of going into Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) for their most private discussions — and in fact, the Biden administration approved Signal for phone communications by such individuals in the last yearn — although that was done by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency which, as I wrote about at length last month, led the charge in persecuting any Americans who dared question the official narrative during the COVID pandemic.

But Signal was never approved for disseminating classified data. Also, it appears that the system’s security may be overrated, and users may in fact not be certain who else is watching or listening in.

Was Waltz Set Up?

So how did a pro-Hillary Clinton journalist wind up in that rarefied chat group?

No one knows for sure — not even Waltz, who admitted as much in an interview with Laura Ingraham: “I take full responsibility, I built the group,” he said.

But he also added that Goldberg’s number “looked like someone else,” although Waltz emphasized he’d never previously been in contact with him. So how did Goldberg’s number get into his phone, and from there into that chat group?

CIA techs loaded Signal onto relevant government officials’ phones when the new administration came into power, so it’s reasonable to ask whether the intelligence community set this up. After all, President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, had the agency spying on the Senate, and was never held to account for those actions.

It’s not paranoia when they really are out to get you. This angle needs to be investigated.

Was Classified Info Revealed?

Now, about the subject matter. Democrats and the media insist that Waltz et al. discussed classified information on the call; Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Congressional Republicans, and the president himself deny that allegation. Per Goldberg, most of the group chat concerned the strategy behind US attacks on Iran’s proxies in Yemen, and how engaging them would help the Europeans despite their military impotence.

But “31 minutes before the first airplane launched,” Hegseth posted the time points that the strikes would commence and noted that “target terrorist is @ his known location.” Goldberg editorializes that

if this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests — or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media — the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.

Ironically, Hegseth also added, “We are currently clean on OPSEC [operational security].” Hegseth then informed others in the chat that certain targets had been destroyed, to which group members responded with various approving icons.

Felonious, or Merely Foolish?

Goldberg, I must admit, has a point. While the information shared was not technically classified — and in any event, dissemination thereof to “an unauthorized person” had to have been done “knowingly and willfully” in order to prosecute them — Waltz (and arguably others in the group chat) showed incredibly bad judgment by holding such a discussion in a venue in which he/they weren’t absolutely certain who was watching.

Complaining about European countries’ Red Sea shipping security policy is one thing; pre-game gloating and prognostication about an upcoming US military operation is something else. Since hacking Signal may not exceed the capabilities of Russian, Chinese, or even Iranian intelligence, any of them might have been able to warn the Houthis in time to increase the potential effectiveness of their air defense systems — thus needlessly compounding the risk for American pilots. It’s not a catastrophic risk, as Goldberg claims, but certainly an unnecessary one.

A few Trump supporters, some anonymously, have said the president should fire Waltz. That’s probably excessive.

Trump so far is supporting his NSA, and Attorney General Pam Bondi said she has no plans to investigate “Signalgate” as a violation of the Espionage Act. Bottom line: this chat group was foolish, not felonious. They’re lucky that it wasn’t the dark lords of Moscow, Beijing, or Tehran watching, but merely a Democrat mouthpiece.

In politics it’s sometimes better to be lucky than good. But Michael Waltz had better start relying on his brains rather than luck — because the latter always, runs out eventually.

Timothy Furnish has a PhD from Ohio State in Islamic, World & African history. He’s been an Arabic interrogator in the 101st Airborne, a US Special Operations Command analyst, an author and professor. Furnish is the military/security affairs writer for The Stream.