Summary of "Lawfare Daily: Attack Plans Shared on Signal Released by The Atlantic"
Podcast Information
- Title: The Lawfare Podcast
- Host: Benjamin Wittes, Editor-in-Chief of Lawfare
- Guest: Shane Harris, National Security Editor at The Atlantic
- Release Date: March 27, 2025
1. Introduction
In this episode of The Lawfare Podcast, Benjamin Wittes engages in a detailed discussion with Shane Harris of The Atlantic regarding the recent publication of sensitive text messages exchanged among Trump administration officials in the Houthi PC Small Group Signal chat. The conversation delves into the implications of these revelations, the decision-making process behind the publication, and the subsequent political fallout.
2. Background on The Atlantic’s Initial Story
Initially, The Atlantic released a story on March 26 that included select screenshots and quotes from the Signal group chat involving high-ranking officials and Jeff Goldberg, the editor-in-chief who was inadvertently included in the chat.
Notable Quote:
- [03:36] Shane Harris: “On Monday, when we launched our first story, you know, we showed some screenshots of the text. We quoted from some texts, and then we, as you say, kind of left out things that were more sensitive that we deemed were sensitive.”
3. Decision to Release Full Texts
Following public assertions from top government officials—including the White House Press Secretary, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and President Biden—that the messages were unclassified, The Atlantic opted to publish the entire transcript with minimal redactions.
Key Points:
- Government officials claimed nothing in the Signal chat was classified.
- Persisting concerns about the credibility and transparency of these officials prompted The Atlantic to release the full texts.
- The decision aimed to defend the outlet’s integrity amidst accusations of potential misinformation.
Notable Quote:
- [05:23] Benjamin Wittes: “When you have the entire national security establishment saying there is nothing classified in these texts, okay, well, then there should be no problem releasing them.”
4. Redaction of CIA Chief’s Name
Despite government assurances, The Atlantic redacted the name of a CIA official mentioned in the chats. This decision underscores doubts about the classification status and highlights ongoing sensitivities.
Key Points:
- CIA Director Ratcliffe provided the full name of his chief of staff in the chat.
- The Atlantic withheld this information, fearing it could reveal sensitive roles or identities.
- Ratcliffe publicly stated the individual was not undercover, yet The Atlantic maintained the redaction out of respect for the official's career.
Notable Quote:
- [05:47] Shane Harris: “We did not print that in the first instance because we had reason to believe that that person was, and we confirmed this is an active intelligence officer.”
5. Congressional Hearings and Testimony
The episode covers the testimonies of Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Their statements emphasized that the shared information was unclassified, a stance that The Atlantic and other analysts find problematic.
Key Points:
- John Ratcliffe discussed mobilizing assets, implying the use of human intelligence (spies) and technical intelligence.
- Tulsi Gabbard struggled to recall specific details about the shared information, raising questions about the completeness and accuracy of official testimonies.
Notable Quotes:
- [16:06] Shane Harris: “...that is talking about sources and methods information.”
- [08:06] Benjamin Wittes: “What is classified is that that person by that name is employed by the CIA.”
6. Classification and Sensitivity of Shared Information
A significant portion of the discussion centers on whether the information shared in the Signal group was properly classified. While officials assert it was not, both Wittes and Harris argue that the content—detailing military operations and intelligence strategies—is inherently sensitive.
Key Points:
- Detailed operational plans, such as mission launches and weapon types, were shared.
- Sharing such information on a platform like Signal, especially involving a journalist, poses national security risks.
- The debate highlights discrepancies between official statements and the nature of the shared content.
Notable Quote:
- [25:17] Benjamin Wittes: “...this is, this is part of a broader pattern of carelessness and recklessness...”
7. Role and Accountability of Mike Waltz
Mike Waltz, the National Security Adviser, is scrutinized for inadvertently adding Jeff Goldberg to the Signal group. Allegations arise questioning whether this inclusion was accidental or a result of negligence.
Key Points:
- Waltz either intentionally or accidentally added Goldberg to the chat.
- Accusations suggest a possible diversion of blame onto Goldberg, implying unauthorized access.
- Both Wittes and Harris view Waltz’s responses and defense as disingenuous and evasive.
Notable Quotes:
- [33:35] Benjamin Wittes: “...the national security adviser to the president is trying to divert attention from that by making unfounded and completely implausible allegations.”
- [34:56] Benjamin Wittes: “...they are going to ignore it because, you know, it could potentially be embarrassing for them.”
8. Investigation Mechanisms and Potential Outcomes
The discussion highlights the inadequacies of the current investigative response, with questions about who is responsible for a thorough investigation. The likelihood of prosecution is deemed low, but the necessity for accountability and damage assessment is emphasized.
Key Points:
- The National Security Council (NSC) lacks the authority and framework to conduct an effective investigation.
- Recommendations include involving Inspector Generals or the FBI for impartial scrutiny.
- Comparisons are made to past incidents, such as Hillary Clinton’s email server, which received extensive investigation despite similar circumstances.
Notable Quotes:
- [41:56] Shane Harris: “The idea that the NSC, which is run by the very guy who set up the Signal thread, is going to do a credible investigation, that's just silly.”
- [44:01] Shane Harris: “I would bet that they'd probably come to the same conclusion.”
9. Broader Implications and Patterns of Security Laxity
Harris connects this incident to a larger trend of lax security protocols within the administration, drawing parallels to the Trump era’s mishandling of classified information and intelligence sharing.
Key Points:
- Ongoing issues with how national security information is managed and shared.
- Recurrent patterns of carelessness with sensitive data, impacting national and allied security.
- The incident serves as a continuation of a narrative of neglect and mismanagement within high-level security operations.
Notable Quote:
- [47:01] Benjamin Wittes: “...since nobody responded to being invited to this. Excuse me. Why the heck are you putting me on a Signal group?”
10. Conclusion and Next Steps
Shane Harris outlines the path forward, emphasizing the need for comprehensive investigations and the potential political ramifications. The necessity for The Atlantic to uncover other Signal groups and for Congress to demand accountability is stressed.
Key Points:
- The Atlantic seeks to identify other potentially compromised Signal groups.
- Congressional support is building for an Inspector General-led investigation.
- The political fallout could lead to resignations or firings of involved officials, with Pete Hegseth likely facing intense scrutiny.
Notable Quote:
- [48:07] Shane Harris: “This is part of a broader pattern of carelessness and recklessness...”
Final Remarks: Wittes and Harris agree on the urgency of addressing these security lapses to prevent future incidents. They call for transparency and responsible handling of sensitive information to uphold national security integrity.
Closing Notes
This episode underscores the critical intersection of national security, policy, and media responsibility. The inadvertent sharing of sensitive attack plans on a widely-used messaging platform like Signal raises significant concerns about information security and the accountability of high-ranking officials.