If you like articles from The Big Con, hit the like button, subscribe, comment, and recommend us in your Substack recommendations. It really helps get the newsletter to more people.
SignalGate exposed a breach of protocol by senior U.S. government officials who used the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss classified national security matters. What began as a routine operational discussion spiraled into a significant leak when Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat named "Houthi PC small group." The chat, involving 19 high-ranking Trump administration officials, contained sensitive details about planned U.S. airstrikes in Yemen, sparking widespread concerns about security practices, accountability, and strained alliances.
The absence of substantive dialogue in the chat highlights a broader need for accountability when using lethal force abroad, amplifying the scandal’s significance beyond mere protocol breaches. The leaked chat revealed that officials swiftly pivoted to operational specifics of airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, with scant discussion of the broader consequences or morality of such actions. This haste has fueled concerns about normalizing military interventions without rigorous scrutiny.
Reports suggest the U.S. maintains pre-approved strike plans—or "strike packages"—for groups like the Houthis, enabling rapid execution with minimal debate. While efficient, the strike package approach may sidestep critical questions about the necessity and justification of such strikes. For example, the destruction of the missile expert’s girlfriend’s building—and the resulting civilian deaths—raise unanswered questions about collateral damage. SignalGate has thus reignited debates about the ethics of bombing and military intervention, with calls for more transparent and reflective decision-making processes.
The Signal App and Its Misuse
Signal, renowned for its robust end-to-end encryption and open-source code, is a favored tool among privacy advocates, journalists, and activists. However, its use by senior Trump administration officials—including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—to discuss classified military operations violated standard government protocols. These protocols mandate secure, government-approved systems for handling sensitive information. Experts emphasize that Signal’s security features did not fail. Instead, the breach stemmed from human error and the improper use of the tool for national security matters.
Compounding the issue, Signal’s disappearing messages feature was set to delete chats after one week. This raises significant legal and ethical concerns around government transparency. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Records Act (FRA), federal agencies are required to retain records that document government activities—such as military plans or policy decisions—for transparency and historical value. The use of disappearing messages could violate these laws by preventing proper preservation and record-keeping. Given Trump’s focus on transparency—with frequent press conferences and the release of formerly classified materials to the American public—the use of this feature directly contradicts this supposed value.
Intent matters: courts and oversight bodies might view this as a deliberate attempt to evade transparency if no alternative archiving method was used. The lack of documented retention policies in this case mirrors past concerns about the Biden administration’s use of Signal. Whether this constitutes a clear violation hinges on how the messages were handled, but the absence of clarity only deepens the scandal. Funny enough… Trump 1.0 officials reportedly debated whether to ask Congress to outlaw end-to-end encryption in 2019.
The incident came to light when Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was mistakenly added to the chat by Waltz, exposing operational details of airstrike plans targeting Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. The leak not only revealed the plans but also highlighted the casual—and potentially unlawful—nature of the discussions, amplifying questions about the administration’s adherence to security and accountability standards.
Finally, it outed Waltz as a potential source of leaks for not just the Trump administration. After all, Waltz has been in the defense and intelligence communities for decades. He worked in the Pentagon as a defense policy director for secretaries of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. Waltz also served in the Bush administration as a defense policy director in the Pentagon and as counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Players and the Chat
The "Houthi PC small group" included prominent figures such as National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Vice President JD Vance, and Trump’s Homeland Security adviser and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. Their conversations revealed critical details:
Allied Dynamics: Waltz referenced Israel’s plans for a separate strike and potential requests for U.S. compensation, alongside frustrations over European reliance on American military support for shipping lane security. Vance mentioned not wanting to bail out Europe. Miller stated that the U.S. would “make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return.”
Intelligence Operations: Ratcliffe disclosed CIA efforts to monitor Houthi leadership, hinting at aerial surveillance tactics that could compromise U.S. capabilities. Waltz detailed the identification of a Houthi missile expert entering his girlfriend’s residence, which was later destroyed in a U.S. airstrike. “We identified him going into the building where his girlfriend was. The building has now collapsed,” he wrote, underscoring the precision—and sensitivity—of the intelligence.
Airstrike Logistics: Hegseth shared specifics about the timing, sequencing, and weaponry of the planned strikes, potentially risking the safety of the mission if exposed.
The Israeli Connection
The source of the intelligence behind National Security Adviser Mike Waltz’s precise claim—tracking a Houthi missile expert into his girlfriend’s building—remains unclear, with plausible cases for both U.S. and Israeli origins. The leaked Signal chat offers no definitive answer, leaving room for speculation about how such detailed information was obtained.
One possibility is advanced U.S. surveillance technology. Military drones equipped with high-resolution cameras, thermal imaging, and multispectral sensors can monitor targets in real time, providing the kind of granular data Waltz described. CNN reported that U.S. officials were alarmed by the chat’s references to intelligence sources and methods, hinting that the CIA may have used overhead surveillance to spy on Houthi leadership. This approach would not require foreign input.
Alternatively, unnamed sources suggest that Israel is the source of the intelligence. Reports from the Wall Street Journal, citing two unnamed U.S. officials, and Israel’s Ynetnews assert that Israel supplied highly sensitive details—possibly from a human informant in Yemen—about a senior Houthi figure targeted in the strike.
As of today, the claims remain shrouded in uncertainty. Israeli officials’ reported frustration over the exposure could signal either a genuine breach of their asset—or a convenient deflection to obscure the actual source.
The lack of explicit confirmation keeps the origin of the intelligence ambiguous. Past journalistic errors, like Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction or initial dismissals of Hunter Biden’s laptop, urge caution in accepting the Israeli link without scrutiny. The leak’s fallout has strained U.S.-Israel relations, but whether this reflects a compromised asset or diplomatic posturing is unclear. Either way, the truth is as elusive as the chat’s security.
Why Israel’s Role Raises Questions
Israel’s reported involvement in providing intelligence on the real-time location of the Houthi missile expert entering his girlfriend’s residence prompts scrutiny. If Israel sought to openly take credit for identifying the strike’s target, several strategic factors could explain this.
First, public acknowledgment could bolster Israel’s image as a key player in countering Iranian-backed threats like the Houthis, who threaten both Israeli security and regional stability. By showcasing its intelligence capabilities, Israel might aim to reinforce its value to allies like the U.S., particularly amid tensions over burden-sharing in the Middle East. Additionally, claiming credit could serve domestic political purposes, rallying support for a government facing internal challenges by highlighting its proactive stance against adversaries.
Yet, the SignalGate leak complicates this narrative. Israeli officials reportedly expressed anger over the exposure of their asset, suggesting they did not intend for their role to become public—at least not in this uncontrolled manner. The breach, attributed to Waltz’s careless inclusion of Goldberg in the chat, likely forced Israel into a reactive position rather than a deliberate publicity move. This misalignment raises doubts about whether Israel sought credit or was instead dragged into the spotlight by U.S. mishandling.
More puzzling is the nature of the intelligence itself. If Israel was not directly involved in the U.S. airstrike operation, how and why would its intelligence include real-time details of the target’s movements?
One possibility is that Israel maintained an active human asset in Yemen with ongoing access to Houthi activities. Reports suggest that this informant provided granular updates, which the U.S. then acted upon, implying either continuous monitoring or a timely handoff of actionable intelligence.
Alternatively, Israel could have employed advanced technical means—such as satellite imagery or intercepted communications—shared with the U.S. in real time. However, drones or surveillance technology alone may not provide the intimate detail unless paired with human confirmation. If true, this level of involvement suggests deeper operational entanglement than Israel (or the U.S.) might publicly admit.
Another angle is strategic signaling. By providing real-time intelligence, Israel might have aimed to ensure the strike’s success, protecting its own interests—like neutralizing Houthi missile threats to Red Sea shipping lanes—while avoiding direct military engagement that could escalate tensions with Iran or its proxies. Sharing such precise data could also pressure the U.S. to act swiftly, aligning with Israel’s broader goal of countering Iranian influence without committing its own forces. The ambiguity fuels speculation about the true extent of Israel’s role and the risks it faced when secrecy unraveled.
Fallout and Implications
SignalGate has unleashed a wave of criticism over U.S. intelligence security practices. The scandal drives home a key point: even top-tier tools like Signal, with its robust encryption, hinge on the protocols guiding their use. The technology did not fail—human judgment did.
The exposure of operational details and intelligence methods has raised legal questions, including potential violations of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of classified information. Domestically, the scandal has fueled debates about accountability at the highest levels of government. Allies like Israel are reevaluating the reliability of U.S. safeguards.
At the intersection of technology and secrecy, SignalGate is a sharp warning: the user, not the tool, is often the weakest link. Waltz’s claim that contacts were "sucked" into has drawn accusations of deflecting blame—especially since the breach boils down to a simple misuse of Signal for classified chats. Adding a twist, his open Venmo friends list, featuring journalists like CNN’s Brianna Keilar, Fox News’ Bret Baier, and MSNBC’s Lauren Peikoff, raises eyebrows. Given his role in adding Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, Waltz’s long career in defense and intelligence only sharpens scrutiny of his ties to reporters.
SignalGate has ignited widespread controversy and calls for accountability. Regardless of how Trump administration wrestles with the aftermath, experts urge stricter use of approved systems for classified communications and better training for officials managing sensitive information.
Trump’s reputation for swift decisions—captured in his famous "You’re fired" catchphrase—sets expectations for a strong response. The administration’s push to streamline government operations dovetails with public irritation over SignalGate’s display of incompetence. Removing National Security Adviser Mike Waltz could answer calls for accountability, limit political damage, and reassure allies about U.S. security measures.
Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and top personnel official Sergio Gor reportedly advocate for Waltz’s dismissal, seeing him as the key figure behind the leaked airstrike plans. They argue his exit could rebuild trust and reinforce protocol adherence, though it’s unclear if this alone addresses deeper issues—like juggling efficiency, security, and transparency—laid bare by the scandal’s exposure of operational flaws.
The scandal is still in the headlines, despite the administration’s hopes it would fade. It highlights a thin debate over military actions and a sidestepping of transparency, a core pledge in Trump’s appeal to voters tired of endless wars and hidden government dealings. It also suggests weak accountability, striking a chord with MAGA supporters wary of unchecked power. This clash between promises and reality keeps the issue alive, as critics question whether the administration can live up to its own standards.
Share this post