What began as a head-scratching accident—The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg being added to a national security Signal chat—has now morphed into a full-blown legal spectacle, courtesy of a left-wing activist group looking to seize the headlines. Somehow, someway, this story has found a way to get even more absurd.
Enter American Oversight, a self-described government “watchdog” that’s now suing top Trump administration officials over alleged violations of federal records laws. The group filed its lawsuit in a D.C. federal court against a roster of officials including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, DNI Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Yes, that Marco Rubio.
JUST IN: Judge James Boasberg has been assigned to the Signalgate lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/nrLv9EQNyO
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 26, 2025
Their claim? That the officials failed to preserve government communications on the encrypted app Signal, in apparent violation of the Federal Records Act. Specifically, they’re targeting the infamous “Houthi PC Small Group” chat that accidentally included Goldberg during internal planning discussions on U.S. military operations in Yemen.
But here’s the key problem: there is zero evidence that classified information was shared in the group. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, who managed the chat, has publicly stated he doesn’t even know Goldberg. Officials directly involved—Ratcliffe, Gabbard, and others—have testified under oath that no sensitive or classified material was discussed. Furthermore, the use of Signal itself is neither new nor illicit. It’s a standard-issue communication tool across multiple federal agencies, including the CIA, for unclassified coordination.
JUST IN: Judge James Boasberg has been assigned to the Signalgate lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/nrLv9EQNyO
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 26, 2025
So what is American Oversight actually hoping to achieve with this lawsuit? According to their own statement, they want to “recover unlawfully deleted messages and prevent further destruction.” But again, there’s no indication that messages were deleted, unlawfully or otherwise. Did they make a FOIA request and wait for a denial? Doesn’t appear so. More likely, this is a preemptive strike meant to generate headlines—not results.
The group’s interim executive director, Chioma Chukwu, ramped up the drama even further by suggesting that a crime may have been committed, calling the situation a “five-alarm fire.” But there’s no fire—only smoke blown by partisan actors hoping the courts will do what elections have not: damage the Trump administration’s credibility through a backdoor of legal theatrics.
It’s no secret that the judiciary has become a political battlefield, especially in Trump’s second term. A growing number of decisions from federal judges reflect more ideological signaling than legal reasoning, and this lawsuit fits neatly into that pattern. Even if it’s ultimately thrown out, the spectacle itself serves the left’s short-term goals: stir controversy, feed the media cycle, and tie up administration officials in paperwork and procedural headaches.
