What to know about the Espionage Act and Signalgate
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Michael Waltz and Pete Hegseth during the latter's Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 14. Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
Trump administration officials' use of a Signal chat that included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, rocked Washington this week, raising questions about possible violations of the Espionage Act.
Why it matters: The Signal chat's revelation of sensitive information about airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen threatens to wreck dire political consequences on members of President Trump's national security team.
The big picture: The saga has sparked speculation over whether Trump officials violated the Espionage Act by coordinating by coordinating "national defense" plans in such a careless manner.
- The incident has also proven a political boon to Democrats, who have zeroed in on calls to oust Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz from their positions.
- Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) plans to introduce legislation that would ensure the Espionage Act's prohibition against disclosing classified information would extend to transmitting it over unsecured channels, like Signal, Axios' Andrew Solender scooped Tuesday.
What is the Espionage Act?
The Espionage Act was enacted in 1917 — as the U.S. was embroiled in World War I — and criminalized unauthorized retention and dissemination of sensitive information that could undermine U.S. national defense or aid a foreign nation.
- The most high-profile use cases of the Espionage Act have pertained to the leaking of classified government information, as in the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
- The FBI's seizure of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago in 2022 raised questions about whether Trump had violated the Espionage Act.
What's the punishment for violating the Espionage Act?
Individuals charged with violating the Espionage Act stand to face heavy fines and possible imprisonment.
- The Espionage Act specifies that violators could face a fine of up to $10,000 or up to 10 years in prison, or both.
Did the Signal chat violate the Espionage Act?
Trump administration officials' decision to communicate military plans via a messaging app — let alone one that included a journalist — has sparked concerns from national security lawyers of possible Espionage Act violations.
- However, while the saga represents a "clear breach of security protection" standards, "actual criminal liability is far murkier," Bradley Moss, a national security attorney, told Axios.
Zoom in: "The government historically has only brought prosecutions under the Espionage Act or related provisions if there is evidence of deliberate intent to disseminate or mishandle classified information in an unauthorized way," Moss noted.
- Prosecuting Hegseth would be difficult without proving he knew of both Goldberg's presence and the classified nature of the information, he said.
- While Hegseth "should have known this information was classified, and he should have known it was not appropriate for a conversation on Signal, proving intent would certainly not be a given in a criminal case," Moss added.
- However, the officials' use of Signal — which is not authorized for discussions of classified information — would have sparked concerns about Espionage Act violations even if Goldberg hadn't been present.
What does the act mean for The Atlantic?
The Atlantic is unlikely to face legal liability, since news publications typically aren't prosecuted for publishing leaked classified information, according to Moss.
- Additionally, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe both testified before the Senate Tuesday that none of the information shared in the chat was classified.
- It's therefore "difficult to imagine" how the information published by the magazine would qualify as "national defense information" while simultaneously before unclassified, Moss said.
Go deeper:
