What Does Project 2025 Say About Using Signal? What To Know

Newsweek - Mar 27th, 2025

The Trump administration is under fire following the release of a training video from Project 2025, which discussed the use of encrypted messaging apps like Signal for official communications. This controversy was amplified when it was revealed that Trump officials used Signal to discuss a military strike against Houthis in Yemen, inadvertently including The Atlantic's editor-in-chief in the chat. Critics argue the breach potentially endangered national security, prompting further scrutiny of the administration's communication practices.

Project 2025, developed by the Heritage Foundation, aimed to prepare conservative appointees for a possible second Trump term. Despite previous efforts by Trump to distance himself from the blueprint due to backlash, key figures associated with it have joined his administration. The video, featuring discussions by Heritage Foundation's Mike Howell, America First Legal's Michael Ding, and Tom Jones of the American Accountability Foundation, has resurfaced amid growing concern over the legality and transparency of using Signal for government business. The video suggests caution in adhering to federal records retention policies, as failure to do so could result in legal trouble for political appointees.

Donald Trump Us Politics Heritage Foundation National Security Project 2025 Signal App Foia

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and relevant exploration of the controversy surrounding Project 2025 and the use of Signal in government communications. It effectively highlights the potential risks and criticisms while presenting multiple perspectives, though it leans slightly towards emphasizing the negative aspects. The accuracy and source quality are generally strong, but the story would benefit from more direct evidence and transparency regarding its sources and methodology. The article is well-structured and readable, making it accessible to a broad audience, but could enhance engagement by offering more interactive elements or expert insights. Overall, the story succeeds in raising important questions about government transparency and cybersecurity, contributing to public discourse on these critical issues.

Accuracy

The story accurately identifies Project 2025 as a controversial conservative government blueprint and correctly attributes its creation to the Heritage Foundation. It also accurately discusses the Trump administration's use of Signal for sensitive discussions, including the accidental inclusion of a journalist. However, the story could benefit from more precise details about the specific nature of the plans discussed on Signal and the direct consequences of such communications. The article's claim about the potential breach of national security is speculative without more concrete evidence. Overall, the story's factual basis is solid, but it requires additional verification for some claims, such as the exact content of the Project 2025 training video and the legal implications of using Signal for official communications.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of the Heritage Foundation, Trump administration officials, and critics from both political sides. However, it leans towards emphasizing the criticisms and potential risks associated with using Signal, which may overshadow other viewpoints, such as the rationale behind using encrypted messaging apps. The inclusion of President Trump's defense and Senator Mark Kelly's criticism provides some balance, but the article could benefit from more perspectives that support or justify the use of Signal in government communications.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively outlines the main issues and provides relevant context for readers unfamiliar with Project 2025 or the controversy surrounding Signal's use. The language is neutral, and the tone is appropriate for a news piece. However, the article could benefit from more explicit definitions of technical terms, such as 'FOIA' and 'encrypted communications,' to enhance comprehension for a broader audience.

Source quality

The article references credible sources such as the Heritage Foundation, Newsweek, and statements from public figures like President Trump and Senator Mark Kelly. However, it lacks direct quotes or detailed attributions from the training video or other primary sources that could strengthen the report. The reliance on secondary sources and the absence of direct evidence from the video or official documents slightly diminish the source quality.

Transparency

The article provides a general overview of the issues surrounding Project 2025 and the use of Signal but lacks transparency in terms of the methodology used to gather information. There is no clear explanation of how the information from the training video was obtained or verified. Additionally, the potential conflicts of interest, such as the political affiliations of those involved in Project 2025, are not explicitly addressed, which could affect the story's impartiality.