SignalGate Should Serve as a Cautionary Tale for Republicans – Why Isn’t It?

Ludovic Marin/Pool via AP

FBI Director Kash Patel on Sunday touted a coming “wave of transparency” in government, a push for which Republican voters have clamored (and voted) and that would be welcome, regardless of the messenger, to millions of Americans who have felt lied to over the years.

With the release of audio from the Robert Hur interview of President Joe Biden, there has never been a more opportune moment for government, for Democrats, and of course for the media to come clean about a lot of things.

And elsewhere on Sunday, Politico published a post-mortem on Mike Waltz as National Security adviser, highlighting what they argue was the overarching “pitfall” that led to his ouster. Spoiler: It wasn’t SignalGate, according to Politico’s Joshua Zeitz. But the encrypted messaging scandal that turned an app built for privacy into a vehicle for confusion, leaks, and reputational risk continues to pose a conundrum for those in politics who want a balance between public accountability and the ability to communicate privately and securely.

It’s a confluence of news stories that also bring to mind a lesser-known “SignalGate”, if you will, with questions about the use of these encrypted messaging apps like Signal in other corners of Republican politics – including in particular a story in Oklahoma, where a slow-burning situation involving GOP Treasurer Todd Russ may soon come to a boil.

Staff for Russ reportedly used Signal to coordinate on anti-ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investment policy with influential conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF), and Consumers’ Research. It’s not unusual – these groups have been central to Republican priorities in recent years and utterly essential to understanding issues on the right. Still, the actual method of communication is now somewhat of an issue.

One complication: Signal messages can be set to automatically delete, a setting apparently enabled at the office in this case. So now, in response to a public records request about the Treasurer’s anti-ESG policy work, they’ve been unable to produce those messages. It’s a situation that’s drawn attention not just for the missing records, but because of what the office did next.

Rather than simply stating the records were unavailable—a not-uncommon response—the Treasurer’s office went a step further, asking a judge to impose a protective order shielding the involved organizations. That prompted critics to question not just the recordkeeping practices, but what might have been said in those chats.

In effect, the Oklahoma Treasurer’s office is running interference for the Heritage Foundation and other conservative-aligned policy groups. Rather than leaving it to those organizations to respond to subpoenas, the Treasurer’s legal team is proactively seeking to block access—an unusual move that raises new questions about the depth of coordination between state officials and outside players.

And to be clear, there’s no evidence that anything untoward took place, but if the Republican party at large is pushing for major strides in transparency, it does run counter to that so often touted goal. And of course, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office reportedly isn’t thrilled with how the situation is unfolding, either.

Naturally, opponents of these outfits or conservative activist Leonard Leo, to whom many of them are tied, or just opponents of the good initiatives and philosophy that conservative groups support and advance are suggesting that the Signal chats would reveal some degree of collusion that would be scandalous, or at least juicy for the press. One of the chief good outcomes of transparency is putting such rumoring to rest.

Specifics aside, the situation underscores a growing scrutiny of encrypted messaging in government – not only in Oklahoma, and not just among Republicans.

Since the original SignalGate involving then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, other encrypted message threads have surfaced. One involved prominent conservative donors and tech execs; another saw Hegseth reportedly discussing national security topics with family. And state-level stories like Oklahoma’s suggest this issue – like so many tech issues – isn’t going away.

Encrypted communication apps aren’t new in politics. Confide, an app that auto-deletes texts, helped get former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens in hot water. And former congressman Anthony Weiner’s scandal, while not about the tech, came to light because of it. The issues then—as now – aren’t just about the risks of technology per se, but what such communications methods enable: selective transparency, diminished accountability, and potential legal exposure.

As these platforms become more central to political coordination, the risks – legal, reputational, and operational—also grow. If key records can’t be retrieved, that poses problems for accountability. And if the contents of those chats ever surface through leaks or litigation, the fallout can be unpredictable.

Whether the Oklahoma story becomes a full-blown scandal or simply a cautionary tale remains to be seen. But it’s one more sign that encrypted messaging apps, once seen as a shield, may be becoming a liability—regardless of party.

And while it is the nature of the Democrats and Media to take an issue already worthy of scrutiny and needlessly blow it out of proportion to score points anyway, we can still learn from these moments. It’s not just about the media and Democrats, or even just the tech, but about the people. Indeed, isn’t that the very point that Patel, Bongino, Musk, and many other Trump figures make every day?

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.