National Security Council adds Gmail to its list of bad decisions

Engadget - Apr 1st, 2025

The Washington Post has revealed that National Security Council members, including national security advisor Michael Waltz, used personal Gmail accounts to conduct government business. This practice involved the discussion of sensitive information with colleagues, raising significant security concerns. Despite regulations requiring government communications to be preserved and archived, the use of personal email accounts poses risks of information interception and unintentional data breaches. Eva Galperin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation emphasized the vulnerability of emails without end-to-end encryption. Despite these revelations, NSC spokesman Brian Hughes claimed there is no evidence of Waltz using a personal account for official purposes.

This incident is part of a broader pattern of questionable software use within the executive branch, following a separate case where national security leaders used Signal for military discussions, inadvertently adding a journalist. While Signal is more secure than public email clients, it still presents risks, as highlighted by a recent Pentagon warning. The story underscores ongoing challenges in governmental data privacy and security practices, yet no repercussions have been reported for officials involved in these risky actions. This situation highlights the urgent need for stricter data handling protocols and accountability measures in government communications.

White House National Security Council Data Privacy Electronic Frontier Foundation Email Security Michael Waltz Government Communications Eva Galperin

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.6

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses a critical issue of public interest by highlighting potential security lapses in government communications. It effectively raises awareness about the risks associated with using personal email accounts for sensitive information. However, the story's impact is somewhat limited by a lack of detailed evidence and balanced perspectives. While the use of anonymous sources and the absence of corroborating details weaken the accuracy and transparency, the article remains timely and relevant in the context of ongoing cybersecurity concerns. Overall, the story succeeds in sparking interest and debate but would benefit from more comprehensive sourcing and a balanced exploration of the issue.

Accuracy

The story makes several claims about the use of personal Gmail accounts by members of the White House's National Security Council, including National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. These claims are partially supported by the sources mentioned, such as the potential security risks of using Gmail for sensitive communications, which are corroborated by cybersecurity expert Eva Galperin. However, the story lacks precise evidence or direct quotes from involved parties to substantiate the claims about the nature of the information shared or the specific emails involved. Additionally, the response from NSC spokesman Brian Hughes, who denies seeing evidence of Waltz using a personal account for government correspondence, introduces a conflicting narrative that is not fully explored or resolved in the article.

Balance

The article primarily presents a critical perspective on the use of personal Gmail accounts by government officials, highlighting security concerns and potential regulatory violations. However, it does not provide a balanced view by including perspectives from those who may defend or justify the use of personal email accounts, such as potential operational convenience or lack of access to secure systems at certain times. While the article does briefly mention the NSC spokesman's denial of wrongdoing, it does not delve into any possible explanations or mitigating factors that could provide a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it relatively easy to follow the main points and concerns raised. However, the lack of detailed evidence and context for some of the claims can lead to confusion about the severity and implications of the alleged actions. The inclusion of various technical terms related to cybersecurity, while necessary, may also require further explanation for a general audience.

Source quality

The story cites the Washington Post and interviews with anonymous government officials, which lends some credibility given the Post's reputation for investigative journalism. However, the reliance on anonymous sources without clear attribution or corroboration from multiple independent sources weakens the overall reliability. The mention of cybersecurity expert Eva Galperin adds some authority, but additional expert opinions or official documents would strengthen the story's foundation.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the methodology behind the claims and the sources of information. It does not explain how the information was obtained or verified, particularly concerning the sensitive nature of the emails allegedly sent via personal accounts. The use of anonymous sources without context about their credibility or potential biases further obscures the transparency of the reporting.