Connect with us

Politics

U.S. officials used Signal to share war plans. What is the messaging app and is it safe?

Published

on

U.S. officials used Signal to share war plans. What is the messaging app and is it safe?

Senior government officials mistakenly invited the editor in chief of the Atlantic to a group chat on the messaging app Signal, where the focus of conversation was U.S. airstrikes against rebel groups in Yemen. The app’s use by high-ranking national security officials has raised the question: Just how secure is Signal anyway?

On March 11, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic was accidentally invited by the Trump administration’s national security advisor to connect on Signal. In the following days, Goldberg was added to a group chat that spoke of “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing,” according to his reporting.

Signal is a free app that cybersecurity experts consider to be one of the most secure messaging services because of its end-to-end encryption.

Simply put, text messages or calls are seen only by you, the sender and whoever is in your Signal group chat.

“We can’t read your messages or listen to your calls, and no one else can either,” the Signal website states.

Advertisement

If you’re using only your smartphone’s default messaging app, such as Apple’s iMessage or Google Messages, there is a chance your messages won’t be secure. This happens when you’re an iPhone user who texts an Android user, because you’re messaging from different platforms. Messages are end-to-end encrypted only if both people are using the same app.

Signal also touts user protection because it doesn’t use ads and doesn’t track user data. It collects only minimal user data, such as your phone number, the date you joined Signal and the last date you logged on to the app.

Aside from top government officials, journalists and advocates use the app, but it’s not limited to these groups of people.

With Signal in the news, experts are weighing in on whether the average user should consider it as an option for your everyday communication.

Why should you care about encrypted messaging?

Encrypted messaging “protects more than national secrets; it protects everyday privacy,” said Vahid Behzadan, assistant professor of cybersecurity and networks, data and computer science at the University of New Haven.

Advertisement

Most people unknowingly share sensitive information via text, such as personal addresses, passwords for Netflix and other accounts, or photos, according to Iskander Sanchez-Rola, director of artificial intelligence and innovation for Norton.

Encrypted apps ensure your messages are seen only by the person you intended to reach — and not third parties. That also means your “internet service provider or any potential malicious actors on your network won’t be able to see them either,” Sanchez-Rola said.

Cybercriminals are paying attention to your messages.

In December the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency stated that hackers affiliated with China’s government, called Salt Typhoon, waged an attack on commercial telecommunications companies to steal users’ data and prompted federal authorities to recommend everyone use only end-to-end encrypted communications.

Ninety percent of all cyberthreats now originate from scams and social engineering threats — a figure that has almost tripled since 2021,” Sanchez-Rola said. “Everyday activities like forwarding messages or even clicking links and attachments can open the door to risks if your information isn’t properly protected.”

Advertisement

By using a messaging app that ensures end-to-end encryption, Behzadan said, you’re protecting yourself from data breaches and identity theft, and corporate tracking and targeted advertising, and ensuring confidentiality in professional or legal communications, freedom from surveillance or unauthorized access, and insurance against potential policy or government changes that may erode privacy rights.

“In short, encryption helps preserve digital dignity and autonomy in an increasingly connected world,” he said.

How is Signal a standout from other messaging apps when it comes to privacy?

All communications (messages, calls and video chats) are end-to-end encrypted by default, so you don’t have to go out of your way to ensure it’s a feature,” Behzadan said.

Unlike many platforms, Signal does not store metadata about who users communicate with, when or where.

“Its encryption protocol, the open-source Signal Protocol, is widely regarded as the gold standard in secure messaging and is even used by WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for certain chats,” he said.

Advertisement

Signal’s nonprofit structure also sets it apart: The organization doesn’t monetize user data, which reduces incentives for surveillance or advertising-driven features.

Sanchez-Rola added a few more features that amplify securing your privacy:

  • Screenshot blocker. This prevents malicious apps on your phone from accessing screenshots, but doesn’t prevent other people from taking screenshots of your conversations.
  • Disappearing messages. Messages automatically delete after a set time, configurable from five seconds to four weeks, after they’ve been read. So even if a malicious app gains access to your phone, it won’t be able to retrieve messages that have been deleted.
  • Single-view media. This allows you to send photos, videos and voice messages that are automatically deleted from the recipient’s device after they’ve been opened once.
  • Incognito keyboard. This prevents third-party keyboard apps from potentially collecting data about your typing, offering an extra layer of privacy, especially when sending sensitive information.
  • Usernames versus phone numbers. You can talk to people on Signal without needing to know their phone number — just by using their Signal username. This provides an extra layer of privacy.

How effective is Signal in protecting your privacy?

Signal’s terms of service state you “are responsible for keeping your device and your Signal account safe and secure.”

“The effectiveness of encryption isn’t just about the technology; it also depends on how individuals use it. Encryption works best as part of a larger cybersecurity strategy,” Sanchez-Rola said.

Behzadan shared a few important best practices. They include:

  • Enabling disappearing messages for sensitive chats.
  • Verifying safety numbers with trusted contacts.
  • Setting a strong PIN or enabling biometric lock.
  • Keeping the app and device updated.
  • Avoiding screenshots or storing sensitive info on unsecured devices.

“The recent incident involving U.S. officials underscores this: Even the most secure technology can’t prevent human error, like adding the wrong person to a group chat,” Behzadan said. “In cybersecurity, the weakest link is often the human element.”

What are other encrypted messaging apps?

While Signal is the top recommendation among security experts, other apps offer encrypted messaging with varying trade-offs:

Advertisement
  • WhatsApp: Uses the Signal Protocol but is owned by Meta and collects more metadata.
  • Threema: A Swiss-based app that doesn’t require a phone number and focuses on privacy, though it has a smaller user base.
  • Element (Matrix protocol): A decentralized and open-source option, popular among tech-savvy communities.
  • Wickr: Used in enterprise and government settings and now owned by Amazon.

The best choice depends on your specific needs, your threat model and what platforms your contacts use, because encryption works only if both parties use the same secure platform.

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending