Classified, or Not Classified?

Summary

Radio Atlantic: Episode Summary – Classified, or Not Classified?

Release Date: March 27, 2025

Podcast Information: Title: Radio Atlantic
Host: Hanna Rosen
Description: Radio Atlantic, an extension of The Atlantic's ideas-driven ethos, "road tests" significant ideas shaping news and culture. Through in-depth conversations and debates with insightful thinkers and writers, the podcast aims to complicate simplistic views, clarify complex issues, and empower listeners to form their own opinions amidst a chaotic national conversation.

---

1. Introduction to the Signal Group Chat Controversy

The episode delves into a significant breach reported by The Atlantic, where Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, was added to a Signal group chat comprising senior Trump administration officials. This chat included sensitive military details about an impending attack on Houthi targets in Yemen.

Key Points:

• Sensitive Information Shared: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed operational details two hours before the strikes on March 15, which were corroborated by Brian Hughes, the National Security Council spokesperson.
• Administration’s Stance: Initially, the administration denied that any classified information was present in the chat, a position reiterated in congressional testimonies.

Notable Quote:

Claudina Baid: "There was no classified material that was shared in that scif." [02:08]

2. Debate on Classification Status

Shane Harris, The Atlantic’s national security writer, challenges the administration's assertion that the shared information was unclassified, arguing that the content falls under sensitive and potentially classified categories as per Department of Defense (DoD) regulations.

Key Points:

• Classification Guidelines: Harris references DoD and intelligence regulations that categorize information based on potential damage from public release, suggesting the discussed materials should be classified.
• Government's Classification Authority: Senior officials like the Secretary of Defense have the authority to classify or declassify information, implying that the content shared should have been appropriately secured.

Notable Quotes:

Shane Harris: "This information is presumptively classified... the kinds of information that are in here are presumptively classified." [02:42]

Shane Harris: "If Jeff had not been in the room, it's possible that these would have been the only people who knew about it." [09:23]

3. Comparison with Past Security Breaches

The discussion contextualizes the current Signal chat incident within the landscape of previous security lapses, such as Hillary Clinton’s email server controversy and Donald Trump's handling of classified documents.

Key Points:

• Severity Spectrum: Harris positions the Signal chat breach between the Clinton email server (less severe) and Trump's classified document issues (more severe).
• Potential Risks: Emphasizes the vulnerability of sensitive information when shared through unsecured channels like Signal, highlighting risks of interception by adversaries.

Notable Quote:

Shane Harris: "If what we're looking at in these texts isn't classified information, then maybe I don't know what classified information is." [02:42]

4. Potential Consequences for Involved Officials

Harris speculates on the typical repercussions for officials implicated in such security breaches, including public embarrassment, resignations, and investigations.

Key Points:

• Accountability: In a different administration, affected officials might face resignations or firings, alongside FBI investigations into the breach.
• Current Administration's Response: Suggests skepticism about the likelihood of prosecution under the Trump administration, indicating political motivations behind the denial of classification.

Notable Quote:

Shane Harris: "I have yet to find anybody who can tell me that this kind of information is fine to share... they're certainly not going to be prosecuted in the Trump administration." [12:54]

5. Legal Implications and Lawsuits

The episode touches upon a lawsuit filed against administration officials for allegedly violating federal record-keeping laws by using unsecured communication platforms like Signal for official matters.

Key Points:

• Federal Records Act & Presidential Records Act: These laws mandate the preservation of official communications, requiring backups of messages sent through non-official channels.
• Potential Legal Outcomes: While the lawsuit may face challenges regarding standing, it underscores the legal obligations of officials in handling classified information.

Notable Quote:

Shane Harris: "There might be some legs to a lawsuit that alleges these officials were violating those records laws." [13:02]

6. Impact on Intelligence Sharing and International Relations

Harris discusses the broader implications of the Signal chat incident on U.S. intelligence sharing with allies and adversaries, expressing concern over diminished trust and increased vulnerability.

Key Points:

• Allied Trust Eroded: Allies may reconsider their information-sharing practices, doubting the administration's capability to safeguard sensitive data.
• Adversary Exploitation: Highlights the risk that adversaries like North Korea and China might see this as an opportunity to exploit perceived security laxities within the U.S. administration.

Notable Quotes:

Shane Harris: "This is likely to confirm for our allies that they were right to be skeptical about this administration's ability to properly handle sensitive information." [17:41]

Shane Harris: "Foreign spy agencies might find that spying on our officials is easier than they had thought." [19:25]

7. Internal Reactions and Public Sentiment

The episode captures the sentiment within the intelligence community and the public, ranging from outrage and embarrassment to skepticism about accountability.

Key Points:

• Outrage and Appalled Reactions: Both officials and the public express dismay over the misuse of secure communication channels.
• Public Perception of Hypocrisy: There's frustration over officials not facing consequences similar to past figures involved in security breaches.
• Cynicism Towards Accountability: Many believe that no substantial action will be taken, fostering a sense of injustice and helplessness.

Notable Quote:

Shane Harris: "People are appalled, outraged... a real sense of anger at what people see as the hypocrisy of these officials." [15:34]

8. Conclusion: A Part of a Larger Pattern

Harris concludes that the Signal group chat incident is not an isolated event but indicative of a broader pattern of lax security practices within the administration, exacerbated by the integration of non-traditional communication tools.

Key Points:

• Pattern of Behavior: Suggests that the misuse of Signal is symptomatic of ongoing security lapses since President Trump took office.
• Counterintelligence Risks: Emphasizes the dangers posed by officials using consumer-grade communication platforms, increasing vulnerability to espionage and data breaches.

Notable Quote:

Shane Harris: "The way to think about the Houthi PC Small Group Signal scandal is as part of a whole pattern of behavior, not as something that happened in isolation." [19:25]

---

Episode Credits: Produced by Janae West, edited by Kevin Townsend, engineered by Rob Smirciak, with Andrea Valdez as Managing Editor. Hosted by Hanna Rosen, Executive Producer Claudina Baid.

Support Radio Atlantic: Subscribe to The Atlantic at theatlantic.com/podsub to support their work and access more insightful journalism.

---

This episode of Radio Atlantic offers a comprehensive analysis of a critical security breach within the Trump administration, exploring its implications on national security, legal frameworks, and international relations. Through incisive dialogue with Shane Harris, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding classified information management and the broader ramifications of lax security practices in government communications.

Transcript

[Venmo Advertiser]

With the Venmo Debit card, you can turn the mini golf outing your co workers paid you back for into a trip to Miami with your best friend, earning you up to 5%. Cash back. Use Venmo to pay for the things you love to do. Visit Venmo Me Debit to learn more. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank N A pursuant to license by MasterCard International, Inc. Terms apply Dosh Cash back Terms apply this episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling. Wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial [e-mail] tech all lowercase. That's shopify.com.

[Claudina Baid]

This is radio Atlantic. I'm Claudina Baid in Farhana Rosen. On Monday, the Atlantic reported that our editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was added to a Signal Group chat. It was a thread with senior Trump administration officials that included sensitive military information about an attack on Houthi targets in Yemen. On the day of the attack, March 15, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared operational details two hours before the strikes, and Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the veracity of the chat. Earlier this week, Jeff and Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris were on the show. Since then, administration officials have roundly denied there was any classified information in the thread, including in testimony before Congress. Director Gabbard, you are the security executive and set access guidelines for classified information. Did you contact the defense secretary or others after this specific military planning was.

[Shane Harris]

Put out and say, hey, we should.

[Claudina Baid]

Be doing this in a scif? There was no classified material that was shared in that scifi. So then, if there were no classified.

[Shane Harris]

Material, share it with the committee.

[Claudina Baid]

With me now is Shane Harris, who covers national security. Hi, Shane.

[Shane Harris]

Hi.

[Claudina Baid]

So, Shane, we just heard Democratic Senator Mark Warner questioning Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. She and other administration officials have reiterated that there was no classified information in the Signal chat. What was your reaction to the administration's response after the original story was published?

[Shane Harris]

My reaction was, well, if what we're looking at in these texts isn't classified information, then maybe I don't know what classified information is. Have been doing this a while and look, I don't understand their argument here. This information is presumptively classified and I don't think you have to take my word for it. You can actually go look at DoD regulations and intelligence regulations that are available online. And there are helpful tables where in one column it will list the descriptions of kinds of information and then tell you they're relevant, classification, status, where they should be set. And there are all kinds of different categories that are implicated in this text chain. In particular, when we're talking about things like these strike plans that you just heard Senator Warner ask Director Gabber about that Secretary Hegseth had shared. You know, if you look just at the government's own guidelines, the kinds of information that are in here are presumptively classified. So I don't know where the basis for this claim I could take a stab away, I think, politically, while they're making it. But as a legal or a sort of security matter, I don't know what the foundation for that claim is.

[Claudina Baid]

Well, since that response, the Atlantic published the text of the signal chat, including information that was previously left out of Monday's story. So what can you tell me about making that decision?

[Shane Harris]

Well, there were two things that were driving that for us. One was that, to our surprise, officials, including the dni, the CIA director, the White House spokesperson, and ultimately the President himself weighed in on this on Tuesday, saying that the information in the thread was unclassified, which was, you know, kind of just say, okay, well, then is it not considered sensitive? I mean, can this be shared? And the other thing was that administration officials and including the President were attacking our journalism, and they were implying or claiming that we were deceiving the public, that if the public saw them, they would see that. Actually, you know, Jeff, and the editors of the Atlantic were lying to them about what they really said. And so I think that we felt an obligation in that way, too, to show people, look, this is what is in these messages. You can decide for yourself if we're being honest with you. And by the way, this is everything that the president says is unclassified and his top advisors say is unclassified.

[Claudina Baid]

And, you know, the idea of, like, what counts as classified information and what doesn't, who determines what's classified and when it's classified? Like, these are not new questions in your line of work, but for people without your background, can you tell us a little bit more about how we should think about these arguments around what it means for something to be classified?

[Shane Harris]

So think of it this way. Information is classified. By information I'm talking about, it could be anything. And the government classifies a lot of things is classified according to the damage that would be done if the information were publicly released. So you have different levels of classification. You have secret above that, you have top secret above that, you have something called top secret sci. And then even within that level you have different, what are called compartments of information. There's a essentially information that could only be known by those with a need to know who are read into a particular compartment. So the really kind of super secret stuff you can think of it, and those labels are put on pieces of information to let people in the government who are handling this information know how to handle it, how much to restrict it, who's allowed to see it. It's essentially like a coding system that again is based on the damage that would be done if it were known outside of these closed circles of people who need to know it. So who decides when information is classified? Senior level government officials often have that authority. Secretaries of Defense of State have what's called original classification authority. Pete Hegseth can mark something classified if he wants to. He can also begin the process to declassify something if he wants to do that. And this really is, I mean usually something that is done on an agency by or agency or department by department basis. So the Defense Department kind of categorizes all of its classified information and the CIA does the same for its classified information. And really it's just, I mean, when we talk about something being classified, it usually what it really means at base is it's sensitive. It's information that the agency doesn't want a lot of people to know about, or doesn't want people outside the kind of cleared circle to know about. That's probably the best way to think about it.

[Claudina Baid]

And you saw the texts based on what you know, is there a category that you would have put those texts a level of classification?

[Shane Harris]

I would have presumed they were top secret, which is not to say that that's the most most secret, but I would presume that they were at least top secret because you're talking about information about a military attack that's about to happen. You know, Hegseth is sharing things like the time that F18s are going to launch, when they will be releasing their weapons, what the follow on attacks will be, by what kind of aircraft, by what kind of weapons. This is sensitive information because if this fell into the hands of an adversary, the adversary is going to know how to try to avoid the attack or potentially launch a counterattack, which then that could also jeopardize the lives of US forces who are already, you know, flying into harm's. Way, because the Houthis have anti aircraft capabilities, they can try to shoot these planes down, and we know that. So why would you want information like this to be in an unsecured channel where it could fall into the hands of somebody who could, you know, give it to your adversary? And obviously that didn't happen here. But this case kind of exemplifies why they shouldn't be using Signal to begin with. If they've been having these conversations on a secure government system, it would be impossible to have added Jeffrey Goldberg to that chat. So this is why SIGNAL is not well suited for sharing this kind of information, talking about things in a more broad sense, or unclassified or not highly sensitive information. Sure. And lots of officials do that. And there are instances in which that is fine and condoned, but I have yet to find anybody who can tell me that this kind of information is fine to share. And Signal. I just, I think it, it's not. And if these officials have made a determination that it is, I think they owe the public an explanation for that. Instead, what they've done is insist it's unclassified, which implies it's not terribly sensitive, and they've attacked us for reporting about it.

[Claudina Baid]

So this isn't the first, you know, time we've had a scandal around sensitive information. We've, of course, you know, Hillary Clinton email saga. There's Donald Trump was indicted over classified documents in Florida before the case was dropped after his election. Could you put this breach in the context of those past episodes?

[Shane Harris]

Yeah, I think if you take the Hillary Clinton email server kind of at one end of severity, which is to say kind of a lower end, it's not insignificant. I want to emphasize that. And then you put the Donald Trump taking classified documents to Mar a Lago for which he's indicted at the high end of severity. Because here we're talking about boxes of paper, classified documents in an unsecured place, lots of people milling about. I think that this Signal chat falls somewhere in the middle of that and maybe closer to the Hillary Clinton email side. And the reason I say that is because, look, if Jeff had not been in the room, it's possible that these would have been the only people who knew about it. So that's to some degree, as in to say, these officials who are all cleared to have this information, by the way, there's no question that they're allowed to see what was in the room. It's a question of the way it was transmitted and the risk that goes with that. There Is the obvious risk that someone could be in the room that wasn't supposed to be there. But there's another risk that we haven't talked about, which is that the devices themselves, the phones on which signal is running for these 17 or so officials, could those phones have been compromised by a foreign government or by a criminal?

[Claudina Baid]

Right. Could they be hacked?

[Shane Harris]

Could they be hacked? Exactly. And if they were hacked, that means somebody could theoretically be reading the messages as if they were standing there holding the phone themselves. And this is not theoretical. The government just, in recent days has put out guidance to people who are using signal, including officials who are using it, warning them about the vulnerabilities that signal has to foreign intelligence services. And there are questions about was signal running on these officials government phones, which we would hope have a pretty high degree of security, or their personal phones, which are under their personal recognizance, that might not be as secure as a government phone. So that, I think, tilts it a little more towards the severe side. But I think it's in the middle.

[Claudina Baid]

Of those two scandals, what consequences do you expect for the officials who are on the group chat? You know what, actually, maybe I should ask, given your years of experience, how would you typically expect an administration to respond to this kind of situation?

[Shane Harris]

The typical response to this would be, I think it'd be twofold. One, I think the officials would be humiliated, they'd be highly embarrassed, and if they were thinking about their reputations, would probably try to come out and, yeah, maybe try and do something to soften the blow, but essentially take responsibility for it. I would expect in any other administration, the national security officer adviser probably would have offered the president his resignation, and the president might have taken it. The other thing that would happen here is that there would be an investigation, and probably the FBI would do that investigation. The reason for that is, is although this is a very novel example of a classified leak, putting aside that the government says it's not classified, it's still a leak. It's still a leak. And when there is sensitive information that falls into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have it, the FBI usually investigates that, particularly if, you know, it's publicly known in this case. But if the agency's in question, whose information was implicated, what they would normally do is refer that to the FBI and say, we'd like you to investigate this and find out how it happened. And then, of course, part of that investigation would be to determine whether or not there are criminal charges that should be filed. I don't think that's likely to happen in this case. I don't think it'd be likely to happen, by the way, in another administration. The law. This is a strange case. I don't imagine anyone would be prosecuted, but they're certainly not going to be prosecuted in the Trump administration.

[Claudina Baid]

There is a lawsuit now filed against administration officials for, you know, violating federal record keeping laws. Do you think something could come of that?

[Shane Harris]

Now? That's possible. I mean, there's a question of standing, you know, does the plaintiff have standing to bring it? But it's a really, it's a good point. That's worth just dwelling on a second. There are two records laws that are implicated here, the Federal Records act and the Presidential Records Act. And in a nutshell, what they require is that if people are going to use a text messaging service, or any electronic service for that matter, that's not an official one. It's not like a.gov service. They've got to make a backup of those communications if they are pertaining to official matters. CIA Director John Ratcliffe actually was testifying earlier this week and mentioned this very fact as a way of defending the CIA's use of signal, or what he characterized as the CIA's use of signal, which he portrayed as widespread. I'm not really sure that's true, but he accurately said that you have to keep a record of these messages if you're sending them. So there might be some legs to a lawsuit that alleges these officials were violating those records laws.

[Claudina Baid]

More with Shane Harris after the break.

[Radio Mercury Awards Advertiser]

The advertising industry has seen phenomenal and provocative ideas about preventing gun violence. But for all the awareness they raise, all the awards they win, deadly shootings still happen. What if an ad could make real change? The Radio Mercury Awards is the only major award show to offer a monetary grand prize. Which means even this crappy radio ad, made with zero budget, no talent, and recorded on a phone, could win $10,000. If it does, we'll donate every cent to gun violence prevention. This ad isn't about craft or media buy. It's not even about advertising. It's about saving lives. We're giving a radio ad the chance to finally actually make a difference in this preventable epidemic. So, yeah, this may be the worst radio ad you've ever heard, but it could lead to a better future. All you have to do is vote for it at the Radio Mercury Awards.

[Claudina Baid]

You know, Shane, I think I've received more text messages and I should say messages and signal about this story than anything in a very Long time.

[Shane Harris]

Do people want to make a Houthi PC small group chat room, too?

[Claudina Baid]

Oh, man. Let me tell you, all my groups have been renamed this week, but I can't imagine what kind of responses you're getting. What are you hearing from people in the intelligence community?

[Shane Harris]

I think people. What I'm hearing is a mix of people being appalled, outraged, a lot of, if I had done this, I'd be fired. If I had done this, I would be investigated and indicted. There's a real sense of anger, I think, at what people see as the hypocrisy of these officials and sort of having a fine for me and not for the attitude when it comes to what is ultimately just a really reckless use of technology. I just. I really don't think there's any way around that. And I think a real sense, too, among people, including people who don't work in the government, who I've talked to, that a real feeling that nothing will happen as a result of this and that no one will be held accountable and that that's a real shame.

[Claudina Baid]

And, you know, obviously, like, we're focusing on this one text conversation that happened to include Jeffrey Goldberg. I mean, would it be reasonable for us to assume that this is not the first and only conversation that's happening like this in Signal or other group chat environments?

[Shane Harris]

I think that's reasonable, and I presume it's not the only one. And the reason I do is because in this whole conversation that we're watching them have not one person says, hey, should we be doing this on Signal? Why did you add me to this group? Wait, why are we doing this on a text thread? Everyone behaves as if this is perfectly normal. And to my knowledge, at least in previous administrations, it is not normal. That suggests to me that these people have either done this before or no people have done it before.

[Claudina Baid]

We have been very, in the last couple of days around this story, and even in this conversation, we're very focused on what this means internally in the United States for us. A couple of weeks ago, you were on the show talking with our host Hanna Rosin, about this administration's About Face from European allies and what kind of effect that has on the intelligence community and sharing of information between the and countries that we've traditionally thought of as allies. What kind of fallout could we see with intelligence sharing with other countries after something like this?

[Shane Harris]

I think this is likely to confirm for our allies that they were right to be skeptical about this administration's ability to properly handle sensitive information and that they will start pulling back accordingly. I think they already have been. And look, in the two days since this story is broken, I've had a chance to talk to officials in some allied countries, and they're appalled. They can't believe this is happening. And they are very candid in saying this is essentially why we have to rethink whether we can trust this administration. And what's also so striking to me in some of these conversations is as aghast as they are, they're not actually surprised. It's not that they can't believe that anyone would do this. It's more that they think that if anyone were going to do it, it would be people in this administration, because there's a track record. There has been since the inauguration, and there's a track record in Trump's first term. So, you know, people are also, you know, like all of us, they're kind of laughing. I mean, there's a deep comic thread to this story, no doubt.

[Claudina Baid]

So many memes.

[Shane Harris]

So many memes. The memes have been amazing. It's been one of the best parts. But they're also taking it really seriously because now they have an actual example, proof that there is information being bandied about in this way. And, you know, I was talking to someone just recently who said, so are we to assume that you're going to take the intelligence that we give you from our country and you're also going to be sharing it with people over signal? Because that's not okay, right?

[Claudina Baid]

Okay. So that's the situation with historic allies. What about America's adversaries? What kind of conversations do you think are happening right now in North Korea and China?

[Shane Harris]

I think, you know, again, aside from the comedy of it, look, we have these individuals, particularly the very senior members of the administration, the dni, the CIA director, the secretary of defense, and include their senior aides already are presumably at the top of the target list for foreign intelligence services to try and get information on them, compromise their electronic devices. What I'm afraid this episode will show to those foreign spy agencies is that that work of spying on our officials might be easier than they had thought it would be. And I don't think we should presume for a minute that all of the phones that were used in this signal chain are 100% secure. I'm not saying I know them not to be, but I would not presume that they are. I think that there is kind of a pattern of sloppy behavior by senior members of the administration with how they take briefings with people they have around them and whether those people have been appropriately cleared, the kinds of communication systems that they're using. I don't think we should view this Signal group as a one off. I think that this is illustrative of a pattern of behavior and practice that we have seen since President Trump took office in January. You know, and we've talked before, and I've written before about the counterintelligence and security risks that happen or get created when people from the Doge service start barging into agencies and mucking about in computer systems that they don't really understand and the way that they can expose information or make it more vulnerable. So I think about that and other threads that I'm kind of pulling on and say the way to think about the Houthi PC Small Group Signal scandal is as part of a whole pattern of behavior, not as something that happened in isolation.

[Claudina Baid]

Shane, thanks so much for joining me today.

[Shane Harris]

Thank you for having me, Claudine.

[Claudina Baid]

This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Janae west and edited by Kevin Townsend. It was engineered by Rob Smirciak. Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. If you like what you hear on Radio Atlantic, remember, you can support our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists when you subscribe to The Atlantic at theatlantic.com podsub that's theatlantic.com podsub Hanna Rosen is the host of Radio Atlantic. I'm Claudina Baid, executive producer of Atlantic Audio. Thank you for listening. Listening.