I received my security clearance before beginning nuclear engineering training with the Navy in 1988 and maintained it throughout my military career. Depending on billet or assignment, my clearance level and access fluctuated between Secret and Top Secret. During one tour, I served as the command’s security officer — a role that required formal training and certification by my commanding officer. I oversaw managing, handling, storing, and protecting all classified material on the ship — responsibilities that became even more critical while deployed in a hostile zone conducting maritime interdiction operations against Iraq.

With that background, I feel well-qualified to comment on the recent revelations involving senior government officials using a commercial messaging app to discuss sensitive national security matters.

Americans should be deeply concerned about reporting by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg (March 2025) that senior government officials — including former and retired military veterans — used the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss and circulate sensitive military information ahead of a U.S. attack against Houthi rebels in Yemen. This isn’t just bad judgment, and it shouldn’t be dismissed because the mission happened to succeed. It’s a big deal. Here’s why.

Understanding Classified Information: Not All Secrets Are Equal

Most Americans generally understand what it means when something is “classified,” but many don’t know that classified information is further divided by levels and control markings based on sensitivity.

In the U.S., classified information falls into three basic categories:

• Confidential: Information that could damage national security if disclosed.
• Secret: Information that could cause serious damage to national security.
• Top Secret: Information that could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.

In addition to these levels, information can carry control markings that add further restrictions. One of the most important is NOFORN: Short for “Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals.”

This marking means the information cannot be shared with any non-U.S. citizen, no matter their clearance or relationship to the U.S. It’s strictly for American personnel.

NOFORN is typically used for sensitive operational plans, intelligence sources, and methods, or details that — even in allied hands — could jeopardize national security or lives.

Moreover, some classified information is further limited by special categories like:

• SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and
• SAP (Special Access Programs)

Information that falls under these categories is only accessible to individuals with specific, authorized access and a validated need to know.

The information shared in the Signal group chat didn’t need to be marked “Top Secret” to be a problem. Even without maps or formal orders, the discussion included National Defense Information (NDI) — a legal term that refers to data “relating to the national defense” that could harm the U.S. if disclosed.

Covered by 18 U.S. Code § 793, it is a federal crime to gather, transmit, or lose defense information — regardless of whether it is formally classified.

“Whoever… knowingly and willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated… to any person not entitled to receive it… any document… or information relating to the national defense, shall be fined or imprisoned.”
18 U.S. Code § 793

As The Atlantic reported, the group discussed possible U.S. military responses and timelines — details that should never be casually exchanged on a commercial app, even by people with clearances.

This conversation required a secure setting — not a commercial app.

“War Plans” vs. “NDI”: Don’t Get Lost in Semantics

Some defenders of the group have claimed that no formal “war plans” were shared. That’s a red herring.

National security is not just about labels but also about content and context. You don’t need to hand over a folder stamped “Top Secret” to violate the law. If you’re discussing the timing of a military strike, possible targets, or strategic intentions, that qualifies as classified material under the standards set by the Department of Defense and federal law.

Calling it something else doesn’t mitigate its seriousness. It’s like emailing your company’s trade secrets and saying it’s okay because the document wasn’t labeled “confidential.” The rules don’t just protect labels — they protect the information itself.

Why the “No Harm, No Foul” Defense Fails

Another excuse being floated is that no damage was done — the mission was successful, and no American lives were lost. That argument is both misleading and dangerous.

A recent real-world example helps illustrate why: In January 2024, an Alaska Airlines flight suffered a terrifying mid-air incident when a door plug blew off at altitude. Thankfully, the plane landed safely, and no one died.

But does that mean there was no problem?

The incident led to numerous investigations, fleet groundings, and public outrage. The fact that disaster was avoided didn’t mean a serious safety breach hadn’t occurred.

Likewise, sharing sensitive information in an unsecured chat app may not have led to immediate casualties, but the potential for harm was real. And in fact, the Defense Department had already warned against using Signal for this very reason.

A 2023 DoD cybersecurity memo stated clearly that unmanaged messaging apps like Signal, iMessage, and WhatsApp are not authorized to transmit, store, or process any non-public DoD information (Barron’s). Then, in March 2025, the Pentagon issued a broader warning, noting that Russian hacking groups were actively exploiting Signal’s features to monitor encrypted communications (NPR).

Even for unclassified discussions, the DoD only authorizes Signal in limited, controlled settings. Using it to pass along details about a potential strike is reckless — particularly for officials, like the Secretary of Defense, who should know better.

The country was lucky this time. But luck is not a national security strategy.

Final Thoughts: This Isn’t About Politics — It’s About Protocol that Protects Lives

Ask yourself: How would you feel if a parent, child, spouse, or sibling were serving aboard one of the ships or flying one of the planes involved in that attack — and our adversaries had received advance warning? What if that warning allowed them to mount a counterattack, leading to casualties or deaths?

That’s the reality we’re talking about.

You don’t need a trench coat or a spy ring to mishandle classified material. All it takes is a smartphone and a moment of carelessness.

Signal may offer end-to-end encryption, but national security is not about convenience. It’s about discipline, accountability, and following procedures that exist for a reason. Even minor breaches can have catastrophic consequences.

The country is courting disaster if we allow our senior government officials to callously treat sensitive military information as if it were merely group chat gossip.

Next time, we might not be so lucky.

Note: This was originally published in the Erie Daily Times on July 1, 2024. It has been updated with a post-inauguration perspective

Donald Trump leads a faction whose beliefs are rooted in a colonial American belief that universal equal rights are absurd.

We cannot let them win.

Recently, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), President Trump referenced a comment made by Bill O’Reilly stating that Trump was “the greatest president ever in the history of our country,” ridiculously suggesting that he is even better than George Washington. Unlike Trump, Washington’s legacy in American history far overshadows Donald Trump’s. Washington Historically impacted the establishment of our democracy, from leading the Continental Army’s victory during the Revolutionary War to presiding over the Constitutional Convention. Yet, it’s his Presidency that is perhaps most remarkable. After serving two terms, he stepped aside, demonstrating his belief that the office of President was not a monarchy. He established the precedent that forty-three successive presidents followed — the peaceful transfer of power. It wasn’t until the 2020 election that a defeated President Trump ignored Washington’s example.

The events on January 6, 2021, demonstrated that Donald Trump is the antithesis of George Washington. His refusal to ensure a peaceful transfer to the next elected President validated his contempt for the Constitution and amplified concerns for most of the country. However, we should find his disdain for the Declaration of Independence’s tenets more alarming. Supported by a political progeny of many Americans who historically challenged the Declaration’s vision and solemn promise, Donald Trump is already showing signs that his second term will marginalize, if not eradicate, the founding fathers’ vision.

In his book “Rebellion,” Robert Kagan discusses how the founders adopted John Locke’s liberal political philosophy to draft the Declaration of Independence. More importantly, he details those who opposed its key concepts, specifically natural rights and equality. Identifying the initial dissenters as the slaveholders in the southern colonies, Kagan quotes their contempt, “They regarded the very idea of universal equal rights as a sham, an absurdity that was contradicted, they insisted, by all of human history.” After the Constitution’s ratification, many still disagreed with our founding document. Kagan recalls comments made by political leaders in the early 19th century, citing former Vice President John C. Calhoun’s belief that equality was a “false doctrine” and social theorist George Fitzhugh, who argued that inequality was a natural and beneficial aspect of society. Even after the Civil War, Kagan noted the many efforts to sustain similar anti-democracy views into the twenty-first century, creating political tensions on immigration, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and same-sex marriage. These issues became flashpoints between those who aspired to fulfill America’s vision and those opposed to our foundational ideals. In 2016, that latter fringe finally had the political clout needed to pursue their assault on democracy with the election of Donald Trump. With his 2024 reelection, the certainty of such an assault has increased significantly.

Unlike other Republican Presidents, Donald Trump’s past words and actions are anathema to our core beliefs. While Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed the nation’s commitment to the proposition that all men are created equal, Trump employs racially charged comments when discussing immigrants from Mexico and African countries. Similarly, Dwight D. Eisenhower protected civil rights in defense of desegregation, and Ronald Reagan believed the Declaration’s ideals were central to American identity. Yet, Donald Trump frequently echoes white supremacist rhetoric often associated with the segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s and campaigns to remove workplace equality protections for women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community. Guided by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and with the support of loyalists, Trump’s second presidency is starting the slow erosion of our foundational norms. His disregard for the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties will continue to move the country further away from its core liberal democracy founding. Sadly, the party of Lincoln, who embraced the notion of equality and natural rights, has become the party of Donald Trump, who champions white nationalists and authoritarians.

Ironically, Donald Trump supporters claim to value the Declaration of Independence while applauding his anti-democracy diatribe. They argue that he will return the United States to traditional American values. They need to recognize the Declaration contains the most fundamental and defining of all traditional American values. Ones that Donald Trump simply does not support:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump represents the most significant challenge to our democracy since the Civil War. His Presidency will likely nullify the Declaration’s significance and render Independence Day irrelevant. Sadly, the United States Semiquincentennial will occur during his term. At best, instead of celebrating the founding of our country, July 4th will simply become another day on the calendar, or at worst, we will be expected to pay homage to a new monarchy.

Download PDF Version of original article

Memorial Day 2024 comes as the United States and Europe prepare to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day—the invasion of Normandy. This anniversary will bring extra meaning to this year’s Memorial Day observance — especially for the approximately 120K World War 2 veterans still living. Not because Operation Overlord was one of the largest amphibious military assaults in history but because it marked the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany in defense of Democracy. These remaining heroes, I am certain, would all agree with what former President Ronald Reagan said regarding the importance of paying the ultimate sacrifice of Democracy during the 40th anniversary of D-Day.

“Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”

Memorial Day 2024 also comes on the eve of a presidential general election in which the future of Democracy is in question. Ideally, politics should remain out of Memorial Day. Unfortunately, this year, it cannot. In this election, we will decide between two people with opposing views on service to our country and Democracy.

“Every year, as a nation, we undertake this right of remembrance, for we must never forget the price that was paid to protect our democracy. We must never forget the lives these flags, flowers, and marble markers represent: a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a sister, a spouse, a friend. An American.” President Joe Biden in May 2023.

“I don’t get it. What’s in it for them?” President Donald Trump, May 2017

Like many of his predecessors, President Biden understands and acknowledges the day's significance. President Trump, however, asks insulting rhetorical questions or, more bluntly, refers to the fallen as “Losers and Suckers.”

Perhaps the one thing that most Americans today do not realize (especially Donald Trump) is the profound and emotional significance of Memorial Day for a minority of the country. Less than 0.5% of the population is in a Gold Star Family. For them, Memorial Day is deeply personal. In addition to the families who lost loved ones, there are those who served our nation in and out of uniform who see Memorial Day through a similar lens. For example consider veterans like retired US Army Colonel Tom Davis and military spouses like Rebekah Sanderlin. Colonel Davis lost two soldiers in Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990’s. Each Memorial Day, he takes time to remember them. Mrs Sanderlin, whose husband is a retired special forces Command Sergeant Major, provided comfort to the families of the fallen.

Although most Americans were insulted by the former President’s words, people like Tom and Rebekah felt a deeper anger toward him for his callous, off-the-cuff remarks. And like them, I, too, question why anyone would see fit to have someone with such an irreverent perspective serve as Commander in Chief.

I am fortunate never to have known anyone who was killed in action, nor did I ever lose someone under my command during my Navy career. Nevertheless, I have always held Memorial Day with reverence. But now, having read both Tom and Rebekah’s stories, each year I will reflect on their experiences and those of my many veteran friends with similar ones.

Moreover, these narratives will inform me as I vote in November.

Author’s Note: Tom Davis and Rebekah Sanderlin serve with me in National Security Leaders for America – a 501(c)(4) bipartisan pro-democracy organization. Learn more at www.nsl4a.org