Waltz's team set up at least 20 Signal group chats for crises across the world

Use of Signal for Sensitive/Classified Communications

• Many commenters see the core issue not as “using Signal” per se, but using an unofficial, auto-deleting app to plan military operations and discuss intelligence, bypassing normal classified channels and records laws.
• Some argue the motivation is clearly to evade discovery, FOIA, and future oversight, not to improve security. Others note FOIA technically doesn’t cover parts of the White House, but record-keeping laws still apply.
• There’s dispute over whether Signal is even approved on government devices; one side cites testimony claiming it’s CIA‑approved and preloaded, another points to NSA documentation and former officials saying it was never allowed for official communications, even unclassified.

Security, Backdoors, and Government Reliance

• Several see this as a strong endorsement of Signal’s security: if senior officials choose it to evade US surveillance, it’s likely hard to break.
• Others push back, citing BlackBerry as precedent: governments will backdoor or work around “secure” systems and later find other access vectors (device compromises, exploits).
• Debate over whether government dependence on Signal makes backdoors politically or operationally impossible; skeptics invoke NOBUS logic and intra‑governmental factionalism.

OPSEC Failures and the Journalist in the Chat

• The accidental inclusion of a prominent journalist in a war-planning chat is widely mocked as “Veep‑level” incompetence.
• Explanations debated: fat‑fingered UI, contact syncing quirks, prior sourcing relationship, or deliberate leak. Most commenters lean toward repeated sloppiness rather than conspiracy.
• The fact that no participant noticed or questioned the presence of an unexpected number is seen as damning for their security culture.

Transparency, Records, and ‘End of History’

• Auto‑deleting Signal chats are likened to using voice calls: ephemeral by default. Some say the real violation is failure to document decisions, not the tool.
• Others argue that for top officials, ephemeral apps systematically destroy the historical record and democratic transparency, “ending history” by design.

Neglected Subtext: Yemen and Power

• Multiple comments argue the fixation on apps and classification distracts from the larger moral issue: casual discussion and apparent normalization of bombing Yemeni homes to kill one target.
• There’s criticism of US media for being structurally non‑adversarial on foreign policy, and of the public for caring more about process violations than about civilian deaths.