Subject: Re: Hegseth Accidentally Texted...
I read most of the article early today before events distracted me. What I think no one has pointed out is that in Signal, you can set a time where the thread is deleted. All of these conversations are by law to be preserved. Now, why someone would think this conversation needed to be deleted seems to rest on Signal being used. See Grok's last paragraph, but I'm impressed with this Grok thing, Wish it wasn't associated with Musk.


What are the legal problems with the Houthi operation being discussed on Signal?

4 posts 15 web pages

Your question likely refers to the reported incident where senior Trump administration officials discussed U.S. military plans for strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen on the encrypted messaging app Signal, inadvertently including a journalist in the chat. Based on available information up to March 24, 2025, here are the potential legal problems associated with this situation:
Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information: The U.S. government classifies military operation details, such as targets, timing, and weaponry for strikes like those against the Houthis on March 15, 2025. Discussing such details on Signal—a commercial, non-government-approved platform—could violate laws like the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793). This law prohibits the willful communication of national defense information to unauthorized persons, including through negligence if it risks exposure. If the chat included specifics (e.g., “targets, weapons, and attack sequencing,” as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic), and a journalist accessed it, this could constitute an unauthorized disclosure, even if accidental.

Use of Non-Secure Communication Channels: Federal regulations, including those under the National Security Act and policies from the National Security Agency (NSA) and Department of Defense (DoD), mandate that classified information be transmitted only via approved, secure systems (e.g., JWICS or SIPRNet). Signal, while encrypted, is not certified for classified discussions because it lacks government oversight, auditability, and protection against device vulnerabilities. Using it for operational planning could breach these regulations, potentially leading to administrative penalties or criminal charges if it’s deemed reckless or willful.

Operational Security (OPSEC) Violations: Beyond legal statutes, discussing sensitive plans on Signal undermines OPSEC, a military protocol to prevent adversaries from gaining actionable intelligence. If Houthi forces or their Iranian backers intercepted the chat (unlikely but possible if devices were compromised), it could endanger U.S. troops or mission success. While not a direct “legal” issue, OPSEC breaches can trigger investigations under military law (e.g., Uniform Code of Military Justice) for officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who reportedly participated.

Potential Espionage Act Violation: Legal experts, as noted in posts on X and news reports, have suggested that National Security Adviser Michael Waltz (who allegedly initiated the chat) and others could face scrutiny under the Espionage Act. A key threshold is whether their actions showed “gross negligence” in handling classified information, a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Accidentally adding a journalist might not meet the “intent” requirement for espionage, but it could still prompt a Department of Justice probe, especially given public and congressional outrage (e.g., Senator Chuck Schumer’s call for an investigation).

Accountability and Chain of Command Issues: If the chat involved Vice President JD Vance, Hegseth, Waltz, and others coordinating strikes without proper documentation or oversight, it might violate internal White House and DoD protocols. The Presidential Records Act requires official business to be preserved, and casual Signal use could skirt this, though it’s a civil rather than criminal matter. More critically, bypassing secure channels risks miscommunication or unauthorized decisions, potentially implicating participants in any resulting operational failures.

Context and Caveats
What Happened: On March 11, 2025, Waltz reportedly added Goldberg to a Signal group named “Houthi PC small group,” where officials discussed the March 15 strikes. Goldberg saw detailed plans two hours before bombs fell, as reported by The Atlantic and confirmed as “authentic” by the White House.

Why It’s a Problem: The exposure compromised secrecy, embarrassed the administration, and raised questions about competence. The Houthis, already retaliating (e.g., attacking the USS Harry S. Truman on March 16), didn’t need the leak to respond, but it could embolden adversaries or strain allies’ trust.

Legal Uncertainty: No formal charges have been reported by March 24, 2025. Prosecutors would need to prove intent or gross negligence, which is tricky given the “inadvertent” addition of Goldberg. Political pressure might drive an investigation, but outcomes are speculative.

In short, the legal problems stem from mishandling classified information, using an unapproved platform, and risking national security—potentially violating the Espionage Act and federal security protocols. The incident’s fallout depends on whether it’s treated as a sloppy mistake or a prosecutable breach.