USA: Chat scandal in the Trump administration – what consequences are possible?

t-online USA: Chat scandal in the Trump administration – what consequences are possible? Simon Cleven • 10 hours • 6 minutes read Secret chat group of the Trump administration "One point in particular is problematic" A scandal is once again rocking the White House: A journalist was able to read a "secret" chat group of ministers. What consequences will President Trump draw? "One of the most shocking national security indiscretions of recent years," "blatantly illegal and dangerous," "bizarre and disturbing," "unbelievable": Following the publication of an essentially secret chat between members of the US government, the media and the opposition in the US are not sparing themselves with superlatives. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and his allies are struggling to explain themselves. The editor-in-chief of the US magazine "The Atlantic," Jeffrey Goldberg, published an article on Monday stating that he had apparently been accidentally added to a chat group on the messaging app Signal in which members of the US government were apparently sharing highly sensitive plans for a military attack in Yemen. Read more about this here. Participants reportedly included Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as other cabinet members and high-ranking government officials. A spokesperson for the National Security Council has already confirmed that the chat history is most likely authentic and announced an internal investigation. Donald Trump, however, initially claimed he knew nothing about a group chat, but also stated that he was "not a big fan" of "The Atlantic" anyway. He later described the incident as a "slip-up." Both the US media and the opposition Democrats are now demanding not only an investigation into the incident, but also personnel consequences. But will this happen? And could those involved even face legal action? Trump spokeswoman: No "war plans" discussed For political scientist David Sirakov, one thing is clear: The fact that members of the Trump administration are even using the Signal app seems "unprofessional." In an interview with t-online, the director of the Atlantic Academy of Rhineland-Palatinate said: "This is somewhat surprising and unexpected." So far, the Trump administration has appeared more professional and better prepared than during the president's first term. However, Signal is not a service "used for confidential or top-secret government information." Signal is an app for sending messages, like WhatsApp. According to Matt Blaze, professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University, Signal's message encryption offers "a certain level of protection," but the app is not suitable for highly sensitive, secret conversations. Signal runs on "fundamentally insecure devices," Blaze told the Washington Post – such as smartphones or laptops that are connected to the internet and thus vulnerable to attacks. According to "The Atlantic," the app is generally not approved for sharing confidential information. Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt explained on X on Tuesday that the White House legal counsel had "issued guidance on a number of different platforms" so that top government officials "can communicate as securely and efficiently as possible." However, Leavitt did not specify whether Signal falls under this. As recently as 2023, the US Department of Defense had not authorized the app. Leavitt further denied that "war plans" had been discussed or that confidential material had been shared in the affected group. With regard to legal issues, however, US expert Sirakov focuses on a different process. "One point in particular is problematic: the programmed deletion of some messages after a certain period of time." According to the Atlantic report, group founder Mike Waltz, Trump's national security advisor, allegedly set some of the messages to be automatically deleted after one or four weeks. These messages disappear after the preset time. "This is a clear violation of law: US governments are obligated to document and archive official communications," Sirakov explains. "But Hegseth, Waltz, and others simply ignored this." "Those responsible can count themselves lucky" that ultimately "only" Atlantic journalist Goldberg, as an outsider, gained access to the information, Sirakov continues. There are further inconsistencies, however: Joe Kent, Trump's nominee to head the National Counterterrorism Center, is also said to have been part of the group. However, Kent has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. "The question arises as to whether he already has the appropriate security clearance," Sirakov says. However, there are further inconsistencies: Joe Kent, Trump's nominee to head the National Counterterrorism Center, is also said to have been part of the group. However, Kent has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. "The question arises as to whether he already has the appropriate security clearance," says Sirakov. Furthermore, it is unclear "why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was part of this group." Case reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's email scandal US media are already drawing parallels to the email scandal involving former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. During her time as Secretary of State (2009–2013), Clinton used private servers to process government emails. During the 2016 US election campaign and the subsequent Trump administration, he and his team used the process to attack Clinton. Trump repeatedly demanded that Clinton be "locked up." An FBI investigation later revealed no irregularities on Clinton's part. In this context, Sirakov points to another incident: "Despite Trump's campaign against Clinton, members of his first administration later acted in the same way as Clinton once did." Trump's daughter and former advisor Ivanka, as well as her husband and also former presidential advisor Jared Kushner, are also said to have used private email servers. Kushner is even said to have sent messages concerning government work via WhatsApp. "The current case is therefore more reminiscent of the secret files found in the possession of Joe Biden and Donald Trump," explains Sirakov. "Both presidents are not innocent in these cases, but it was Trump who stored more sensitive data, for example, on attacks on Iran, in private rooms." Trump even went to court over the files, but this had no legal consequences. Last July, the judge in charge of the case surprisingly dismissed the case. Two questions now arise for the US expert: "How much responsibility does the Trump administration bear? And will the administration name the individuals involved?" Given the scope of the affair, Sirakov demands: "There must be personnel consequences." Defense Secretary Hegseth, in particular, shared sensitive information. According to the Atlantic report, he not only sent the timing of the attacks on the Houthi militia in Yemen in the chat, but also communicated the weapons systems used, targets, and attack intervals. Nevertheless, Sirakov does not believe there will be serious consequences for the US President's cabinet members. "So far, Trump and his associates have consistently applied double standards. The professionalism they demand of others often doesn't apply to themselves." Whether the current case will have legal consequences remains to be seen, says Sirakov. No one has filed a lawsuit yet, so no judge needs to deal with it. "But even if there were to be a trial, I doubt there would be a verdict against the Trump administration," explains Sirakov. "And even if there were such a verdict, it's questionable whether the administration would adhere to it." The US judiciary is currently under "immense pressure from the government," the political scientist said. "Judges are already being threatened with impeachment if they investigate the new US administration."