Judge orders Trump officials to preserve Signal group chat records

Michael Macagnone, CQ-Roll Call on Mar 27, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington ordered Trump administration officials Thursday to temporarily preserve records of a leaked Signal group chat where senior officials discussed sensitive information about a military action against the Houthis.

Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said he would enter the order in a lawsuit that alleges potential violations of the Federal Records Act, which requires agencies to retain records of their deliberations and decisions.

The order is set to last for two weeks and could be the start of further court action over whether Trump officials’ use of Signal or other messaging apps runs afoul of the records law.

During a hearing Thursday, the Justice Department said Trump officials were already taking steps to preserve the group chat, which apparently inadvertently included a journalist and had senior government officials discussing details of the attack in advance.

American Oversight, a watchdog group, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State and acting National Archives and Records Administrator Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seeking to preserve records of the chat.

The Atlantic earlier this week detailed a group chat that discussed details of the attack on Houthis in Yemen and apparently inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, the outlet’s editor-in-chief. The group asked Boasberg to order the Trump administration to retain the records.

After Trump administration officials said the information included was not classified, Goldberg released messages Wednesday that included advance notice of the timing of attacks and platforms used, such as drones and F-18s.

During Thursday’s court hearing, Justice Department attorney Amber Richer said several agencies had taken steps to preserve the messages in the chat and would not object to Boasberg’s proposed order.

Ben Sparks, the attorney representing American Oversight, said the messages released so far appear to reference other conversations that federal officials have not disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.

“We have serious concerns about the use of this ephemeral messaging system,” Sparks said.

Boasberg said that the group may be able to bring further litigation if they “have reason to believe the government is not implementing FRA complaint practices.”

Attorney General Pamela Bondi told reporters Thursday the messages included information that “was sensitive information — not classified,” when asked about whether there would be a criminal probe of the leak.

During a congressional hearing Wednesday, FBI Director Kash Patel declined to comment on whether there would be an investigation.

Overnight, Trump had asserted without evidence that Boasberg had chosen to preside over the cases against the Trump administration. Boasberg is also overseeing the challenge to Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to send migrants who are alleged to be in a Venezuelan gang to a prison in El Salvador.

“Boasberg, who is the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, seems to be grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself, even though it is not supposed to happen that way,” Trump said on social media.

At the start of the hearing, Boasberg defended the random assignment of cases in the D.C. District. He said that cases are assigned by an automated system that distributes them based on whether it is civil or criminal and subcategories such as antitrust or administrative review.

“That’s how all cases continue to be assigned in this court,” Boasberg said.

The case is American Oversight v. Pete Hegseth, et al.