The consequences of this security breach will be felt worldwide

T

he Houthis may not view the scandal involving a journalist being added to a Signal chat on which the Trump administration coordinated its attacks as a laughing matter, considering the significant damage they have suffered.

However, this alarming indiscretion at the highest security levels of the world’s greatest military superpower has subjected the Trump administration to international ridicule. In the long run, it raises concerns about whether the US security establishment can be trusted. Once again, it raises questions about whether President Trump appointed unqualified individuals to top defense positions during a period he described in his campaign as being on the verge of World War III.

Trump initially did himself a disservice by downplaying the situation. Ultimately, it is his decision if heads will roll. His hesitation to shake up his cabinet within his first 100 days is understandable, given the high turnover that plagued his first presidency. The House Intelligence Committee held emergency hearings on the incident — in which Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic and a veteran reporter on national security affairs, was added to the Signal chat, where detailed operational information was posted during the US attacks. House and Senate Republicans, who have largely followed Trump’s lead, may have to distance themselves from him on this issue.

The entire affair raises numerous questions that lead to troubling conclusions, even with a personnel shakeup, provided that procedures remain unchanged.

Signal is a chat application with end-to-end encryption but is not resistant to hackers. Why are top defense and intelligence officials using this app to manage military campaigns instead of meeting in person, as Israeli officials do when they gather in the catacombs of the Kiryah in Tel Aviv? The distances in America are more significant, and it’s not as easy to convene all the relevant people in one place when they might be traveling across the country, but the military operation against the Houthis was not a sudden emergency. We can see from the chat that Vice President J.D. Vance initially suggested not hurrying into this.

National Public Radio (NPR) quoted former CIA analyst Ned Price stating that the Principals Committee’s national security meetings typically occur in the White House situation room, regarded as the most secure venue for the US government. Nonetheless, members who cannot attend in person can participate via a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF). NPR’s Greg Myre reported that SCIFs are secure rooms designed for discussions involving classified information.

“You can’t take a phone into these rooms,” Myre stated. “You can’t take documents out, and all of these top-ranking national security officials have SCIFs at their offices and homes.”

To Scoop or Not to Scoop

The incident also raises questions regarding journalistic ethics. Mistakes happen when sending out group emails or chat invitations, where people with similar names are inadvertently added.

A large political donor once included me in a group email with “inside information” about campaign strategy. I wrote back to tell them it wasn’t intended for me, and they wrote back to thank me for informing them, but I must admit to succumbing to temptation and combing the exposed names in the email for some prized names that I could add to my contact list.

Jeffrey Goldberg published a lengthy piece explaining how he initially accepted a chat invitation from a Michael Waltz. He wasn’t sure whether it was the Michael Waltz, who is Trump’s national security advisor, or someone masquerading as Waltz to entrap him.

“It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them,” Goldberg wrote.

He stayed on the chat for four days until he determined it was real when he identified all of the people on it, some of whom identified themselves by their initials. At that point, he exited the chat, knowing his exit would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s administrator.

He then emailed Waltz and other group members to verify the information and ask how he got included. Goldberg said two hours later, National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes responded, confirming the veracity of the Signal group.

“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote to Goldberg.

A Slippery Ethical Slope

Did Goldberg act within the scope of professional ethics, or did his desire for a big scoop overpower him?

“While journalists should not actively deceive or lie in pursuit of the truth, they are not obligated to inform powerful people of their mistakes, particularly when those mistakes offer a window into matters of public importance,” wrote Kelly McBride, a senior vice president at the Poynter Institute, a leading voice on media ethics and democracy. “Goldberg voluntarily left the conversation as it became clear it was real and that he was receiving highly sensitive information that could compromise the security of troops or others and which he was not qualified to protect.”

McBride added: “That’s not a bad call, but it wasn’t clear-cut either. Some argue he should have stayed.

Richard Hanania, a journalist associated with the right wing, contended: “This is journalistic malpractice by Jeffrey Goldberg. He should’ve stayed in their group chats and kept track of what they were writing him. He could’ve gotten much bigger scoops.”

So far, the fallout from the affair has been mostly confined to the US, but the consequences of this security breach will be felt worldwide.

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report that during the Signal chat, Waltz revealed that Israel provided sensitive intelligence from a human source in Yemen on a key Houthi military operative targeted in one of the US attacks. Israeli intelligence officials reportedly expressed their irritation to the US as the revelation could jeopardize the life of the source.

Israel has often been reluctant to share information with America on impending attacks for fear that it will be leaked in advance and the enemy will have time to prepare. The government gave only scant warning to the Biden administration about its pager attack that maimed thousands of Hezbollah operatives. The classic Israeli case is the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which Prime Minister Begin hid completely from the Reagan administration.

The Trump administration may be friendlier and more supportive than Reagan and certainly Biden, but Israel can’t afford to take any risks.

The complicating factor is that US administrations often demand Israel tip off its operations in advance, either to approve the use of certain US-provided military equipment in the attack or so that it can prepare its responses in advance. Israel is often reliant on the US for satellite photographs and other operational military assistance.

US attacks on the Houthis, or any of the other sprawling militias that abound in the Middle East, have become an immediate security concern for Israel. As I wrote this column, air raid sirens went off in Jerusalem, and residents of our quiet area were forced to take cover.

The Trump administration has more significant geopolitical concerns than Israeli safe rooms, but Israel has a lot of skin in this game, too. The Netanyahu government is following developments carefully to see how they play out and whether Israel must adjust its communication and cooperation with even its staunchest ally.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1056)