In the digital age, transparency and national security are no longer easy to distinguish. This is a recipe for disaster with a minefield of easily avoidable breaches which can have catastrophic impacts. I strongly agree that leaking sensitive information is a treasonous crime. When these types of breaches threaten our intelligence assets and put them at risk, thus providing benefits to our enemies, they strike at the core of America’s security and must be dealt with accordingly.
This is a particularly dangerous incident that has recently come to light. Activists coordinated on the ground tactics through the Signal mobile app, sharing operational details about strike and timing encore operatives. The Pentagon’s internal watchdog, the Inspector General, has condemned the use of Signal. In particular, they called out the violation of records retention policies and the sharing of sensitive information without authority. This isn’t just a matter of regulatory red tape. It has profound consequences on our fundamental ability to protect our servicemembers and defend our competitive edge.
Imagine the scenario: an adversary intercepts these Signal texts, gaining access to information about targets, weapons, and attack sequences. The results would be disastrous. It could result in more lethal strikes against U.S. military assets and personnel in the Middle East. This is not a hypothetical—this is the clear and present danger.
Leak champions often make the case that leaks help bring government misconduct to light, punishing wrongdoers and deterring future malfeasance. I get the appeal of this argument. Leaks can be a force for good, exposing wrongdoing, inspiring public discussion and debate, and sometimes raising important questions about the public’s right to know. There’s a huge difference between exposing corruption and endangering national security. The Signal case fits very neatly into the latter.
To use Signal recklessly to talk about sensitive information without appropriate authorization or security protocols is absolutely unacceptable. This move undermines the good faith of those who deal with classified material. Finally, it looks past the sacrifice of the courageous men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our nation. I still remember a classified briefing I attended many years ago, where the seriousness of dealing with classified information was pounded into us. It was not only the procedures they tightly adhered to, but the gravity of knowing what a very costly mistake—even just one—could mean.
The department's subsequent instruction in 2023 restricting the information that can be posted on unauthorized systems is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. We have to be able to punish people for wrongdoing. Let’s make sure we send them a powerful message that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated.
Unhelpfully, the statute at issue—the Espionage Act of 1917—dates all the way back to World War I. Since then, it has been invoked to prosecute people for leaking classified information. Critics of the Act counter that it is overly broad and will inhibit good faith whistleblowing. We need to admit that some lines shouldn’t be crossed. Protecting classified information that would reveal the scope of military operations and/or intelligence gathering is another one of those lines.
We should work to strike the right balance between government secrecy and transparency. The Whistleblower Protection Act provides limited protections for employees against such threats. It does not cover members of the intelligence community and does not protect them against criminal prosecution. That is something that really has to change. We need to create a system that protects legitimate whistleblowers while ensuring that those who leak sensitive information that puts lives at risk face the consequences.
Pentagon’s policy on polygraph tests
Another potential tool to investigate leaks is the Pentagon’s controversial use of polygraph tests. Polygraph tests are not an infallible tool, but they are valuable. Together with other investigative techniques they are more powerful and more useful.
The affirmative statute on theft of government property has been actively used to bring federal prosecutions against individuals. This even extends to instances where the classified data has been disclosed. This further emphasizes how seriously the government takes charges like this.
As a former intelligence officer and combat veteran, I’ve comingled with, witnessed, and felt the sacrifices of our military personnel. They all serve with honor, courage and commitment to defend our country, and often under austere and perilous conditions. When personal identifying information is made public, it does more than threaten their safety — it threatens the integrity of their work.
The consequences of national security leaks go well below the short-term strategic benefits to adversaries. They weaken faith in government agencies. Additionally, this raises the perception that our leaders can’t be trusted to protect sensitive information. This would be a catastrophic blow to our intelligence collection capabilities. It will cut into our ability to make allies and project leadership on the global stage as well.
While OverTraders.com is dedicated to bringing you the best, in-depth analysis of all financial markets, we’re deeply concerned with the safety of our nation. Stable and secure developing nation is paramount to a flourishing economy and healthy investment climate.
If our holding in the Signal texts case teaches us anything, it’s that the biggest threat is complacency. We can’t lose focus and allow ourselves to get caught in that snare. To achieve that, we need to be willing to hold people accountable. It’s time to improve our security oversight and accountability, and cultivate a culture of responsiveness in our government’s institutions.
We can’t and don’t have the luxury to let political concerns or individual agendas get in the way of that. The safety and security of our nation should never be subservient to some political agenda.
