Trump Dismisses FBI Role in Signal Chat Leak/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Donald Trump dismissed the FBI’s involvement in a Signal group chat scandal involving top national security officials, despite the bureau’s long-standing role in probing mishandled defense information. FBI Director Kash Patel declined to commit to an investigation, while history shows similar cases have triggered serious scrutiny under the Espionage Act.
Signal Chat Fallout: Quick Look
- Trump’s Claim: “Not really an FBI thing,” he said
- FBI Role: Typically enforces Espionage Act in such cases
- Director Patel: Declined to commit to probe during hearings
- Shared Info: Attack plans discussed in unsecured Signal chat
- DoJ Involvement: Still unclear if AG Pam Bondi will act
- Historical Precedents: Clinton, Petraeus, and Sterling faced scrutiny
- Legal Standard: Mishandling of defense info doesn’t require classification
- Next Steps: NSC reviewing, public and legal pressure mounting
Trump Dismisses FBI Role in Signal Chat Leak
Deep Look
Despite Trump’s Dismissal, FBI Has Investigated Similar Leaks
While President Donald Trump brushed aside concerns over a leak of military strike details via the encrypted app Signal, calling it “not really an FBI thing,” legal and national security experts point to a long history of FBI involvement in such matters.
At the heart of the controversy is a Signal group chat that included Trump’s top defense and intelligence officials — and inadvertently, Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg. The conversation reportedly included sensitive details of planned airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
FBI Director Kash Patel, though not part of the chat, was pressed during two days of hearings on whether the bureau would investigate. Patel deflected, stating he hadn’t reviewed the messages and made no promises of an inquiry.
Espionage Act in the Spotlight
Despite the administration’s insistence that the information wasn’t “classified,” the Espionage Act doesn’t require it to be. The law criminalizes negligent or willful mishandling of “national defense information,” regardless of classification status. The FBI has historically pursued such cases — especially if the leak could harm military operations.
Former Justice Department official Michael Zweiback explained that investigations often hinge on how sensitive the information was and whether the actions were intentional.
Similar Cases, Different Outcomes
- Hillary Clinton was found “extremely careless” for using a private email server as Secretary of State but was not charged due to lack of intent. Then-FBI Director James Comey drew fire for his public rebuke while recommending against prosecution.
- David Petraeus, former CIA Director, leaked classified material to his biographer and received two years of probation after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. Critics argued the punishment was lenient given the scope of his disclosures.
- Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer, was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for leaking details of a covert operation to a journalist. The disparity between his sentence and Petraeus’ drew accusations of bias and inequality.
Will the FBI Act?
Whether Attorney General Pam Bondi authorizes an investigation remains unclear. Bondi, a Trump ally, introduced the president at a Justice Department event earlier this month and has not commented on the Signal chat directly. Legal observers say DOJ has wide discretion, but political considerations may factor into any decision.
While Trump downplays the fallout, the FBI’s legacy in cases involving national security information — intentional or not — suggests the story is far from over.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.