Connect with us

News

Federal judge declines to order Trump officials to recover deleted Signal messages

Published

on

Federal judge declines to order Trump officials to recover deleted Signal messages

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looks on during a cabinet meeting with President Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House on April 10.

Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a preliminary injunction ordering top national security officials who discussed military operations on the encrypted messaging service Signal to notify the acting archivist of the United States of any messages they have that may be at risk of being deleted. But in calling for those records to be preserved, the ruling stopped short of ordering the government to recover past messages that may already have been lost.

American Oversight, a nonprofit government watchdog, brought the lawsuit after the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to a group chat on Signal in which Trump administration officials discussed a planned U.S. military attack against Houthi rebels in Yemen. American Oversight says the officials violated federal records law with their use of Signal, a commercial messaging app that allows messages to be automatically deleted.

In his ruling Friday, U.S. judge James Boasberg said American Oversight had failed to show that the recordkeeping programs of the agencies involved in the case are “inadequate,” or that “this court can provide redress for already-deleted messages,” as the group had requested.

Advertisement

“Plaintiff has provided no reason to believe that ordering the Attorney General to use her “coercive power” to “shak[e] the tree harder” … would bear any fruit with respect to already-deleted messages,” Boasberg wrote. “The Court therefore cannot conclude that American Oversight’s request for communications that have already fallen victim to Signal’s auto-delete function remains redressable given Plaintiff’s own representations to the contrary.”

But the judge granted the group a partial victory when it comes to messages that have not been erased.

“Because the looming erasure of automatically deleting Signal messages qualifies as such an imminent destruction of records, and because the Attorney General could prevent that destruction by instructing Government officials to halt the messages’ deletion, it remains possible for the Court to provide relief,” he wrote.

“We expect immediate compliance — and if they drag their feet or fail to act, we are fully prepared to pursue further legal action to ensure government records, which belong to the public, are preserved and protected,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight in a statement.

Questions about potentially classified information

Goldberg’s reporting about the chat shocked military and intelligence experts and became the focus of a review by the Pentagon’s acting inspector general. Lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee have also raised concerns about whether top national security officials shared classified information in the chat.

Advertisement

In his reporting, Goldberg detailed key exchanges from the Signal chat, including messages in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared information about targets, weapons and attack sequencing just ahead of the airstrikes.

Hegseth has adamantly denied that any classified war plans were discussed in the Signal chat. The White House has also denied that any classified plans were shared, and said in March that its review of the incident had concluded.

“This case has been closed here at the White House as far as we are concerned,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. “There have been steps made to ensure that something like that can obviously never happen again, and we’re moving forward,” she said.

Controversy surrounding the use of Signal by administration officials dogged the White House a month later when the New York Times reported that Hegseth shared details of the attack on a second Signal chat that included his wife and brother.

“It is now clear that the use of Signal to conduct official government business by administration officials is widespread: senior administration officials used, and likely continue to use, a commercially available text message application with an auto-delete function and no apparent mechanism to fully preserve federal records on government recordkeeping systems,” the watchdog group wrote in an amended complaint filed in late April.

Advertisement

Hegseth is named as a defendant in the American Oversight suit, alongside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

What the plaintiffs allege

The plaintiffs allege that officials violated the Federal Records Act by discussing “official government actions” on the messaging platform, which is not an authorized system for keeping federal records, according to their complaint. The 1950 law outlines the legal framework by which federal records are meant to be preserved.

American Oversight has also argued that administration officials failed to preserve their messages, noting that multiple individuals who participated in the group chat had the auto-delete setting turned on.

In an initial ruling in March, Boasberg ordered administration officials to preserve any records from the chat dated March 11 to March 15.

The defendants told the court they had taken steps to comply with the order and preserve records, but American Oversight said in subsequent filings that they had “serious questions” about what exactly the government had saved. They said declarations by defendants submitted to the court lacked key specifics, and that “no Defendant” had attested to saving the chat “in its entirety.”

Advertisement

In the case of Ratcliffe, the group alleged that the CIA director failed to comply with the court’s order. “Because of this failure, Signal communications may have been lost,” they said. The defendants denounced the allegation saying it sought to “stir public controversy without basis in fact or law,” and that Ratcliffe had complied with the court’s order.

In his opinion issued Friday, Boasberg appeared to cast doubt on American Oversight’s argument, writing that the defendants, “did not appear to have any difficulty in following their respective agencies’ policies to preserve the messages that had not yet been deleted.”

“For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claim that the agencies’ formal recordkeeping programs violate the FRA is unlikely to succeed,” he wrote.

NPR disclosure: Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, chairs the board of the Signal Foundation.

Advertisement

News

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Reported North of New York City

Published

on

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Reported North of New York City

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Eastern. The New York Times

A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck about 12 miles north of New York City on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 10:17 a.m. Eastern in Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., data from the agency shows.

The Westchester County emergency services department said in a statement that it had not received any reports of damage.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Eastern. Shake data is as of Tuesday, March 10 at 10:30 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, March 10 at 2:18 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Published

on

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Ed Martin, an outspoken Trump administration official, is facing attorney discipline proceedings in Washington, DC, for a letter he sent to Georgetown Law about its diversity programs, the district’s professional conduct investigator announced on Tuesday.

Martin is formally accused of violating his ethical codes as an attorney for telling Georgetown Law’s dean last year that his Justice Department office wouldn’t hire students because of the school’s diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives programs, according to the filing from Hamilton Fox, the disciplinary counsel for DC who acts as a quasi-prosecutor on attorney discipline matters.

Unlike unsolicited complaints, Fox’s formal disciplinary complaint kicks off professional conduct proceedings for Martin in which he will need to respond and could be sanctioned or ultimately lose his law license.

Fox’s announcement on Tuesday marks the first major bar discipline proceeding against a high-profile administration official or attorney supporting President Donald Trump during Trump’s second term. Several Trump lawyers faced disciplinary proceedings after the efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, who lost his law license.

“Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of ‘DEI,’” Fox wrote in the complaint. “He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students.”

Advertisement

Martin was removed from the top prosecutor job in DC after senators made clear he would not be confirmed to the role, but has remained at the Justice Department in several roles, including as pardon attorney.

“Mr. Martin knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,” Fox wrote.

Martin is being represented by a Justice Department attorney, a source told CNN.

A spokesperson for DOJ attacked Fox’s complaint. “The DC bar’s attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda,” DOJ said.

Martin had sent the letter to Georgetown Law while serving temporarily as US attorney for DC, a prominent Justice Department position, and told the school his federal prosecutors’ office wouldn’t hire Georgetown’s law school students. It came at a time when the Trump administration was beginning to crack down on universities for their DEI efforts.

Advertisement

In his letter, Martin claimed a whistleblower told him that the school was teaching and promoting DEI.

Martin also violated attorney ethics rules by contacting judges of the DC court directly, Fox alleged, rather than going through official channels, once he was informed he was under investigation for his professional conduct. The DC Court of Appeals ultimately signs off on attorney discipline findings.

Early last year, Fox’s office had formally asked Martin to respond to a complaint it received by a retired judge regarding the Georgetown letter.

Martin instead wrote to the judges on the DC court complaining about Fox.

“In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,’” Fox wrote.

Advertisement

“He copied the White House Counsel ‘for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed,’” Fox said.

The top judge in the DC courts told Martin the court wouldn’t meet with him about the disciplinary matter and that he would need to follow procedure.

With Fox’s complaint, there will now be several steps ahead of bar discipline authorities looking at Martin’s action, and Fox didn’t specify how Martin should be reprimanded or punished if the discipline boards and the court ultimately determine he violated his ethical codes.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday morning.

In recent days, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her office would have a more powerful role in reviewing attorney discipline complaints against Justice Department attorneys, potentially setting up an approach that could keep the department at odds with the bar on behalf of DOJ attorneys facing their own individual disciplinary proceedings.

Advertisement

CNN’s Paula Reid contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Published

on

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Asian and European buyers are battling to source liquefied natural gas after the war in the Middle East choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking a fifth of global supplies.

In an indication of the intensifying contest for LNG since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, a handful of gas carriers have abruptly changed course while sailing to Europe and swung towards Asia instead, according to ship monitoring data analysed by the FT.

Countries across Asia are highly dependent on oil and gas sent through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway where shipping has slowed to a near standstill.

Advertisement

Most of the LNG produced in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is ordinarily shipped through the strait to Asia, and Asian LNG prices surged almost immediately after war broke out, creating an incentive to divert US gas to the region.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are among the countries that need to source LNG to make up for supplies they will not receive from the Gulf, said Massimo Di Odoardo, head of gas and LNG analysis at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Taiwan relied on Qatar for more than 30 per cent of its gas consumption in 2025, according to Citigroup, while for South Korea and Japan the figures were 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Asia typically uses more gas than Europe in the hotter summer months because of more air-conditioning use, creating urgency for Asian utilities to secure cargoes.

The vast majority of LNG is sold under long-term contracts rather than on the spot market, but some buyers are able to change the final destination of their purchases and some sellers are willing to break contracts if prices rise high enough.

Advertisement

By Thursday, surging European gas prices and rocketing shipping rates had swung the balance back against diversion of US LNG to Asia, according to data company Spark Commodities.

The decision on where to send gas carriers can depend on the relative levels of the European gas price, Asia’s JKM benchmark for LNG and shipping rates.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

For European buyers, the battle with Asia for LNG supplies is eerily familiar to the situation four years ago after Russia slashed pipeline natural gas flows to the continent following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Competition for spare cargoes then pushed prices to record levels.

On Monday, European gas prices reached as high as €69.50 per megawatt hour, more than double their level before the Iran conflict began. Even so, prices are still far from the €342 per megawatt hour reached in 2022.

JKM gas prices also more than doubled since the start of the war to $24.80 per 1mn British thermal units by Monday, equivalent to €73.10/MWh.

Advertisement

European buyers have learnt from their experience in 2022. “Europe has more weapons at its disposal in this extreme price scenario to try and fight,” said Alex Kerr, a partner at law firm Baker Botts.

Buyers had started putting clauses in contracts to say that suppliers would face much higher penalties if they diverted cargoes for commercial gain, Kerr said.

There is also much more LNG on the market now that is not committed to set destinations, largely because of new projects starting in the US.

While producers such as Qatar impose strict rules on where its LNG can be sent, almost all US exports are allowed to sail wherever buyers want. Several analysts said there had also been an increase in the willingness of some producers to break contracts for financial advantage.

This makes diversions more likely, while the reluctance of some European buyers to sign long-term supply contracts before the outbreak of war this month could prove costly.

Advertisement

Expectations of a global supply glut convinced some European buyers that it would be cheaper to wait until later in the year to sign supply deals.

Wood Mackenzie’s Di Odoardo said the buyers had also held off on LNG purchases because new EU legislation on methane emissions made it unclear whether they could incur penalties in the future.

The risk of prices rising as Europe and Asia fight for available cargoes is increasing every day the Strait of Hormuz stays almost closed.

Gas is more difficult to store and to carry in tankers than oil, making its markets more vulnerable to shortages and price shocks.

“The longer the Strait remains shut, the greater the risk that the shipping disruption turns into a genuine gas shortage, as tankers cannot load and facilities have limited storage,” said consultancy Oxford Economics in a research note.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Harry Dempsey in Tokyo. Data visualisation by Jana Tauschinski

Continue Reading

Trending