> Waltz also appears to have also engendered some sympathy from inside Trump’s orbit over the group chat because the White House had authorized the use of Signal, largely because there is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies, two people familiar with the matter said.

- No alternative platform: Presumably on purpose. If it were a good security practice to text this type of information in real time across existential-level national-security agencies by using multiple private vendors (e.g., Apple, Signal, AT&T, Verizon, …), I'll go out on a limb to guess that the government would have implemented that idea before 2025.

This is a great explanation for why they should be keeping these conversations on systems that are designed for handling classified information and have controls to prevent adding a random person to the conversation.

The systems you describe exist. An interesting story would investigate why the systems weren't used in the Goldberg situation.

They said Waltz had been "cleared of wrongdoing" and yet

> Donald Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz included a journalist in the Signal group chat about plans for US strikes in Yemen after he mistakenly saved his number months before under the contact of someone else he intended to add, according to three people briefed on the matter.

That clears him? That should implicate him!

There is no accountability for this administration. It's funny watching all the anti-DEI folks talk about meritocracy because the only qualification you need to be in the Trump administration is undying loyalty. Ethics don't matter and neither does ability. Just be loyal.

"But Trump decided against firing him in large part because he did not want the Atlantic and the news media more broadly to have the satisfaction of forcing the ouster of a top cabinet official weeks into his second term."

That's about Michael Waltz. The decision is based not on whether Waltz revealed classified info, but about appearances. Seems dangerous to make decisions this way.

I wonder what their source is for that.

An alternative interpretation is simply "I don't care": So top secret info leaked; don't do it again. You're doin' a heck of a job.

If it does happen again... honestly, would the rationale be different?

Sure, they'd have a conniption if it had happened under Biden. But that would be purely about harassing Biden rather than a serious consideration of national security.