In this episode of Opinions, David French, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, breaks the security issues of the Trump administration’s military discussions on signaling applications, and the consequences of such security breach may have for the U.S. security and military strategy.
The following is a transcript of the episode “Viewpoint”. We recommend listening in its original form for full effect. You can use the above player or NYT Audio Application,,,,, apple,,,,, Spotify,,,,, Amazon Music,,,,, Youtube,,,,, iHearttradio Or anywhere you get a podcast.
David French: I am a columnist for The New York Times, and I am an officer, Jag, an army lawyer. Earlier this week, we found that Atlantic General Manager Jeffrey Goldberg received an invitation from National Security Advisor Michael Waltz to join the Signal Group Chat.
Audio clips for broadcast news: He had a group chat with several senior White House officials and received several messages discussing plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen.
Geoffrey Goldberg's audio clip: He is texting the attack plan, how will they become targets when the target will be targeted, on the target, the next attack sequence happens.
This is absolutely shockingly safe. I have helped investigate many allegations of leaks of confidential information, but I have never heard of such shocking things. This is extraordinary.
Shared war plans are one of the most serious forms of security violations. It's hard to think of a security vulnerability that is worse than this. But, aside from that, now there is public opinion on what would have been a private conversation.
You have the vice president questioning the president's judgment. You have the Vice President lying among our allies. I know this is also what they do publicly, but there is a difference between public and private communication. Private communication was never intended to be an ally. So all these things are diplomatic damage. They were politically destroyed. They cause military damage and, at worst, can be catastrophic danger to American life.
It should be obvious to people that sharing plans within the hours before the attack can cause problems, but let's be more specific: Hotis can remove some of their weapons from the target location. They can keep senior officials away from target locations so that strikes are less efficient. For example, they can choose to launch missiles before attacking to attack, an operation that can be very expensive in life and ships. They can move senior leaders.
The government said there is no classification in the chat now, and they are not in many ways in the war plan, which has had a huge impact on Goldberg's integrity. In fact, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced these facts, he attacked Goldberg without admitting his wrongdoing. But without a living officer, his career will survive such a security violation.
From the first few weeks you are a member of the military, you start learning about operational safety. This is what got involved in the officials. These consequences will be immediately free from the order.
I saw this with my own eyes. I've always been part of this process. You will be freed from the order and then conduct a thorough investigation and may be criminally charged. In the military, you will advise an official to seek a lawyer and get a lawyer immediately, as criminal investigations are equally immediate.
In the case of civilians, Pete Hegseth is a civilian and should investigate the occurrence of this matter directly. There are many questions that the Ministry of Justice should answer. Why do they use the signaling app, the Pentagon warns military members not to use it for the Department of Defense’s business unit? Who is chatting? Did they publish it directly? Did they publish it through their subordinates? How often does sensitive services take place on signals?
There are many questions that the Ministry of Justice should answer.
I mentioned criminal charges. Federal law causes a crime when a person removes information related to the Department of Defense from his or her proper custody by serious negligence and delivers it to anyone who violates trust or is lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed. It is too early to say that Heggs' incompetence is also a crime, but I have raised the possibility of a huge magnitude of the error, and security violations this major investigation requires a thorough investigation. I can assure you that signal chat is not the right place to share sensitive information about the upcoming U.S. strike.
The White House spin is ridiculous. This is very weak. They claim to have not shared actual war plans.
President Trump's audio clip: The attack was completely successful. I think, as far as I understand, this happened during the period. And it is not classified information. Therefore, this is not classified.
Heggs attacked Goldberg, and Goldberg performed well in all of this. He did not share the national security information he had. He still didn't share. It was a very responsible thing for the reporter, but he was ruthlessly attacked.
Then they minimize the information. They say it's not a real war plan. Well, if that's no big deal, if these aren't real war plans, they can release the content in the chat so Americans can see it themselves. But so far, they haven't done so.
The way to deal with such a security breach is to immediately, especially in the case of Heggs, suspend his duties pending investigation. I would say the same thing to the National Security Advisor, who accidentally brought Goldberg into the chat.
The only thing that makes me say “the person who is suspending chatting” is that you will hollow out the government during a real global crisis.
Nothing can destroy the leader’s credibility with soldiers more thoroughly than hypocrisy or double standards. When leaders break the rules imposed on soldiers, they break the bond of trust between soldiers and commanders. The best commanders I know didn't ask soldiers to follow the rules they didn't follow. The best commander leads by example. So what example did Heggs set? He is politically loyal, but is he careless? When you are careless in the army, people can die. That's why I said if he had any honors, he would resign.
Finally, the impact on national security is serious. I said this was I urged the audience not to watch the incident in isolation. The event occurs in a larger situation. If the current action plan is in place, that is, the government is trying to brush it off and no one explains it, then all you have is to further reaffirm the U.S. military is becoming a political military.
So you have the co-leader, the lawyer who leads the army, the officer Jett, General Jagger in the army, released for political reasons. Then, despite his breach of all operational security standards, you retain the Secretary of Defense in a way that leads to huge consequences for any other soldier. He is still in office and as of the moment of recording, there seems to be no sign that he is either going to step down or be fired.
So what to say? It says we are replacing professionalism with standards of political loyalty. I find that there is much less applicability to security breaches for service members than the kind of wave we see now in the government, where it is minimizing what is happening, and it is important to deny it. This is not the way any other soldier will treat in similar situations, but the rule is that Maga has a standard, especially Maga loyalists, and everyone else.
And, if you make the U.S. military more political than the professionals – then you make the U.S. military more like the Russian military. You make the U.S. military more like the military of a totalitarian state. And, because of the terrifying things that many armies can see on paper, I promise that your political army is much less efficient than your professional army.
The bet is, what have we done to the culture of the U.S. military? Are we saying that the days of professionalism have passed and the days of political loyalty have begun?
idea? Send us an email at theopinions@nytimes.com.
The “view” of this episode was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Carole Sabouraud Mix. Original music by Carole Sabouraud and Pat McCusker. Fact check by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy for Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The head of public opinion is Annie-Rose Strasser.
Times are committed to publishing Variety of letters To the editor. We want to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. These are some Tip. Here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times' opinion section Facebook,,,,, Instagram,,,,, Tiktok,,,,, Bruceky,,,,, WhatsApp and Thread.
