Waltz's team set up at least 20 Signal group chats for crises across the world
214 comments
·April 2, 2025palata
krashidov
The logic is that since they are the bosses they can dictate what is classified and what is not. So something is classified until it's mishandled, at which point it's not classified, therefore it's not mishandled. lol.
mindslight
It's the first line of the thirty-three dog whistle defense. The followers accept that answer as King Krasnov having simply declared that any such information isn't classified, just like he did for those boxes of files exfiltrated to his bathroom-turned-guest-library. It's the adult version of a kid going "I'm not hitting my brother I'm just swinging my arms and walking forward". And then of course if the courts actually start to disagree, the neofascists ramp up the threats for stochastic violence.
palata
> It's the adult version of a kid going "I'm not hitting my brother I'm just swinging my arms and walking forward".
I always say that adults are kids who don't have the supervision anymore.
When a kid says "2 + 2 = 5" you can say "well you always fail your math exams, you obviously can't be trusted with that". When an adult says it... it becomes a "belief" and we "respectfully agree to disagree".
from-nibly
That's because we are too tired to argue.
AzzyHN
Trump has maintained he has the power to declassify things with his mind alone, so I'm sure this is entirely true. Whatever they were talking about, bam, it's no longer classified.
At least they're using Signal, I guess. Can you imagine if this leaked and they were using something like Telegram!?
palata
> Can you imagine if this leaked and they were using something like Telegram!?
That would be a lot more fun :-).
But I'm happy it's Signal: they apparently got a ton of downloads from all the attention and they deserve it.
lenerdenator
Any time you read anything having to do with this administration, remember:
The behavior will continue until an effective negative stimulus is given.
Then immediately stop reading. The details don't matter at this point.
jfengel
It has to be a stimulus they feel as negative.
Losing office is about the only unarguable one. Barring a coup, that isn't happening any time soon.
Practically any other stimulus will be perceived as positive.
caycep
In theory, Congressional investigation w/ power of subpoena and an ability to hand out prison sentences. Also in theory, if they lose office, subsequent admin needs to be able to prosecute. Assuming we can vote again in the future
nerdponx
We literally have a Supreme Court decision saying that the President has immunity as long as he was acting as part of his official duties. So while any clear-minded person will see that, say, running a protection racket on law firms from the White House is blatantly illegal and a crime, all Trump has to do is argue that he did so in his official capacity as president and not as a private citizen, and he is instantly 100% immune from consequences.
null
delusional
I think what the commenter says is more dire than that. Even after this administration, this is going to keep happening until a major event happens. It's not just about the ghouls in there now, it's about the ghouls that will follow.
simonh
A lot of people seem to think this is an anomaly, but they thought that about the first Trump term.
Fundamentally Trump is a symptom. When he goes, all the voters that voted for him will still be there, and they’ll still have all the reasons they voted for him.
mmooss
High-aggression is a negotiating tactic with basic goals - to intimidate the other side into thinking you are implacable, and to make you seem unstoppable.
It's a tactic. Like everyone else, they have interests and goals and needs, and they can be deterred in the same way. The problem is, nobody really tries. The Democrats keep doing the same ineffective things - a demonstration of being cowed and intimidated.
For example, the Dems have almost no ability to communicate with the public. Whatever Trump and the GOP say are effectively true because there is no counter voice (beyond some third parties). The Dems don't do anything about it; they just keep communicating in the same way.
The Dems have no talking points. A few of them are organizing now around 'economic populism' - in other words, they are completely cowed and will avoid all the major threats to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, safety; the corruption, cruelty, and hate. They are going to their safe space - economic policy!
jfengel
I can't imagine what kind of talking points one needs to offer past "uh, we aren't criminals and we're not incompetent".
If the response is "yeah, we're good with those things, what else have you got?" I don't know what to say. You want bread? Maybe some circuses?
The Democrats did have plenty of policies. Realistic ones. Not the most exciting. If the public wants to be excited, and aren't picky about it, then indeed they should have that. But I'm not going to be able to provide it.
curt15
>For example, the Dems have almost no ability to communicate with the public.
This +100. Even B Clinton as a 25+yr citizen communicates better with the public than 99% of active Dem politicians.
PJDK
Coming from a UK background something I've been long curious about is is there a constitutional reason for when the opposition presidential candidate is selected.
It seems like the current way of doing things leaves the opposition rudderless through most of a presidential term, followed by a bitter fight where their own side rip each other apart followed by only a few months to try and establish oneself as leader in waiting.
Could the democrats do their primaries now? It feels like that would 1. Distract from Trump so he doesn't get run of the news 2. Mean that all the "candidate X is a bad democrat" stories could be long forgotten by the next election. 3. Give a pedestal to the actual presidential candidate as the go to person for the media to get reactions from 4. If they turn out to be genuinely terrible there's a lot of time to find out and potentially replace them.
SJC_Hacker
> The Dems have no talking points. A few of them are organizing now around 'economic populism' - in other words, they are completely cowed and will avoid all the major threats to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, safety; the corruption, cruelty, and hate. They are going to their safe space - economic policy!
Because sadly, thats what the people respond to. When given the choice between food on the table / roof over their head / cash in the bank account and abstract values like "republican government", "rule of law" and "protecting human rights" etc. they will choose the former. Especially as long as its OTHER people's rights, and OTHER parties getting surpressed, they don't care quite so much. We've seen this play out in Russia. Granted they did not have the long history of Republican government that the US has had.
The irony with Trump is they may get neither. At least some of them. Authoritarians have way of mollifying that minimum % that actually matters. Mostly people with guns and willingness to use them. In the US we're talking as low as 25% (so 75% of us are effectively screwed). And when you have billionaires controlling the information space, it would be very difficult to organize opposition.
I'm now looking out to 2028. Trump and his cronies may be plotting to crash the system and "declare an emergency" so elections get suspended. Or the alternative, he just runs again and dares anyone to stop him. The blue/purple states should at the very least, bar him from appearing on the ballot there's a question of whether there will have enough backbone and could not be sufficiently threatened/bullied into backing down, or if he tries to pull a 2020 again with an "alternate electors", at the very least cause confusion so the election can be thrown to the House where GOP almost assuredly would have control over the state delegations. Lastly, the various Federal agencies, possibly even the military would be sufficiently "Trumpified" such that they will threaten, maybe even resort to force.
stevage
I think that's what effective means.
djeastm
>Then immediately stop reading. The details don't matter at this point.
That's truly an absurd suggestion. I hope you're just attempting to make some kind of point, but not suggesting people actually ignore "the details"
lenerdenator
People have been doing nothing but reading "the details" for the last ten years.
Where are we?
mmooss
I'd say it's the opposite. They are flooded with misinformation, disinformation, and disruptive trauma, and don't read the facts.
alaxhn
Does this sentiment extend more broadly than a single administration? Can we broadly expect many potentially problematic behaviors to continue until an effective negative stimulus is given?
It's interesting to me why this perspective is popular when applied a certain administration but not popular when applied to other things such as
* Poverty \ * Drug Addiction \ * Homelessness \ * Obesity \ * Undocumented Border Crossings
kelipso
This is what I find so funny about the oh so serious protests about the current administration that people make in these comments. When other administrations do the same thing, it's one excuse after another, or just silence. These people are just mindlessly posting based on political memes, they're simply not serious.
sorcerer-mar
Which other administration filed executive orders banning specific law firms from federal buildings and their customers from winning federal contracts because the law firm once employed a lawyer who once investigated or sued that administration?
I’ll wait.
JeremyNT
A truism, but:
There are a lot of Trump supporters on HN. More data points that highlight how incompetent or corrupt this administration is might eventually sway them.
Midterm and special elections are real points where negative stimuli could occur. If polling gets bad enough, swing state Republican politicians might start sweating sooner.
So maybe for you this is just obvious confirmation of what you already know. But by reporting and following up on this story, maybe some people will learn and understand something they did not before.
pjc50
Trump supporters are unswayable. The same rule about negative stimulus applies. Nothing you can say makes a difference, but if they start losing money eventually they might change behavior. Or they radicalize further.
Workaccount2
The dems paid an insanely heavy cost to appease the 1% of the population that is chronically on twitter. They lost mountains of votes to trump over that.
sorcerer-mar
There’s a core cult (not pejorative) that's unswayable, but that’s not who handed him political power. It was the politically disaffected people who he managed to reach and Dems failed to.
It’s worth speaking to those folks.
mmooss
> Trump supporters are unswayable.
You fell for the aggression tactic - it's just a cheap negotiating / political tactic. Act hyperagressive and some will believe you are unstoppable, implacable, etc.
JeremyNT
> Trump supporters are unswayable.
While they certainly love the guy, this is demonstrably untrue.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have had a President Biden interregnum.
Some degree of incompetence is certainly a bridge too far, at least for some of his supporters.
NickC25
It's just odd to me.
I mean, yeah the Democrat party sucks.
Here's this "macho tough guy" that wears a diaper, lifts, and makeup...who's famous for bankrupting a casino (twice), and was known for decades as a cartoon character, a clown, a moron. They hear the "on day 1" promises that won't ever get resolved. They see what happened the last time this guy took the wheel.
And they want more of it? Unswayable indeed.
I thought America was immune from fascism because it generally took the form of an idiotic leader that had charisma. I thought my fellow countrymen and countrywomen were smarter than that. Of all the people to succumb to, it's this fucking guy? Seriously?
the_optimist
You speak oddly of people like they are monolithic and lacking perceptive nuance (more like animals than any people I know). In the US, of all places, there is tremendous heterogeneity. What are the key elements that you know of “they”?
recoup-papyrus
We're not unswayable, I was swayed.
8 years ago, I was a left-libertarian living in SF and trying to convince Trump people to vote for Hillary because Trump was dishonest.
Then I was swayed because people provided information to me that changed my views. Now I view what Trump is doing now as FAR too moderate.
zombiwoof
Well said
Stimulus
the_optimist
You have remarkable authority on this. Can you tell us more about it?
bsimpson
One nice side effect of Signal's importance for governmental/military use is that it helps keep it free for civilian use. They can't mandate a backdoor for something other parts of the government rely on to be secure.
I once heard a great anecdote to that effect, and to my embarrassment I can't recall the details to repeat here.
(And yes, I understand that there are limits on what is appropriate to share with civilian hardware on a civilian network, but the truth stands that part of the reason there's not a push to breach encryption in the US like there is in the UK is because Signal is relied upon even by the government when they need a private channel on civilian hardware.)
kelipso
> They can't mandate a backdoor for something other parts of the government rely on to be secure.
This is a strong assumption.. A government is a collection of people. While there might not exactly be warring factions in the US government, there are certainly numerous agencies and organizations that operate under varying degrees of independence.
walterbell
News reports would be much clearer if each faction had a medieval crest, logo, or even UUID.
Yoric
Give them a NFT.
_the_inflator
Even more sinister is the false hope bias. The Signal app can be used as a honeypot to plant a pseudo-secure messenger, a sophisticated device around a backdoor, or even a trojan-like capability.
The Tor network was deemed the culprit of anonymity and secure connections not long ago. We all know how it went.
jerheinze
> The Signal app can be used as a honeypot to plant a pseudo-secure messenger
Given its open source nature that would be exceedingly difficult.
> The Tor network was deemed the culprit of anonymity and secure connections not long ago. We all know how it went.
What are you talking about? Tor is still the uncontested king of low-latency anonymity networks.
overfeed
> They can't mandate a backdoor for something other parts of the government rely on to be secure
Has the NSA moved on from the NOBUS ("NObody But US") doctrine? Empirically, they have been more than happy to keep any vulnerability (or backdoor) available if they believe only they can exploit it.
deelowe
> They can't mandate a backdoor for something other parts of the government rely on to be secure.
Why not? It wouldn't be difficult to have a backdoor in the civilian use-case that's disabled for government use.
simonh
A major reason for these people using Signal is specifically to avoid government access to records of these chats. In particular access by future administrations, or current or near future judicial or congressional investigations.
richardw
Now the task of an adversary is to simply enable the backdoor rather than create it from scratch. The people using Signal for this are doing it on their own devices, so now you have multiple problems.
Eg how to get non technical people to know when they’re using the civilian version.
Alternative crazy universe: Just use the tech that was created for the government and does all the right things.
moshun
But then you’re required to archive the discussions for the public to access. That’s much worse for these people than foreign agents (and journalists apparently) listening in and taking notes.
null
alp1n3_eth
You'd be surprised how much the government would potentially hurt itself in its own confusion. Not all parts of it are aligned to the same beliefs / mission, and there are certainly parts that believe in the saying "Why are you worried if you have nothing to hide".
aerostable_slug
There was a rather interesting criticism of the recent wide-ranging cuts to USAID that basically said it wasn't unlikely that some of that USAID money was being used in clandestine intelligence operations (supporting the tribe of this warlord or that, paying someone off, rewarding allegiances, whatever) that DOGE and perhaps even most at USAID would never, ever be cleared to know about. With the inability to prevent those aid packages from being cut without also blowing their operations, the intelligence community would just have to sit and watch it happen.
I of course have no way of knowing if that's true or not, or if it is what damage may have been done, but it's interesting to consider.
bsimpson
I don't claim to be an expert, nor to be able to speak credibly on the interactions of the millions of people in government.
I just remember hearing an anecdote from a friend with ties to Signal that some part of the government wanted to recommend it and another part slapped their hand because they didn't want to encourage people to use technology that law enforcement can't breach.
Even though I just use it for casual conversations with friends, that gave me some extra confidence in using it.
yongjik
Eh.... you think government officers who fat-clicked a journalist into a top secret discussion would care about whether some other three-letter agency has access to a backdoor in Signal?
For all we know, whoever US agent who was responsible for handling these potential "backdoors" is already laid off and is available for pickup by foreign governments with the right payment.
burn000burn
you believe that fat clicker story? consider this: what if they wanted to leak, they wanted to leak to someone that the bombings were going to put in immediate danger, and they added the journalist just in case the leak got exposed?
bayarearefugee
Doesn't pass the smell test for me. The most obvious answer is probably the correct one and IMO the most obvious situation would be:
Jeffrey Goldberg's number was absolutely in Mike Waltz' phone because Mike Waltz was one of his sources.
Mike Waltz accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat either due to a misclick or (more likely, IMO) being dumb enough to use a conflicting contact id label for multiple people and being careless when forming the list.
Not being able to admit to being a Goldberg source for political reasons, he (Waltz) made up some insane story about the number being 'sucked into his phone' and having never talked to Goldberg.
Additionally, I'd assume (based on being the most obvious solution) that Trump et al fully realize Waltz was both responsible for this screwup and would like to fire him for it but view firing him as giving "the libs" a win and have stubbornly kept him on despite not really wanting to (less because of his screwup and more because of who he accidentally added).
Spooky23
Lol. No.
BlackBerry was in the same position, and it was absolutely backdoored from a crypto perspective. The FBI doesn’t cry about iPhones anymore, so they’ve likely (along with other entities) identified alternate methods to access communications.
The use of these sorts of actions are about avoiding accountability, not security. Again, BlackBerry is the exemplar — PIN messaging was tied to a device, not a user. People 20 years ago were doing these signal chats with BlackBerry devices, swapping them around physically to build these groups.
Even then, people in these positions of power weren’t as reckless and incompetent. In addition to the reporter, one of the participants was on a civilian phone in Russia. The FSB or whomever does their signals intelligence got a real-time feed of intelligence, military operations, etc. The American pilots were put at risk, and Israeli spies were burned.
kingkongjaffa
> The FBI doesn’t cry about iPhones
Is there any evidence that iPhones have some security exploit that Apple + Three letter agencies can use?
walterbell
Have you looked at the list of security issues fixed by Apple? They contain multiple zero-day exploits found in the wild.
This week’s releases: 100+ security issues of varying severity fixed in macOS, 50+ issues fixed in iOS.
Citizen Lab has some reports on exploits.
redeux
> so they’ve likely (along with other entities) identified alternate methods to access communications.
> Is there any evidence that iPhones have some security exploit that Apple + Three letter agencies can use?
GP never made that claim.
null
walterbell
Does anyone remember which US gov entity funded Signal and Open Whisper Systems?
Signal chairman is ex-CEO of Wikipedia.
Signal CEO estimated annual costs at $50MM.
leptons
Sorry, but no, there is no good thing to come from government using Signal. With its auto-deleting messages, that makes it illegal for government employees to use, and destroys transparency.
snowwrestler
Auto-deleting messages are not necessarily auto-illegal. Voice conversations are also auto-deleting but obviously they’re common among government employees.
Officials are required to document decisions in an archival way. If they fail to do that, it is arguable that their failure to follow the law is the problem, not the messaging technology.
I think it is in everyone’s interest to resist the assumption that chat and text messaging is intended to be a permanent record—even for govt officials.
oniony
Illegal has no meaning for people who can pardon themselves and each other.
ElevenLathe
If anything having his appointees commit lots of public crimes is great for Trump because his pardon power then gives them a powerful incentive to please him personally.
CoastalCoder
I believe that's true for employees of the executive branch.
Is it true for the other two?
quantified
The president can pardon anyone.
null
internet_points
Were they following Elon's advice? https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-two-word-tweet-send... :)
techterrier
I know we've all been talking about how 'history is back' in terms of geopolitics not ending like some thought in the 90s. But if a huge proportion of goverment communications is taking place on self destructing messages rather than minuted meetings and filed paperwork etc, perhaps history has ended after all.
kelipso
There are a ton of face-to-face conversations between officials that don't get recorded. Why is text messaging so special? Are their phone calls recorded? I don't think they are.
mdhb
Both face to face meetings and phone calls have dedicated note takers. This level of ignorance is truly breathtaking
kelipso
For important meetings, sure. But not for unofficial conversations or meetings.
You really think they are being tracked and recorded everywhere they go? You are breathtakingly delusional.
trhway
History has always been what the winner makes of it, and with self-destructing messages that winner's task just got much easier.
acidmath
> All four were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the private chats.
Anyone with access to NSA plus various subcontractors' toolsets can "unmask" these people in like five minutes. Musk may not be "tech genius" some of the media makes him out to be, but he knows enough about how the internet and computers work (or has advisors who do) to figure that out.
skybrian
I'm doubtful because the government leaks like a sieve. Maybe it's not that easy?
null
ada1981
The reason for this is simply to avoid discovery / FOIA requests, since messages delete.
Of courses it’s illegal, but the entire administration is operating as a criminal enterprise / an extension of all previous administrations, but in a way the most impressive disregard for rule of law we’ve seen.
Perceval
FOIA doesn't apply to the Executive Office of the President. The NSC is covered by the Presidential Records Act, but its records are not subject to FOIA requests.
ada1981
Burin' Karma to speak the truth here.
null
malcolmgreaves
[flagged]
null
skeptrune
I'm really surprised that these folks go with Signal over something like Element or another Matrix client. Element/Matrix is already used in other places within the Government and has a better UX for team collaboration while maintaining high standards of encryption, so you would think that would be the default.
mmooss
> high standards of encryption
Security is far more than that and Signal does the 'far more'. Every independent security expert (I can think of) recommends Signal for security, including CISA, and now the CIA, NSC, etc.
One security pundit, I think Schneier, said that focusing on encryption is like putting a titanium door on your house and saying it's secure. Yes, nobody can damage that door, but there are windows, hinges, a lock to pick, the chimney, remote listening devices, tracking Internet usage, searching your garbage, ...
remarkEon
What is supposed to be the default, though? Presumably not something that goes on your phone, right?
That said I’m not sure how leaders are supposed to quickly collaborate across time and space anymore. Not every location has a SCIF, but I suppose that’s the high bar we should hold.
almosthere
sounds like an employee of signal
TacticalCoder
> Two of the people said they were in or have direct knowledge of at least 20 such chats. All four said they saw instances of sensitive information being discussed.
Are they adding just everybody under the sun in these chats or only those who think wouldn't be traitors? For example I can understand one snitch being added by mistake. But four snitches?
That's a lot of snitches in my book.
null
gsibble
[flagged]
doganugurlu
You can pull yourself by the bootstraps and click on other stories.
Don’t expect others to do stuff for you.
Although I suspect you want the story not discussed, in the name of free speech I assume?
saagarjha
Looking at your comments, I don’t think you actually believe this.
mdhb
Choosing to click on it so you can be mad is really a you problem.
> Hughes said. “Any claim of use for classified information is 100 percent untrue.”
It's great to be able to say "Signal has never, EVER been used for classified information" in a context where classified information discussed on Signal has just been leaked.