A Legal Perspective on Global Threats: The Signal App Leak and Its Implications

By Devin Breitenberg

On March 24, 2025, a startling revelation emerged from The Atlantic, shaking the foundations of U.S. national security and raising profound legal questions about the handling of sensitive information in an increasingly digital world. Jeffrey Goldberg, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, reported that he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat titled “Houthi PC small group,” where senior Trump administration officials—including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz—discussed detailed plans for military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. This unprecedented breach, confirmed as authentic by the National Security Council (NSC), has sparked a firestorm of debate about global threats, national security protocols, and the legal ramifications of using an unclassified commercial messaging app for such sensitive discussions. From a legal perspective, this incident exposes vulnerabilities that could have far-reaching consequences for both domestic governance and international stability.

The Legal Framework: Classified Information and Federal Law

The handling of national security information in the United States is governed by a stringent legal framework, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and federal record-keeping statutes like the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. The Espionage Act, in particular, makes it a crime to mishandle, misuse, or disclose classified information, even through gross negligence. Penalties can include imprisonment, especially if such actions compromise national security or endanger U.S. personnel. While it remains unclear whether the specific details shared in the Signal chat were formally classified, operational plans—such as targets, weapons systems, and attack sequencing—are typically treated as sensitive, if not classified, to protect military personnel and maintain strategic advantage.

The use of Signal, a commercial encrypted messaging app not approved by the U.S. government for sharing classified or sensitive operational data, raises immediate red flags. Unlike secure government systems, which operate within Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) and are subject to rigorous oversight, Signal lacks the safeguards required for official communications. Legal experts, including former counter-terrorism official Samar Ali, have described this as “a clear violation of our national security laws,” noting that such a breach could cost officials their jobs and security clearances under normal circumstances. Moreover, the chat’s settings—reportedly configured to auto-delete messages after a week or four weeks—may contravene the Federal Records Act, which mandates the preservation of government communications for accountability and historical record.

The accidental inclusion of Goldberg, a journalist without security clearance, compounds the legal jeopardy. Even if unintentional, this act constitutes an unauthorized disclosure of potentially sensitive information, fitting the “classic definition of a leak,” as Goldberg himself noted. Past cases, such as that of Jack Teixeira—who was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2024 for intentionally leaking classified documents—illustrate the severity with which U.S. courts treat such breaches. While the Signal incident differs in intent, the legal threshold for negligence under the Espionage Act could still apply, prompting calls from congressional Democrats for an investigation.

Global Threats Amplified by the Breach

Beyond domestic legal concerns, the Signal leak poses significant risks to global security, particularly in the context of ongoing tensions with Iran-backed groups like the Houthis. The U.S. launched large-scale airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen on March 15, 2025, targeting their attacks on Red Sea shipping—a critical artery for international trade. Goldberg’s advance knowledge of the operation, detailed in the chat, could have theoretically been intercepted by adversaries if Signal’s encryption were compromised. Although Signal is open-source and widely regarded as secure, state-backed hackers—such as those linked to Russia, as noted in a recent Mandiant report—have targeted the app, raising the possibility of undetected vulnerabilities.

The leak’s implications extend to U.S. credibility on the world stage. Allies, already wary of the Trump administration’s unconventional approach, may question Washington’s ability to safeguard shared intelligence. The chat’s criticism of European “free-loading,” as voiced by Hegseth and Vance, could further strain transatlantic relations at a time when unity is critical to countering threats from Iran, Russia, and China. Meanwhile, adversaries like Vladimir Putin may exploit this blunder to sow discord or gain leverage in negotiations, such as those over Ukraine, as suggested by security expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon.

The Houthis themselves represent a persistent global threat, with their Iranian support fueling attacks that disrupt maritime trade and escalate regional instability. Had the leaked plans fallen into their hands, the group could have adjusted defenses or retaliated preemptively, endangering U.S. troops and exacerbating the conflict. Legal accountability for the leak, therefore, is not just a domestic matter—it’s a linchpin in maintaining the strategic deterrence necessary to manage such threats.

Accountability and the Path Forward

The Trump administration’s response has been mixed, reflecting the political and legal tightrope it now walks. President Trump initially claimed ignorance, telling reporters, “I don’t know anything about it,” while later downplaying the incident via a satirical social media post. Defense Secretary Hegseth denied sharing “war plans,” dismissing Goldberg as “deceitful,” yet the NSC’s Brian Hughes confirmed the chat’s authenticity, calling it a “demonstration of deep and thoughtful policy coordination.” This defense—that the operation’s success proves no harm was done—may not hold up under legal scrutiny, as intent is secondary to the act of mishandling sensitive information.

Congressional reaction has been swift but polarized. Democrats like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Coons have labeled the incident “blatantly illegal” and a “crime,” urging prosecution or resignations. Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have minimized the breach, arguing that the mission’s precision outweighs procedural missteps. The Senate Intelligence Committee, set to question officials like CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on March 25, 2025, will likely press for clarity on Signal’s use across the administration—a practice reportedly widespread since Trump’s campaign.

Legally, the path forward hinges on whether the Justice Department pursues charges, a decision complicated by the administration’s political influence. An internal review, as promised by the White House, may recommend stricter communication protocols, but without legislative or judicial action, enforcement remains uncertain. The incident underscores a broader challenge: adapting legal frameworks to a digital era where tools like Signal blur the lines between convenience and security.

Conclusion

The Signal app leak is more than a political embarrassment—it’s a legal and strategic wake-up call. From a legal perspective, it tests the boundaries of accountability under U.S. national security laws, exposing gaps in how officials handle sensitive information amid global threats. The potential violations of the Espionage Act and federal record-keeping statutes demand rigorous investigation, not just to assign blame but to restore trust in a system rattled by negligence. On a global scale, the breach risks amplifying threats from adversaries who thrive on exploiting such weaknesses. As the world watches, the resolution of this incident will signal whether the U.S. can safeguard its secrets—and its security—in an age of digital vulnerability.

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com