Tag: national security
Worse Than Signalgate? New Security Lapse Bombshell Hits White House

Worse Than Signalgate? New Security Lapse Bombshell Hits White House

Less than two weeks ago there was SignalGate, the Trump administration’s national security scandal that potentially endangered the lives of U.S. service members, and risked exposing military plans, by using an insecure channel to discuss, map out, and announce progress of an attack in Yemen. Then there was the Trump administration’s passwords scandal, where passwords, email addresses, and phone numbers of top Trump national security officials were easily found online. And just yesterday, GmailGate, the Trump administration’s use of the even less-secure commercial email app, to conduct government business.

All three crises involved President Donald Trump’s national security team, including White House national security adviser Mike Waltz, who admitted to setting up the insecure Signal chat.

On Wednesday afternoon, Politico reported that Waltz’s team actually had set up 20 or more different Signal group chats, for national security crises.

“National security adviser Mike Waltz’s team regularly set up chats on Signal to coordinate official work on issues including Ukraine, China, Gaza, Middle East policy, Africa and Europe, according to four people who have been personally added to Signal chats,” according to Politico. “Two of the people said they were in or have direct knowledge of at least 20 such chats. All four said they saw instances of sensitive information being discussed.”

“Waltz built the entire NSC communications process on Signal,” said one of the four sources.

Experts have warned that the use of Signal in certain circumstances may violate national security regulations, as well as federal law surrounding retention of government communications.

The use of Signal on personal cell phones is also problematic because those mobile devices can easily be compromised, experts say. CISA, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has recommended the use of Signal instead of less secure platforms, but not for classified or sensitive communications.

“None of the four individuals said they were aware of whether any classified information was shared, but all said that posts in group chats did include sensitive details of national security work,” Politico noted.

Additionally, on Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported more concerning national security lapses.

“Two U.S. officials also said that Waltz has created and hosted multiple other sensitive national-security conversations on Signal with cabinet members, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine as well as military operations. They declined to address if any classified information was posted in those chats,” the Journal reported. It was not clear if these were among the 20 or more chats Politico reported on Wednesday.

“In under 10 days, we’ve heard about journalists added to unclassified chats and sensitive data being shot around on personal emails,” lamented Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “And now we’re hearing there’s dozens more chats. It’s a never-ending parade of sloppy, reckless incompetence.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), also responding to the latest news from Politico, wrote: “President Trump must put our troops and national security first. Waltz must step down. If he won’t, President Trump should fire him.”

Democratic congressional candidate Cait Conley is a former National Security Council official who “spent nearly 20 years in the military, including a stint working on counterterrorism for the National Security Council under former President Biden,” The New York Times has reported. She also worked at CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“This is not an Administration that’s serious about protecting America. Every person on those (20!) group chats should have known better,” Conley observed.

“The national security advisor continues to put our country at risk by using chats to discuss sensitive issues, allowing our adversaries to potentially intercept these messages,” commented Sabrina Singh, former deputy Pentagon press secretary and former special assistant to the president. “This is not putting America First – it’s the opposite.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), a former Air Force JAG officer, wrote: “National Security Adviser Waltz should resign for repeatedly playing fast and loose with OpSec. Signal should not be used to discuss sensitive information. The Pentagon warned against using Signal even for unclassified information.”

MSNBC host Symone Sanders Townsend snarked, “Amateur hour at the OK Corral and that’s even offensive to the amateurs.”

“This is Trump’s CLOWN CAR CABINET!,” charged CNN commentator Maria Cardona. “Incompetent, unqualified, unserious. AND these massive national security blunders, put US all is SERIOUS danger! They need to go!!”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

'National Security' Claims Justify Trump's Drive For Despotism

'National Security' Claims Justify Trump's Drive For Despotism

At his abomination in the Department of Justice last week, Donald Trump waxed scholarly: "Etched onto the walls of this building are the words English philosopher John Locke said: 'Where law ends, tyranny begins.' And I see that."

He doesn't just see it; he embodies it.

Trump’s administration has pushed relentlessly to exercise emergency powers beyond the normal bounds of the law and to argue that his authority must be beyond review.

The last two weeks have revealed Trump’s chief legal strategy for the outlandish expansion of his own power. Wherever tenable—and in many instances where it isn’t—Trump’s preferred gambit is to argue that he needs outsized and, in any other setting, unconstitutional authority due to emergency circumstances or extreme risks to national security. He aims to leverage legal theory that provides, at least in the minds of certain conservative thinkers, a license for otherwise unconstitutional conduct and, most importantly, a suspension of the normal assumption of judicial review.

Trump’s outlandish invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is the latest example. That statute, which grants the President certain powers in times of declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government, has been invoked only three times in our history: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

Trump’s clumsy attempt to use it to justify the arrest and removal of all Venezuelan members of the transnational criminal organization Tren de Aragua shouldn’t even get out of the gate. The group is not a foreign nation or government. Trump’s proclamation says, without support, that the group is acting at the direction of the Venezuelan government, but so what? Neither the text nor the spirit of the act remotely supports what Trump is trying to do with it—namely, fight an international drug cartel.

Chief Judge Jed Boasberg had little trouble swatting away the argument. Boasberg wrote that the AEA "does not provide a basis for the president's proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war."

The Administration’s arguments in the AEA case are part of a much broader theme. Trump is repeatedly citing existential threats to our national security in order to assert insanely broad powers while restricting the ability of the courts to second-guess him.

It’s essentially the same argument he’s using to blackball law firms that have represented his enemies. Trump’s orders assert that these firms have engaged in “dangerous activity” that poses security risks to the nation. He argues that the firm representing Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign “undermin[ed] democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement,” and engaged in racial discrimination.

It's one lie after another, of course. And Beryl Howell, the judge who looks to be on a glide path toward invalidating that order (she has, for now, blocked it from going forward while she decides), told it true: the order was driven by “retaliatory animus” and “casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”

But the argument from Trump’s Department of Justice—in fact, from the chief of staff to Pam Bondi—leaned heavily on the national security angle to insist that a court could not second-guess the President’s determination. Combine that idea with Trump’s unprecedented, sociopathic willingness to brazenly lie, and you have a formula for despotism. Under this framework, anything or anyone Trump suggests might harm national security, he can deal with as he likes, and the courts cannot second-guess him.

That line will get the administration nowhere with Judge Howell, but they’re looking beyond her to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's a frightening prospect. It’s not hard to posit that three or four justices might get behind the idea that the judiciary can’t second-guess the president’s good faith. It would be an Alice in Wonderland-type opinion—on the order and scope of the immunity decision—and it would leave Trump with nearly an open field to do whatever he wanted in the name of national security.

Trump is pursuing the same strategy at the border, where he has declared an emergency that greatly enhances his legal authority. But there is no emergency—just overheated Trumpian rhetoric.

The same basic approach drove the disappearance—without due process—of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder married to an American citizen. He was detained based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s extraordinary attestation that while Khalil had committed no crime, his presence in the U.S. could have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.

In short, this is an emergency-happy administration. Its broad aim is clearly to curtail or nullify constitutional protections under cover of unreviewable authority.

This approach is not new. It’s a well-established authoritarian strategy. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, increasingly the most apposite model for democratic decline under Trump, declared a “state of danger” based on the Ukraine war to bypass Parliament. Stalin justified his purges as essential to quell “counter-revolutionary threats.” China frames its mass internment of Uyghur Muslims as a necessary counterterrorism measure.

What are the odds, do you think, that Trump has ever read a page of John Locke? (Or that he would write a sentence beginning with the lyrical words, “[e]tched onto the walls of this building”?)

But Locke is the chief source of the idea that a President must have power—what he termed the “prerogative”—to act outside the law for the ultimate public good during times of existential crisis for the country. The classic scenario for discussion in a college political science class would be whether the executive could break the law and torture an enemy if it were the only way to prevent a nuclear attack.

It makes me wonder whether there’s a new Ken Chesebro or John Eastman in the White House, cooking up half-baked schemes for Trump to grab authoritarian, anti-constitutional powers on the premise that, as he posted last month, “he who saves his country does not violate any law.”

Not surprisingly, all of this represents a gross misreading of Locke’s teachings in Second Treatise of Government. Locke, in fact, was insistent that while emergencies arise requiring action outside strict legal boundaries, leaders who transgress legal bounds must be held to account—for example, by acknowledging the transgression and resigning their office.

More generally, Locke recognized that the concept of emergency powers was dangerous because rulers could exploit it to act against the interests of the people. In that instance, Locke teaches that the people have the right to overthrow the government.

Contemporary thinkers such as Michael Walzer have elaborated on the idea that leaders who exercise emergency extra-legal powers must be held accountable.

We are on a knife’s edge of autocratic rule this very week, with the administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act. Here is how Attorney General Bondi responded to the opinion by Chief D.C. District Judge Jed Boasberg, who commands enormous respect on both sides of the aisle:

“Tonight, a D.C. trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans. TdA is represented by the ACLU. This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk. The Department of Justice is undeterred in its efforts to work with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and all of our partners to stop this invasion and Make America Safe Again.”

Bondi’s demagoguery here is worthy of Joe McCarthy. (You’ve got to love that freestanding second sentence: The group is ‘represented by the ACLU.’) It refers to “well-established authority” where there is none; it offers incendiary rhetoric about putting the public and law enforcement at risk (which is pretty rich considering the January 6 pardons); and it parrots Trump’s lie that the country is under invasion.

The Department has the next hearing in the Alien Enemies case Friday, when Judge Boasberg will surely be interested in learning how the administration spirited away hundreds of immigrants after he had ordered them not to do so—including, if necessary, turning around planes already in the air.

The Administration has been less than clear about its basis for countermanding the court. It seems to have settled on a rationale that the planes were already outside U.S. territory, but that would not justify its refusal to comply with the court order.

The focus for us to maintain in the hearing before Boasberg and the request to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for emergency relief from Boasberg’s order is the extent to which the Administration tries to argue that Trump’s actions can’t be reviewed at all. Acceptance of that principle in broad, especially by the Supreme Court, would amount to legal acquiescence in authoritarian rule, just as happened in Hungary. On the other hand, if the courts, including the Supreme Court, stand firm and shoot down Trump’s unlawful claims, it will then serve up the question of this administration’s willingness to disobey the courts and initiate a full-fledged constitutional crisis.

Reprinted with permission from Talking Feds

Harry Litman is a former United States Attorney and the executive producer and host of theTalking Feds podcast. He has taught law at UCLA, Berkeley, and Georgetown and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration. Please consider subscribing toTalking Feds on Substack.


Cui Bono? How Trump Is Dismantling Our National Security Institutions

Cui Bono? How Trump Is Dismantling Our National Security Institutions

I keep reading this story that's going around about a former KGB officer from Kazakhstan who wrote on Facebook that Trump was recruited as a Russian asset during a visit to Moscow in1987. An entire substructure of facts and rumors and speculation has swirled around Trump and Russia ever since the day in Florida in 2016 that Trump uttered his infamous “Russia if you're listening” remark at a press conference urging Russia to look into, you guessed it, Hillary's emails.

Then there was the Mueller Report that, while failing to come up with a provable conspiracy between Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign, certainly established that Trump was the beneficiary of an all-out effort by Russia to aid in his election. Mueller was even able to indict Russian intelligence officers and civilians working for the Russian government who either interfered actively in the election for Trump or aided him by flooding social media with fake news and Russian propaganda.

But you don't have to go back to the Mueller Report or take the time out of your day to peruse the Steele dossier to ask yourself these questions: What the hell is Trump doing now, and who benefits? The Latin phrase for “who benefits,” cui bono, should probably be engraved on his headstone right beneath his name when the time comes, because of the executive orders that he issues practically every time he opens his mouth.

Most recently, on Friday, Trump issued an executive order cancelling all funding for the US Agency for Global Media, which the Washington Post describes as “the parent agency of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and the Open Technology Fund, which works to circumvent internet censorship.” The White House press release explaining its defunding of the Voice of America alleged that VOA has been spreading lies and “radical propaganda.”

The Post reports that the “VOA and its affiliates reach 420 million people in 63 languages and more than 100 countries each week,” including countries with regimes that severely limit the access of their own populations to media that is not under the control of their governments, like China, Russia, Iran, Hungary, Belarus, Cuba, and Venezuela. The current VOA director, Michael J. Abramowitz, posted on Saturday on Facebook, “I learned this morning that virtually the entire staff of Voice of America — more than 1300 journalists, producers and support staff — has been placed on administrative leave today. So have I.”

According to Max Boot, a conservative columnist for the Post, Abramowitz was until last year the president of a thing called Freedom House, which Boot identifies as “one of the oldest and most respected human rights organizations in the world.” Freedom House is among a constellation of organizations that had their funding either eliminated or severely cut when Trump had his henchman, Elon Musk, go after the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Among the other groups that were defenestrated at the same time was the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-governmental organization that is funded privately and in part by an act of Congress. The NED runs the Network of Democracy Research Institutes, the Journal of Democracy, the World Movement for Democracy, the Center for International Media Assistance. If those groups sound like they might be CIA fronts, it's because in addition to their do-gooder work for democracy around the world, they are.

USAID has also been used by the CIA as a front for gathering intelligence internationally. Certainly, USAID has done a lot of good around the world, feeding people who are starving in nations in the midst of civil war, working to prevent AIDS and treat AIDS patients with drugs that poor nations cannot provide for their citizens, and digging wells in arid regions where there is no clean water.

That's the thing about doing good works: when you hand out food to people who are hungry and drugs to people who suffer from disease and provide them with water that doesn’t make them sick, they tend to be willing to tell you things they wouldn't otherwise reveal to strangers. So, the CIA has used some USAID workers as both informal and formal intelligence agents over the years.

The NED has been used in much the same way. They've sent people to democracy conferences and meetings of groups promoting democracy in foreign nations where democracy is in its infancy or endangered. They make friends with people working for NGO's and for domestic political organizations. That's the way you collect intelligence. You make friends. You get people to talk to you. You talk to people who have been places where Americans aren't welcome. You make friends with people who live in dangerous areas where Americans working for our government simply don't want to go. Doing all of this, you gather information, rumors, names of people who might be working for countries unfriendly to us, like Russia and China, who are doing the same thing we are doing -- using front organizations to gather information for their own purposes.

This kind of stuff has been going on for decades and virtually defines the way the Cold War was fought between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the 1950s and '60s and '70s and '80s. The U.S. used fronts like the National Student Association to gather information from countries in Eastern Europe and from countries in Asia that did business with China when we had no diplomatic relations with that country. A decent case could be made that at least in part we won the Cold War with the Soviet Union with some of the front organizations funded by and run by the CIA back in the day.

We're still gathering information about Russia and China and what they're doing not only in their own countries but overseas and in countries over which they seek influence. The VOA not only provided information through its broadcasts to countries with despotic regimes, reporters from the VOA gathered information that they didn't put on the air but shared with American intelligence agencies that were interested in what they knew about what was going on in countries not friendly to the United States.

Here is a story about how the gears in the intelligence business turn overseas. In the late 70s, I became friendly with a man in the movie business who ran a company that provided something called film completion bonds to motion picture companies. Nearly every movie that's made is a separate corporation, even if it's funded by one of the major studios, but especially if its funding comes from a consortium of various sources like wealthy individuals, film institutes from foreign countries, and other sources. People are reluctant to invest in movies unless there is some kind of guarantee that the movie they've put money into will get made. A film completion bond is a form of insurance that that will happen. The typical bond insures that at least one print of the movie will be made and shown in at least one motion picture theater for paying customers.

My friend's name was Sidney Kaufman, and he had a very interesting background. He had been a White House liaison to the OSS during World War II, and after the war in Europe he continued to work in intelligence gathering through his connections with the film industry in European countries. During that time, he got to know the two men who produced the first nine James Bond movies, Albert “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. The office in New York he let me use actually belonged to Broccoli and Saltzman. Through Kaufman, I learned how those two guys who owned the James Bond franchise made so much money.

The Bond movies did extremely well in this country of course, but it was overseas where the big money was, because they were huge there. The problem was foreign distribution, which was known to be a total scam. The way it worked was, you sold the rights to show a film in a foreign country, for which you received an advance payment against a percentage of the box office sales. The problem was that they lied about how much money they took in from your film, and there was no way to prove their lies so you could collect your money.

Broccoli and Saltzman had intelligence contacts with the Mossad in Israel. They made a deal with the Mossad to use its agents to surveil movie theaters when the first James Bond movie opened overseas. The agents would position themselves outside box offices and use one of those little thumb clickers to count the number of people who walked into showings of the film. This was done in cities all over Europe, India, Japan -- anywhere the James Bond films were showing, which was everywhere. When it came time for Broccoli and Saltzman to collect their percentage of the box office totals, the foreign distributors of course lied to them about how many tickets they had sold.

But Broccoli and Saltzman had actual figures from individual movie theaters, courtesy of the Mossad, and they could use those figures to extrapolate by the number of theaters owned by the distributors and determine estimated totals of their box office take. They demanded their money, and the foreign distributors laughed at them, until Broccoli and Saltzman told them they owned the entire James Bond film franchise and they would be making many more movies, and those distributors wouldn't get even one of them unless they paid up now.

They paid, and Broccoli and Saltzman got rich, and the Mossad got its cut too.

Take the motion picture theater box office receipts, and substitute information, and insert for Mossad the people working for USAID and the NED and the World Movement for Democracy and the Center for International Media Assistance, and all the rest of the quasi-autonomous non-governmental and yet very much governmental organizations used by the CIA, and you get a pretty good picture of how intelligence gathering works, or has worked, at least until Donald Trump and Elon Musk came along and started disassembling these elaborate networks that have been used for information gathering and influencing foreign governments for decades.

Cui bono? Do you think for a moment that Vladimir Putin's Russia has retired any of its non-governmental intelligence gathering networks? They haven't even tried to hide the assistance they provided to Trump in his election campaign last year. In fact, one of Putin's pals was quoted saying that Trump owes them: "To achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.” That little jewel of a quote came from Nikolai Patrushev, a member of Putin’s inner circle and former Secretary of the Russian Security Council.

So, who benefits from Trump's deconstruction of these U.S. intelligence networks, both official and non-official? We know he put a certifiable loon in charge of U.S. intelligence overall as head of the national office of intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who has been unapologetic about her admiration for both Russia and Vladimir Putin, and her belief that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Russia's invasion of its neighbor, Ukraine.

There is something of a question in my mind about how much Trump really understands about the damage he's done to American intelligence by doing away with USAID and the NED and now the VOA and the rest of our foreign broadcasting networks like Radio Liberty. But it doesn't really matter what he knows because the damage he's done is right there for everyone to see. They took the name of USAID off its headquarters building, for crying out loud. Certainly the thousands of USAID employees here in the United States and overseas who have been fired are not benefiting from Trump and Musk and their tossing away of decade after decade of good works that has done around the world.

What you might call the secret history of the secret history of the way the United States collects intelligence is not widely known in this country, but you can be sure of one thing: it is known to Vladimir Putin and his henchmen in Russia, and it is known to Xi Jinping in China, and it's known to the other countries who are, if not our enemies, at least very much not our friends.

Cui bono? Not you and me and our fellow citizens, but I'd be willing to bet that Donald Trump has figured out a way to fatten his own wallet from all the damage he has done to the foreign policy and national security interests of this country.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter

Acting Social Security Chief Sacked After Clash With Musk Aides

Acting Social Security Chief Sacked After Clash With Musk Aides

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's representatives have reportedly clashed with the acting head of the Social Security Agency (SSA) over sensitive data she apparently refused to give over to the centabillionaire's team.

That's according to a Washington Post article published Monday night, which reported that acting Social Security commissioner Michelle King resigned after Musk — who leads the "Department of Government Efficiency," or DOGE (which is not yet a Congressionally authorized federal agency) —sought access to "sensitive government records." Leland Dudek, from the agency's anti-fraud office, has been named acting commissioner in King's place while commissioner-designate Frank Bisigano awaits his confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate.

"There is no way to overstate how serious a breach this is," said Nancy Altman, who is president of the advocacy group Social Security Works. Altman said that while details remain murky, she cited officials within the agency who told her that Musk's team "wanted access to SSA’s sensitive files — the same way they’re trying to do at Labor and Treasury — and the acting commissioner wouldn’t give it, and she was replaced."

"At this rate, they will break it. And they will break it fast, and there will be an interruption of benefits," former SSA Commissioner Martin O'Malley told the Post. He also grimly noted that Dudek — who had praised DOGE's efforts in the past – was elevated to the acting role over other more senior officials within the agency.

“It’s a shame the chilling effect it has to disregard 120 senior executive service people,” O’Malley continued. “To pick an acting commissioner that is not in the senior executive service sends a message that professional people should leave that beleaguered public agency.”

On Bluesky, Tufts University political science professor Daniel Drezner warned: "This will end badly for everyone." University of Michigan policy professor Don Moynihan also sounded the alarm, pointing out that Musk "has your social security and your banking information." Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall told his followers that "Elon's boys are in the house" and that "it might be time to think of Plan B if you're on Social Security."

"Good God. It's a coup," former journalist Ali Adair wrote.

While DOGE's mission is ostensibly to cut down on fraudulent spending within federal agencies, conservative columnist Bill Kristol wasn't buying it. He wrote on Bluesky that if anyone believes the South African billionaire "wants all this data in order to root out fraud and marginally improve government efficiency, I have several bridges to sell you." Democratic strategist David Goodman lamented Michelle King's resignation, and opined other government employees should instead seek to resist within the capacity of their official positions.

"Leaving and refusing to fight is just as bad as handing over the data," he wrote. "You don't beat the Nazis by leaving. You beat them by fighting."

The news of DOGE accessing Social Security information comes as the billionaire's employees are aiming to obtain similar access to the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) systems. Some IRS agents expressed concern to the Post's Jacob Bogage that Musk and President Donald Trump could use taxpayers' sensitive personal data to carry out retribution against Trump's political opponents.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World