American Oversight Sues Trump Officials Over Use of Signal Messaging App, Alleging Violation of Records Laws
Left-leaning watchdog group American Oversight has filed a federal lawsuit against several senior Trump administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard, alleging that their use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss sensitive matters may violate the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the destruction or further use of encrypted messages that could be considered federal records.
Background: The Signal Chat Controversy
The legal challenge comes in the wake of a report by The Atlantic‘s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who claimed he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat where top officials were discussing potential military action against Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.
Rather than exiting the chat, Goldberg took screenshots of the messages and published a story, claiming that figures like National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Hegseth, and CIA Director Ratcliffe were discussing active military operations in a Signal group titled “Houthi PC small group.”
The revelation set off a political firestorm, with critics raising alarms over national security and the preservation of presidential records.
Officials Push Back, Deny Any Impropriety
Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, John Ratcliffe forcefully pushed back on Goldberg’s assertions, clarifying that no classified information was discussed in the Signal group. He further confirmed that Signal was approved for work use during his time as CIA Director and had been installed by the agency itself on his official devices.
Tulsi Gabbard, now serving as Director of National Intelligence, echoed Ratcliffe’s statement, stating that all communications complied with agency protocol and legal requirements.
“No classified information was exchanged over Signal,” Gabbard said. “This was within standard communication procedures.”
American Oversight’s Legal Argument
Despite these assurances, American Oversight argues that the use of a double-encrypted messaging app like Signal—with disappearing messages and no automatic archival system—violates the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and Federal Records Act (FRA), which mandate that government records, especially those related to high-level decision-making, must be preserved.
“There is substantial reason to believe that communications among senior officials about potential military actions are not being properly preserved, as required by law,” American Oversight stated.
The group, known for its activist litigation targeting Republican officials, has framed the lawsuit as a transparency and accountability issue, citing Signal’s encryption and message deletion features as threats to public record-keeping.
Legal and Political Implications
This case represents a growing legal battleground over how modern communication tools—especially encrypted apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram—interact with existing federal records laws. The Trump administration and its advisors have frequently clashed with bureaucratic norms surrounding digital communication and transparency.
If American Oversight succeeds, it could set a precedent for how federal officials are allowed to use encrypted or non-government communication platforms moving forward. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs may also open the door to broader challenges related to communications in the executive branch during national security operations.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is also named in the lawsuit for its role in overseeing compliance with records retention policies.
What’s Next?
The court will first review the request for a temporary restraining order, which, if granted, could immediately bar the officials from deleting any relevant messages and force the preservation of communication records. Additional hearings and discovery could follow, depending on the outcome of the initial motion.
For now, all named officials maintain that no classified or legally protected records were improperly handled, and the administration is expected to mount a strong legal defense.
The case adds to the growing friction between political appointees, media, and government watchdogs as debates continue over national security, transparency, and the limits of executive power in the digital age.
