back
266 comments
> According to the White House, the number was erroneously saved during a “contact suggestion update” by Waltz’s iPhone, which one person described as the function where an iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact that it detects may be related.

Politics aside, these auto-suggestions are a landmine in business contexts and should be disabled by IT where possible. Sometimes I'll be sending emails including both my client and internal team and the lawyers for the other side. The phone will decade that these email addresses are related in some way. So next time I want to send an internal strategy email to my client and the team, the app will helpfully suggest copying opposing counsel. Not great.

I wonder if this will be high level enough an incident to make companies end those opt-out contact autosuggestions in messenger apps for good.

Then again if they had been ended by now, we might never have heard of this SNAFU.

> According to the White House, the number was erroneously saved during a “contact suggestion update” by Waltz’s iPhone, which one person described as the function where an iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact that it detects may be related.

It's interesting that this was the cause. I'm sure we all have our own stories of how UI/UX niggles (regardless of platform or app) have led to unintended behavior.

While I understand automatic suggestions can be helpful at times, when the UX doesn't clearly identify the cues that lead to the suggestion, with a way for a human to confirm it, this type of error is a likely result.

I have not followed the case too closely, but it seems like the timeline was roughly:

- deny anything wrong happened - Atlantic is a liar

- the leak might have happened, but nothing secret was shared

- ok fine, secret military information was shared

- here is an analysis that says it was the phone at fault, not human error

I have trouble believing anything except butt covering at play. When you are repeatedly caught lying, I do not immediately believe the latest story iteration, even if it is plausible.

> iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact

They must have different iPhones to me, because mine doesn't do that. If I were cynical I would say they made this up.

> According to the White House, the number was erroneously saved during a “contact suggestion update” by Waltz’s iPhone, which one person described as the function where an iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact that it detects may be related.

I'm sorry, how is that knowable? Is there a log of iPhone users interactions that shows this?

Or is it the case that investigators pointed to the wrong number being saved in Waltz' phone and Waltz replied: "Oh, the only explanation is that I must have misclicked when my phone asked me to update my contacts."

Sure, but the use case of Signal isn't for secret communications, so the stakes of adding the wrong person should be a lot lower in normal use.

If it was intended as a secure communications platform for government use, they wouldn't be using phone numbers and an address book that can have incorrect information.

I did read Signal was being used in the military etc, but only as a notification system that they should check their actually secure communications thing.

> “…iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number…”

What?

Surely the real question is why they were using Signal, rather than a secure government network?
Former Intelligence officer here.

Cause SIPR, JWICS, GIANT etc… are nearly impossible to access - to the extent where for SCI info (which is arguably the level of data they were passing) they constrain you to having to communicate in a certified SCIF

The SecDef has a bunch of SCIFs but even NSC staff don’t to the same degree.

People pass TS/SCI data outside of the system regularly - congress is notorious for this and I have personally had multi year operations shut down because a congressman talked about it at a hearing.

I know of plenty of parking lot “SCIF” and sneakernet SCI conversations because time was an issue

The reality is this admin doesn’t care about the structures that the national security community is statuatorily mandated to use, but there’s nobody that is going to do anything to them about deviating.

Classified networks suck to use, anyone who can get around it does. The fact that its the secdef and nsc and they got busted just demonstrates that they view their behavior as more important than the system.

Left to the viewer to determine if thats a good tradoff

Can't follow FOIA requests if there is no record of the conversation existing
Lack of oversight, too much power, failing checks and balances.

It's not unique either; the former prime minister of the Netherlands, Rutte, insists on using a Nokia phone and plain text messages, refusing to divulge what is in those messages and deleting them as there's limited space, thus not adhering to any archival requirements.

My guess that the actual secure government messaging services are a pain to use vs. Signal that's on your phone in your pocket, and these people don't really value security over their own convenience. They did share some of the details over actual secure systems ("you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes"), but I guess when the attacks were starting, it was easier to just blast them on Signal.
Because a secure government messaging platform doesn’t exist. The DoD is horrible at buying modern software.

Still not an excuse, because the people with the power to fix it are using Signal instead.

Because CISA recommended it and it’s preinstalled on some government phones.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cisa-urges-sw...

Genuine question: I get that there’s usually an expected/different process, and (obvs) the ability to add the wrong person is a problem (!) but is there a fundamental practical reason that their using Signal is/was a problem?
According to the article: “ the White House had authorized the use of Signal, largely because there is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies, two people familiar with the matter said.”
Because now _this_ party is in power and controls the systems and information, but in 4/8/12 years _that_ party will be in power and a good-willing-mistake-making-bureaucrat may leak these 'by accident/mistake/etc' if they are properly recorded on a gov-controlled system.

But the auto-delete-after-1-week messages from Signal would never be recovered (unless someone is logging all that data and in the future will be able to crack it).

One of the guidelines from Project 2025 was to do this
“… after he mistakenly saved his number months before under the contact of someone else he intended to add.”

This is precisely why the government has its own very inconvenient devices and network, which cannot possibly fall victim to the same completely understandable human error. Had the team been using secure devices on the secure network, no journalist would ever have been accidentally added to the chat.

That these people are in charge of national security is beyond ridiculous. It speaks volumes about the unprecedented political setup we find ourselves in that such frankly inexperienced and naive people are in charge after Senate confirmations that were intended to protect us all from such a mistake.

When not being a Florida politician, Mike Waltz has had this role since the early 2000s (for Cheney) and believes contact fields “get sucked” through invisible series of tubes. He’s never seen a Senate confirmation and I bet never will.
The article also says that they were using Signal as a standin because there's not yet a secure system that crosses agencies.

It also tries to blame past administrations for this (which includes Trump last time).

"These people"

Indeed, like this:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dir...

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."

This is a great explanation for why they should be keeping these conversations on systems that are designed for handling classified information and have controls to prevent adding a random person to the conversation.
The systems you describe exist. An interesting story would investigate why the systems weren't used in the Goldberg situation.
It's interesting and funny from a tech perspective that auto-suggestions on iPhone got him.

It's also proof that 1) security processes are important for a reason and 2) don't discuss information you don't want getting out on a consumer device (or really on any internet connected device) and 3) these guys' plan of using signal to avoid record keeping was foolish and stupid, more than just because of their silly fear that Democrats would release their records (that would require Democrats growing a spine).

> these guys' plan of using signal to avoid record keeping was foolish and stupid, more than just because of their silly fear that Democrats would release their records (that would require Democrats growing a spine).

s/was/is. As in -- they're going to keep using Signal.

And yeah it is all for naught because as you say, there is no sign the dems as a group will grow a spine.

I don’t see how this “clears” Waltz.

For one thing, as far as I know, the iphone doesn’t attach phone numbers to contacts automatically, it just asks. The article claims the iphone did it, but I think Waltz must have.

Also, this why you don’t use a random group chat app for national security conversations. Your general app is designed for engagement which includes building out the social network. Of course it’s going to err on the side of inclusion, when here you want to err on the side of exclusion.

For national security, contact info would be vetted, verified, and strictly up-to-date. There would be multiple guards that would prevent a thoughtless tap months earlier from leading to the wrong person being given national security information.

It sure is frightening that these bozos are in charge of things that have high stakes.

It was Hegseth, not Waltz, that suddenly started dropping classified operations details (without promoting) into a group chat that was just set up for the purpose of planning for a future meeting. He's the one who really fucked up here.
Are you sure it war not intentional?

They wanted to send a message to the recipients without going through an official channels. What is a better way than adding a journalist to the "secret" group to "leak" it?

Or Waltz has been leaking to Goldberg and every other journalist in his contacts and did it by accident.
Sub headline in the link says investigation "cleared" Waltz. When of course, what actually happened is that the investigation showed how extremely reckless negligent and careless Waltz was. I wish the guardian was more explicit about how nonsense this government propaganda is about this incident.
"But Trump decided against firing him in large part because he did not want the Atlantic and the news media more broadly to have the satisfaction of forcing the ouster of a top cabinet official weeks into his second term."

That's about Michael Waltz. The decision is based not on whether Waltz revealed classified info, but about appearances. Seems dangerous to make decisions this way.

They said Waltz had been "cleared of wrongdoing" and yet

> Donald Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz included a journalist in the Signal group chat about plans for US strikes in Yemen after he mistakenly saved his number months before under the contact of someone else he intended to add, according to three people briefed on the matter.

That clears him? That should implicate him!

Anyone remember being told Signal was an unsecured app and not to use it?

Rules for thee but not for me. Pepperidge farm remembers.

Is this comparable to Hilary Clinton’s email issue out of interest? (not American so only have a passing familiarity with much of this)
The information that Hegseth shared shouldn't have been shared regardless of whether the app was secure, and regardless of whether Jeff was there. Nobody in that chat needed to know those details, he was just showing off like the insecure dilletante he is.
"because the White House had authorized the use of Signal, largely because there is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies, two people familiar with the matter said.

Previous administrations, including the Biden White House, did not develop an alternative platform to Signal, one of the people said."

Is that true? There is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies? And nobody had a problem with that?

This is part of the reason I don't keep contacts on my iPhone anymore.
If only there were information systems that supported the discussion of classified information without the risk of including a random contact.
> Waltz also appears to have also engendered some sympathy from inside Trump’s orbit over the group chat because the White House had authorized the use of Signal, largely because there is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies, two people familiar with the matter said.

- No alternative platform: Presumably on purpose. If it were a good security practice to text this type of information in real time across existential-level national-security agencies by using multiple private vendors (e.g., Apple, Signal, AT&T, Verizon, …), I'll go out on a limb to guess that the government would have implemented that idea before 2025.

"Look, forget the myths the media's created about the White House--the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand." --from All the President's Men

That was over 50 years ago, and now no one over a 90 IQ thinks these guys are bright.

The higher level story here is that the US government is simply unable to build software. You’ll notice that over the last 10 years there have been classified records scandals from politicians of both parties: it’s because the US government doesn’t have any communications tools even 1% as usable as anything from the iOS App Store.
How does the Guardian have such intimate details of a forensic investigation at the White House level and in the same breath claim that unauthorized access to non public information is a threat to national security ?

It makes no sense for the media on one side of the political spectrum to claim the right to unfettered access to secrets.