We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, serve personalized ads or content, and analyze our traffic. By clicking "Accept All", you consent to our use of cookies.
Customize Consent Preferences
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
No cookies to display.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
No cookies to display.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
No cookies to display.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
No cookies to display.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s use of a popular messaging app to discuss sensitive military plans — with a journalist on the text chain — is raising questions about security and the importance of safeguarding the nation’s secrets.
It’s also highlighting the differences between classified and public information, and demonstrating that even encrypted apps like Signal can lead to embarrassing leaks if the humans doing the texting don’t follow basic security tips.
What’s the difference between ‘classified’ and ‘top secret’?
President Donald Trump’s administration says no classified material was leaked when senior officials used Signal to discuss upcoming attack plans against the Houthi rebels in Yemen — even though a journalist was on the chat.
But even if the information had been declassified by the Pentagon, it contained details that would have been highly valuable to the Houthis or other adversaries, showing how sometimes the decision of what to classify is a judgment call.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, center, is flanked by FBI Director Kash Patel, left, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, as the Senate Intelligence Committee holds its worldwide threats hearing, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 25, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
The federal government routinely classifies vast amounts of information pertaining to military and intelligence operations. The material ranges from top secret nuclear programs or the identities of undercover agents all the way to mundane records that would be of little interest to anyone, let alone America’s adversaries. In 2011, for example, the CIA finally declassified its recipe for invisible ink — from 1917.
Advocates for open government have long complained that the push for secrecy goes too far, by protecting information that could shine a light on government activities or matters of public interest, including about UFO sightings and a 60-year-old presidential assassination.
While the public typically calls any information withheld by the government “classified,” that term only refers to the three broad categories used to “classify” information based on the need for secrecy: confidential, secret and top secret.
While files marked “confidential” contain information that’s not meant to be released, the need for security or access restrictions isn’t as great as for material considered “top secret,” which includes the nation’s nuclear secrets and other material that, if released, could pose a grave danger to national security.