Signalgate–as it is now called—will almost certainly be the first of many security breaches by this second Trump Administration.
There are several reasons for this: Trump’s own cavalier attitude towards secret information; the president’s extreme distaste of government employees (the “deep state”); Elon Musk’s purge of the civil service and the low calibre and inexperience of the people he has appointed to high office.
No one expects political appointments to know all the dos and don’ts of the security business less than two months into the job. They shouldn’t even necessarily know that it is highly dangerous to discuss an attack plan in a glorified What’s App group call.
That is why there are paid officials who have been doing the job for years. One of the main purposes of a civil servant is to handle the mechanics of a meeting. It is the officials’ job to make certain that the right people are invited at the right time and, if classified material is being discussed, to a secure location and that the discussion is conducted so that it is leak-proof. It is important job. Lives depend on it.
I once attended a press conference on weapons procurement at the British Ministry of Defense. Journalise after journalist asked the minister about performance details of various weapons. The minister repeatedly turned to his accompanying civil servant and asked: “May I answer that?” The civil servant politely replied: “No, minister.” He did his job.
The problem is that Elon Musk has fired many of the people who did that sort of job. Or they have resigned in disgust. Or they are too frightened to speak up for fear of losing their job.
It is noteworthy that absent from discussion of the attack was America’s top military man—the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That’s because he has not been confirmed in office. The former chairman, General Charles Q Brown Jr. was sacked for being black — a victim of Trump’s war on Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI).
Trump’s personal disdain for secrets was evident in his first term. He regularly ignored security protocols. The most blatant was in May 2017 when at a meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov he provided information about an ISIS terrorist plot that had been given the CIA by Israel’s Mossad. The information was so secret that it had not even been shared with British intelligence or the other members of the Five Eyes Group.
Then, of course, there were boxes of classified information stacked in a Mar-a-lago bathroom. The information they contained included nuclear secrets. If Trump had not been re-elected he would be on trial for illegally moving the boxes to his country club estate.
Finally, there are the qualifications and character of the people President Trump has appointed. With a few exceptions, they have not been chosen for their knowledge, expertise or experience. They have been chosen for their loyalty. They have been chosen because they will do what he tells them to do. And they will do what he tells them because they are totally dependent on Donald Trump for their position.
A prime example is Steve Witkoff, the man Trump has tasked with negotiating peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. Witkoff’s long career has been as a New York property lawyer and investor. He has no diplomatic experience. In fact, he is very little experience outside the US. His main qualification for the job is that he is one of Trump’s regular golfing partners.
The Republican Party has become the Trump Party. But despite that, few of its senior members are prepared to publicly swear the loyalty that Trump demands. This means that the pool from which he can appoint people is small. This limits his choices. It also means that those who are in power now are likely to stay there—despite their shortcomings.
As with an increasing number of administration’s actions, Signal-gate is headed for the courts. This is because under US law, conversations such as the one involving the attack on Yemen have to be lodged with the National Archives. Apparently, one of the reasons that the administration used Signal was because it erased the contents four weeks after the call.
According to American Oversight, a non-profit focusing on government transparency, the participants in the call violated the Federal Records Act. On Tuesday night they filed a law suit in the DC District Court. The federal judges drew straws on who would hear the case and the winner was—James Boasberg, the same judge who has clashed with the administration over the deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
In which D.H. Lawrence visits Snailbeach
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
Chris Bowers
Roland
11 Comments
Among all the furore over the use of a commercial app for classified communications the Trump administration has claimed the attack on Yemen as a great success noting that an apartment building was levelled after a high level Houthi was seen walking in there to visit his girlfriend.
These attacks on civilian targets are often justified as being used for military purposes or as collateral damage. Al Jazeera reported that “Multiple residential homes and shops were damaged in the US attacks before dawn on Friday in the provinces of Saada, Marib, al-Jawf and Hodeidah.”US hits dozens of Houthi targets in Yemen
If there is one thing we know for certain, it is that bombing and killing of civilians grows resistance from a terrorised population.
Successful attacks to put missile launch systems or other offensive weapon systems out of action can be deemed a ‘great success’. The bombing and killing of civilians in an effort to target one or more rebel leaders will almost always be counter-productive.
The Biden administration targeted areas from which missiles were launched into the Red Sea and pursued a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas. The Trump administration seems to be intent on restarting the war in both Gaza and Yemen. The United Nations Special Envoy to Yemen Hans Grundberg has commented “The resumption of a full-scale war in Yemen is not in anyone’s interest and must be avoided.”
Tom, “Signalgate–as it is now called—will almost certainly be the first of many security breaches by this second Trump Administration.” It also tells us who the dangerous members are. The following article in today’s Guardian article by Sydney Blumental suggests J D Vance is one:
‘About the military plan on the eve of being executed, JD Vance opined: “I think we are making a mistake.” By venturing his view at this advanced point in the operation, he showed that he had been out of the loop.
He went on about how the Houthis menacing the trade in the Hormuz Strait affected Europe more than the United States. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” he said. Vance felt that it was Trump who was out of the loop or assumed Trump’s ignorance. If only Trump understood his own contradictions.’
Is this an indication that Vance is plotting a future take over from Trump?
Might a U.S. military attempt at a takeover of Greenland be regarded as an act of aggression against NATO ally, and if so, what should the NATO response be ? No doubt Putin will be laughing his unpleasant head off over this, so thanks a lot Messrs. Trump/Vance.
Further to that, isn’t it high time the British Government steppen in to support what’s left of the Britiszh steel industry if defence equipment is regarded as a priority ?
@ John Waller, I don’t think that Vance is considering a “take over” from Trump, although he is certainly trying to position himself as the MAGA candidate for 2028. I also agree with your implication that he is possibly the most dangerous man in the Trump administration. Usually the vice-president’s role is to stand quietly in the background and be prepared to step forward if the president suddenly drops dead. Vance appears to be determined to do much, much more, especially when it comes to relations with Europe. I recently stumbled across an interview Vance gave in 2021 which gives an insight into his thinking: “conservatives…have lost every major powerful institution in the country, except for maybe churches and religious institutions, which of course are weaker now than they’ve ever been. We’ve lost big business. We’ve lost finance. We’ve lost the culture. We’ve lost the academy. And if we’re going to actually really effect real change in the country, it will require us completely replacing the existing ruling class with another ruling class…. I don’t think there’s sort of a compromise that we’re going to come with the people who currently actually control the country. Unless we overthrow them in some way, we’re going to keep losing.” “We really need to be really ruthless when it comes to the exercise of power,”
Just possibly Sidney means the Bab-el-Mandeb when he writes Hormuz Strait.
Either way, it would seem that JD Vance seems unaware of the presence and competence of some European navies – such as the RN – participating in Operation Prosperity Guardian. But the point would seem to be “sending a message”.
So far I receive, “we are prepared to kill 53 people for PR reasons”.
I’ve just read JD Vance’s comments when he was in Greenland (as quoted by the BBC): ““We need to wake up from a failed, 40-year consensus that said that we could ignore the encroachment of powerful countries as they expand their ambitions,” Vance told US troops at America’s Pituffik military base.” Umm…. encroachment of powerful countries… He probably meant that to refer to China, but oh the irony!
btw I don’t think General Charles Q Brown Jr was sacked for being black. That’s quite an accusation to make, even considering it’s the Trump administration. He appears to have been sacked because he’s was heavily involved with promoting DEI (and he certainly isn’t the only person to be removed for that reason)
Sorry meant to provide the BBC link in that last comment: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3y3vdvdggo
‘Signalgate’… Outside of the media bubble don’t be surprised that this stuff just doesn’t resonate with the most voters. Vance is in a good position to run next time around. Be interesting to see who the democrats put up, such is the disarray in that party some are advocating Aoc , that’s how delusional they’ve become.
One thing I don’t understand is the threat to stop sharing intelligence with the USA.
Intelligence information flows both ways, if we stop sharing with the USA, then no doubt they will stop sharing with us.
It reminds me a little of the revoke/rejoin debate, overlooking that other countries and organisations also have agency not just the UK.
In this case the USA may refuse to share intelligence with us, in the case of revoke/rejoin the EU (1) may not want us back or (2) may only want us back on punitive terms that would be impossible for anyone other than a Liberal Democrat to accept.
Watching the slow demise of the American empire is painful, especially as we had tied ourselves to it as subservients over 50+ years.
Re: @Slamdac
The last comment is the truth. Only the diehard LDs (a very small % of the electorate), will go into the EU accepting the likely very high hurdles that France and e.g. Hungary will set, for their own different reasons. It’s not going to happen, also as any entry requirement would not have the “rebate” and would require a path to aligning the economy to join the Euro.
History and attitudes move on, not just in the US but also in the EU, which is now becoming a less liberal collective than the one we left.
We need to start thinking of and developing a realistic strategy for a new future. Forget not the commonwealth with the strength of CANZUK.
@Slamdac
“Intelligence information flows both ways, if we stop sharing with the USA, then no doubt they will stop sharing with us.”
But intelligence also has a source and if other countries discover that we have intelligence on them because the USA leaked it, that puts our source there in danger. In that situation, not sharing the intelligence to protect our source is the wiser choice. Just read John le Carre’s books if you want to understand how intelligence works.