National Security, Emoji Style

OPSEC Failure: Confirmed.

As someone who served in the White House during a national crisis, I understand the sacred responsibility of handling classified information. I've been in the Situation Room numerous times throughout my career, discussing sensitive policy decisions and planning intelligence and military operations. I've witnessed first-hand the consequences of breached operational security. That's why Jeffrey Goldberg's recent story in The Atlantic left me stunned, even after everything I've already seen. (I've gifted the article via the link in case you haven't read it yet.)

Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor, was accidentally added to a Signal group chat where Trump administration officials—including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Stephen Miller—openly discussed plans for U.S. strikes on Yemen. The conversation included specific timing, targets, weapons systems, and real-time updates as bombs began to fall. A journalist was silently observing these discussions two hours before the world even knew what was happening.

This wasn't a parody or a simple leak—it was a catastrophic failure of judgment and security that offers a first-hand chilling glimpse into the current administration's dangerous recklessness.

This Is Not Normal—and It's Definitely Not Safe

I've worked in national security, so I know the protocols. Sensitive operations are discussed inside SCIFs, secure rooms designed to protect against surveillance. Classified information travels through encrypted, government-approved systems—not commercial texting apps. When military action is imminent, the circle of knowledge is kept tight, with clear responsibilities.

What happened here was the complete opposite. Trump's top national security officials used the Signal App to coordinate military action as casually as planning lunch. The fact that no one noticed Jeffrey Goldberg—"JG" in the chat—was included speaks volumes about their attention to security details. This situation is even more absurd because most of these Cabinet members likely have classified secured phone lines and communications equipment installed in their homes. As senior officials handling national security matters, they have access to STEs (Secure Terminal Equipment), encrypted government devices, and secure video teleconferencing capabilities specifically designed for these exact scenarios. They deliberately chose to ignore these secure channels—which taxpayers fund at considerable expense—in favor of a commercial app on their personal phones.

This incident fits a disturbing pattern within this circle, but as they say, leadership comes from the top. Donald Trump has consistently treated classified information as his personal property. During his first term, he revealed Israeli intelligence to Russian officials in the Oval Office, tweeted a satellite image of an Iranian missile site, and dismissed his intelligence agencies' findings to side with Vladimir Putin. And we can't forget the Mar-a-Lago scandal—boxes of highly classified documents, some related to nuclear secrets, found in ballrooms, bathrooms, and storage closets. Trump defied subpoenas and was indicted under the Espionage Act before the case disappeared after his re-election.

This isn't mere sloppiness. It demonstrates contempt for rules, institutions, and the people risking their lives to protect this country.

Politics Over Security

What struck me most about the Signal thread wasn't just the security breach but the tone of the conversation. These officials weren't simply planning a military operation—they were gaming out political messaging, complaining about "European freeloading," and weighing the optics of oil price spikes. Vice President JD Vance questioned the timing based on political messaging concerns rather than military strategy. Hegseth pushed for speed before news leaked; oh, the irony…Others responded with emojis and then "kudos."

This wasn't a war council. It was a group of operatives using an unsecured app to conduct high-level policy completely outside of established channels. Pete Hegseth even assured the group, "We are currently clean on OPSEC (meaning operational security)." They weren't.

The most troubling aspect is the extraordinary failure of judgment by officials who should know better. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz added the journalist to the group chat. Who did Waltz think he was adding? He didn't bother to double-check who was on the distro? Given the extraordinary amount of effort that goes into reviewing the list of attendees for Cabinet-level and Deputy meetings in the White House Situation Room (no, seriously—people fight to get in; I've been the gatekeeper for some of these meetings), you’d think the same level of care would be exercised in a Cabinet group chat.

Furthermore, no one in the group chat questioned whether discussing these things on Signal was the best idea. It raises the question of how many other chats like this are happening. What other sensitive operations might be compromised in similar chats? Having previously served in national security positions at the Pentagon and Vice President Cheney's office, Waltz has no excuse for such a fundamental security lapse. How can any of them be trusted with our nation's most critical security decisions when they essentially hold classified cabinet meetings via text? For this catastrophic breach alone, Michael Waltz should take responsibility and resign.

The Hypocrisy and the Consequences

Trump demanded Hillary Clinton be "locked up" over a private email server. Now, his administration coordinates war plans in group chats, uses disappearing messages, and leaks classified information to unauthorized individuals—including journalists. The hypocrisy isn't just staggering—it's dangerous.

This should be a five-alarm fire. But after years of norm-breaking and lawless behavior, many Americans have become numb. We cannot afford that complacency when national security is being treated like reality TV.

I know how diligently career intelligence and military professionals work to protect this country. This incident undermines the integrity of our entire national defense infrastructure. Please tell me we're not in an era where people no longer care. I refuse to believe that. Don't tell my mother that somewhere, another mom is grieving the loss of her husband while watching her only daughter deploy overseas as an intelligence officer—just like she did—and that the President and his Cabinet can't be bothered to safeguard the very information that could determine whether her daughter comes home safely.

So What Happens Now?

There must be consequences. A thorough investigation should be conducted into every aspect of this Signal thread—who participated, what was shared, and which laws were broken. Legal experts are clear: even if the information was declassified, Signal is not an authorized platform for these discussions. Federal records laws were likely violated, and national security may have been compromised.

More broadly, we must ask: Is this truly the leadership we want in charge of America's military and intelligence apparatus? They've shown us who they are—treating war planning like campaign strategy, viewing intelligence as a tool to reward friends and punish enemies, and operating with impunity. It matters because war and peace decisions are being driven by politics and optics rather than strategy or safety. Officials in this chat discussed oil prices and European "freeloading" alongside strike approvals, prioritizing appearances over substantive decision-making. Ultimately, it is ordinary Americans who bear the consequences of these decisions. If conflict escalates, working families pay the price, and service members and their families live with the fallout.

This isn't just a Washington drama. When national security is handled recklessly, lives are put at risk—including yours. When military plans are shared in unsecured chats, foreign adversaries like Iran, Russia, or China could intercept them. Such intelligence leaks could lead to ambushed troops, targeted diplomats, or allies withdrawing from joint operations due to lost trust. Furthermore, this incident raises serious questions about other potential mishandling of cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, and domestic threats. Trust in government—its ability to protect Americans, make sound decisions, and uphold the law—is essential. When that trust erodes, everything else begins to unravel.

If you believe in competent, accountable leadership—if you believe national security is too important to be left to group chats, emojis, and political posturing—then this moment matters. The texts are authentic. The Trump White House confirmed the group chat. Next time, the information might not land with a responsible journalist with integrity. I say this because Goldberg purposely withheld some of the sensitive details shared in the chat from his article. He cared about the safety and security of others, including the intelligence officer in the chat (whose name should never be disclosed publicly.) It could have ended up with someone posting it all on social media in real time—or directly in our adversaries hands. Maybe it did. How do we know? Imagine if this reckless breach had enabled an enemy to strike our military bases in advance of this operation?

When government officials act like they're above the law—using encrypted apps and disappearing messages—they're not just being reckless. They're deliberately dismantling the systems of accountability that are meant to keep power in check. The Presidential Records Act exists to ensure transparency and accountability. Evading it isn't a technical violation—it's a direct threat to our national security and the rule of law. If we let this slide, we send a dangerous message: that power can operate in the shadows, beyond scrutiny, and without consequence. We cannot allow that. Not now. Not ever.