A recent YouGov poll reveals that a significant majority of Americans (74 percent) view the leak of a Signal chat detailing a Trump administration’s Yemen airstrike plan as a serious issue, surpassing concern over Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The Signal chat, published by *The Atlantic*, allegedly included classified information shared by officials on an unsecure platform, prompting comparisons to Clinton’s email controversy. This incident has sparked criticism and potential legal ramifications under the Espionage Act, leading to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight. Reactions from involved officials ranged from denials to accusations of a “witch hunt.”
Read More
Democrats are calling for the resignations of Hegseth and Waltz following the revelation of a significant security breach. The incident involved the transmission of sensitive information via a third-party app, a clear violation of multiple laws including the Espionage Act, the Intelligence Identities Act, and the Federal Records Act. This lapse in security raises serious concerns about the competence and judgment of those involved, especially given the potential for foreign actors to access the information.
The gravity of the situation is further underscored by the fact that the shared information may have included classified military strategies and intelligence contacts. The sheer carelessness displayed by those involved in the chat – failing to check group details, vet participants, or acknowledge the inappropriate nature of the communication platform – is alarming and suggests a profound lack of professional judgment.… Continue reading
Newly released Signal messages from a private group chat involving senior Trump administration officials reveal highly sensitive details about planned strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, including specific timings and real-time updates on the attacks’ success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz shared this information, directly contradicting their claims that no classified material was exchanged. This breach raises serious concerns about the handling of sensitive information within the Trump administration and the potential catastrophic consequences had this information fallen into enemy hands. The incident has sparked calls for resignations and promises further congressional inquiry.
Read More
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz accepted full responsibility for a Signal group chat inadvertently including journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, leading to the leak of sensitive information about planned Yemen airstrikes. Waltz, while blaming Goldberg and criticizing media coverage, admitted to creating the group and stated he was investigating the incident with technical experts. Despite Waltz’s claim of no staffer involvement, President Trump suggested otherwise, though his account was unclear. The incident sparked widespread criticism, with concerns raised about potential Espionage Act violations and accusations of careless handling of classified information.
Read More
Top Trump administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are under scrutiny for a security breach. They inadvertently shared highly classified information about Yemen military strikes via a messaging app, including The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief. This action constitutes a significant security lapse and may violate the Espionage Act. Ironically, these officials previously publicly criticized others, particularly Hillary Clinton, for mishandling classified information. The National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the leaked messages.
Read More
A Signal group chat, mistakenly including a journalist, revealed highly classified details of impending U.S. military strikes in Yemen. The chat, involving top Trump administration officials, discussed the operation’s specifics, including targets and weaponry, two hours before the attack commenced. The journalist’s presence went unnoticed, highlighting a significant security breach and raising concerns about potential violations of the Espionage Act and federal records laws. Following the strikes, the National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the chat and initiated a review.
Read More
Following a court-ordered search in August 2022, the Department of Justice returned approximately 15 boxes of documents to President Trump in Florida. These boxes, previously seized from Mar-a-Lago and containing personal items, had been stored at the National Archives. The classified documents case against Trump, which included charges related to the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice, was dropped in November 2024 after he won re-election. Trump claims the seizure was a politically motivated attack.
Read More
Donald Trump’s presidency is feared to bring widespread suppression of free speech and criminalization of dissent, leveraging the Espionage Act. This World War I-era law, rarely used against spies, has been weaponized against whistleblowers revealing government misconduct under both previous administrations. Trump’s own indictment under this act, coupled with his administration’s aggressive use against journalists and leakers, sets a dangerous precedent. The Act’s secretive procedures, including pre-trial hearings in SCIFs, hinder transparency and due process. This, combined with the Biden administration’s failure to curtail its use, creates a significant threat to press freedom.
Read More
As a criminal defense attorney, I am no stranger to legal proceedings and the intricacies of the justice system. However, the recent ruling by Judge Cannon in the case against Trump has left me baffled and deeply concerned. The experts warning of a “nightmare scenario” are not exaggerating, as the implications of this decision are alarming.
Judge Cannon’s dismissal of Trump’s motion based on the vagueness of the Espionage Act is troubling on several levels. While she acknowledged that some of Trump’s arguments warrant “serious consideration,” she ultimately dismissed the vagueness argument without prejudice, leaving the door open for it to be raised again later in the case.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood