The revelation that top U.S. government decision-makers discussed a potential attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen via the commercially available Signal messaging app has sparked widespread concerns. Among the most pressing questions are: Why was Signal chosen over more secure government-provided alternatives? What were those alternatives, and why were they not used? In our effort to uncover the reasoning behind this controversial decision, we spoke with multiple experts and reviewed available information.
The mission against the Houthis, carried out on March 15, was deemed a success by the Pentagon and the White House. However, the use of Signal, exposed by The Atlantic after its editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to the group chat “Houthi PC small group,” raised alarms. The chat contained deliberations on whether to launch the attack, timing details, and a real-time summary of the strikes provided by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Discussions also included at least one named target and disparaging remarks about allies from Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance. Other top officials involved included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
The public disclosure of these messages led to multiple investigations, as officials had access to secure government systems such as the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System (JWICS) and the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), as well as secure government-issued devices. So why was Signal used instead?
Despite offering end-to-end encryption, Signal is not approved for transmitting classified or sensitive government information. The NSA and the Department of Defense (DoD) had issued warnings against its use, with the NSA specifically advising that even unclassified, nonpublic information should not be shared on the platform. Additionally, Signal does not meet the legal requirements for record retention, as messages can be set to disappear.
During congressional hearings, Ratcliffe and Gabbard defended the use of Signal, arguing that no classified information was shared. They claimed it was merely a quick communication tool sanctioned by the White House. The Pentagon released a statement reiterating that no classified details were exchanged. However, national security experts disagreed, pointing out that details about the timing, means, and targets of the attack were, by definition, classified.
Signal’s security is a double-edged sword. While encrypted, its reliance on personal devices introduces vulnerabilities. If a phone is compromised—whether through loss, phishing, or hacking—the messages become accessible to adversaries. Moreover, the fact that a journalist accidentally gained access underscores its risks.
Government-approved alternatives exist. JWICS and SIPRNet are specifically designed for classified communication. Secure government-issued mobile devices allow officials to access these systems while traveling. Video conferencing in secure facilities also provides a means of discussion without exposure risks.
Several experts pointed out that convenience likely played a role in the use of Signal. Secure government systems require officials to be in specific locations or use cumbersome, encrypted devices. In contrast, Signal is fast and intuitive, allowing real-time discussion between multiple agencies.
A critical issue with using Signal is that messages can be set to disappear, raising concerns about whether officials deliberately avoided government records retention laws. Lauren Harper, an expert in government secrecy reform, suggested that the choice of Signal may have been motivated by the ability to erase communications rather than convenience alone.
Federal law requires officials using third-party applications for government business to transfer records to official systems within 20 days. Given Signal’s disappearing messages, compliance with this law is impossible to verify. The government watchdog group American Oversight has filed a lawsuit arguing that officials violated federal records laws, leading a judge to order the preservation of Signal messages exchanged between March 11 and March 15.
The controversy raises broader questions about why the U.S. government lacks a secure, user-friendly messaging app. While government-issued secure mobile devices exist, their distribution and accessibility remain unclear.
Some experts suggest that integrating Signal-like features into a government-secure platform could be a solution. However, concerns over open-source software, frequent updates, and bureaucratic inefficiencies slow down the adoption of new technologies. Companies like Hypori provide secure mobile solutions for classified communication, proving that better alternatives exist.
Experts also highlighted a long-standing issue within government communication—balancing security with usability. The more secure a system is, the harder it is to use. This often leads officials to bypass cumbersome systems in favor of easier, less secure alternatives. The White House and Pentagon are reportedly reviewing ways to make secure communication systems more user-friendly.
A former Special Operations Forces officer criticized the trade-off between speed and security. “I never had an issue communicating securely in a timely manner,” he said. “Sacrificing security for convenience is not a prudent decision.”
On the other hand, some experts argue that mobile solutions are necessary. “The old days of carrying encrypted laptops everywhere are over,” cybersecurity expert Jared Shepard noted. “We need secure mobile communication that meets the needs of modern government leaders.”
The Signal controversy has also sparked a political battle in Washington. Lawmakers from both parties have called for stricter enforcement of secure communication protocols. Some have proposed legislative measures to ensure that top officials only use government-approved systems for sensitive discussions.
Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have defended their actions, insisting that national security was never compromised. They argue that the issue has been overblown by political opponents and the media.
The use of Signal by top U.S. officials for sensitive deliberations has exposed significant security gaps in government communication practices. While convenience and speed may have driven the decision, the risks—including potential security breaches and records retention violations—outweigh the benefits. Moving forward, the government must either improve secure mobile communication options or establish stricter enforcement of existing secure channels to prevent similar incidents.
The controversy surrounding this case may eventually fade, but the need for secure and reliable communication tools in high-stakes government operations remains an urgent and unresolved issue. As technology evolves, policymakers must find a way to balance security, convenience, and transparency to protect national security while maintaining accountability.
