Signal chat disclosures constituted an early test for the FBI and the Ministry of Justice.

Over the past few years, senior members of the President’s administration have shared defense secrets about signal messaging applications that will represent serious violations that could prompt the FBI and the Justice Department’s national security department to investigate.

However, so far, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel appear to be planning to investigate whether the communications described in a bombshell report in the Atlantic Magazine could have violated federal laws such as the Espionage Act.

The Bureau and the Department have conducted such investigations to find out the extent of damage to the country’s national security, reveal other reckless situations and examine whether the law has been violated. The National Security Council announced Tuesday that such investigations would be independent of – more thorough, more thorough than the National Security Council’s internal review.

Ms. Bundy and Mr. Patel were next a major early test of the two officials who promised to impartially manage the justice and get rid of political considerations, which, in their opinion, led to a criminal prosecution by Mr. Trump during the Biden administration.

“This is usually investigated by the FBI and the Justice Department,” said Mary McCord, a long-time Justice official.

“Even if a person has legally possessed defense information and sends it a signal (which is not an approved, secure means of communicating such information), the prosecutor can determine that this is serious negligence and that is a felony.”

The former federal law enforcement case says the FBI could be considered as misconduct of confidential information and could investigate the incident. But the government insists that the information is not classified, complicating the possibility of any criminal investigation. Congress can also refer to the Justice Department.

Speaking at the White House, Trump seemed to acknowledge the ongoing investigation by the National Security Council, but quickly added: “It’s not a FBI business.”

The Justice Department and the FBI work independently, but unify such investigations: Only after the bureau draws a conclusion can its department officials determine whether the charges are needed.

Speaking at a Senate hearing Tuesday, Mr Patel said he had briefed the matter but did not say whether the bureau would conduct a formal investigation. A FBI spokesman declined to comment.

A spokesman for Ms. Bundy declined to comment on whether she authorized to investigate the sensitive secrets of her cabinet members to signals.

On Tuesday, Democratic Representative Dan Goldman of New York called on Ms. Bundy to appoint a special counsel to investigate the signaling team and believes her status as a member of the Trump cabinet makes it “impossible for her to investigate without a conflict of interest.”

The Justice Department under Ms. Bundy has been willing to publicly acknowledge investigations involving inappropriate information deemed by political leadership. Last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a criminal investigation, a selective leak of “inaccurate but still classified information” in an effort to expel members of the Venezuelan gang.

On Monday, Atlantic General Manager Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he was included in the Signal Group chat in an unintentional chat that organized Michael Waltz with Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz, to share this year’s highly sensitive details of the Hotty rebels in Yemen.

Among other participants: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard. Ms. Bundy obviously was not invited.

Ms. Bundy and Mr. Patel faced the dilemma of Mr. Trump’s replacement during the 2024 campaign, given their highest measure is the biggest way to punish political opponents found to be improperly dealing with national security secrets.

Ms. Bundy and Mr. Patel, as well as most participants in the Signal Chat, said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for using a private email server to discuss government affairs a decade ago.

“Hillary Clinton actually committed the crime by handling confidential documents, and was deprived of the crime, a two-layer judicial system,” Patel wrote in his book “Gangster of Government” published in 2023.

In her debut on the national political stage, in 2016, then Florida Attorney General Ms. Bundy basked in an anti-Clinton ode in her speech to the Cleveland Republican National Convention.

“Lock her!” Ms. Bundy said in response to the audience. “I love that!”

Although the signal is an encryption program, its use is explicitly prohibited in the 2023 Department of Defense memorandum that prohibits “non-DOD messaging systems” and “unclassified systems, government issuance or otherwise to obtain confidential national security information.”

Ms. Gabbard said at a hearing on Tuesday that she did not believe that the information contained in the news had been classified. CIA Director John Ratcliffe argued that Mr Hegseth said that although he added that he could not verify Mr Hegseth’s claims, the information was not classified yet.

Mr. Trump also responded to these claims at the White House on Tuesday.

However, former officials who handled highly sensitive information said reporting of military targets, weapons to be used, and reports on sequences and timing on the Houthi website discussed in group chats may involve confidential material, either marked so.

It is unclear whether the claims of Mr. Trump’s national security officials are important. Under the Espionage Act of 1917, sensitive information does not have to be classified as a crime for its crime. The law is written in front of modern confidential information systems, but covers close defense information that could undermine the United States or help foreign opponents.

Nevertheless, in the modern era, such information is often classified, and for the Justice Department it is rare (but not unheard of) that the prosecutor is inappropriate.

The former prosecutor said the decision not to investigate, let alone file charges, could give future defendants a basis for a leak case, requiring them to prosecute selectively.

The claim of the signal chat member (without sharing any confidential information) echoes the defense lawyer installed by Mrs. Clinton’s team, who insists that the information is not marked in emails on its private server, many of which are derived from publicly available sources. Subsequent investigations found that a few messages had some markers indicating the lowest form of classification.

The FBI agent reviewed evidence of disagreement with Mrs. Clinton’s attorney’s argument and pointed out that while the overwhelming majority was not marked as categorized, it was essentially because it discussed sensitive issues.

Evidence in the case includes an email chain for a drone strike discussion in Pakistan, a highly classified national security program.

The Clinton team tried to downplay the severity of the investigation, calling it a security review. But in reality, it is a serious criminal investigation. At that time, the FBI began checking emails after receiving a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

Mr. Goldberg’s description of the material contained in the signal chat (which he described as a “war plan” against Huthis) shows that at least some of the information discussed is quite sensitive.

Revealing such plans could endanger U.S. forces before the strike. Former FBI officials engaged in the leak described it as a devastating violation of national security, while former national security officials said that using personal cell phones could allow participants to continue hacking attacks by Chinese and Russians. The report showed that at least one participant was in Moscow at that time.

Other conversations in group chats can also be considered categorized because they involve an assessment of relationships with foreign countries (especially Europe) by internal U.S. officials. When such discussions occur within government channels, they are often considered categorical.

Mr. Patel, who had run for Mr. Trump, promised to restore the FBI’s reputation, believes the investigation of Mr. Trump has been damaged, including relying on the Espionage Act.

“If the authorities violate the rules, they will not encounter any consequences, then they will violate the rules. Worse, when people are encouraged to violate the rules, they will violate the rules again and again.”

Eric Schimitt and Robert Jimison Contribution report.