Lawsuit Over Leaked Pentagon Chat Lands With Same Judge Fighting Trump Over Deportations

A lawsuit claiming Trump officials violated federal records laws by using Signal to discuss military plans is now in the hands of Judge James Boasberg—the same judge who blocked the administration’s deportation of violent illegal immigrants. Critics are calling foul, questioning both the lawsuit’s merit and the judge’s impartiality.

Key Facts:

American Oversight filed a lawsuit Wednesday over alleged records violations involving Trump officials discussing Houthi strike plans on Signal.
Defendants include Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent, and the National Archives.
The lawsuit was randomly assigned to Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court.
Signal’s auto-delete feature is central to the claim that records may have been illegally destroyed.
Lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Darrell Issa say Boasberg should recuse himself due to prior bias.

The Rest of The Story:

The watchdog group American Oversight says the defendants broke the Federal Records Act by using Signal, an encrypted messaging app, to talk about national security plans without preserving the messages.

Federal law requires such communications to be saved as official records.

The controversy erupted when it was discovered that a journalist had accidentally been added to a high-level chat discussing upcoming U.S. strikes against the Houthis.

Tulsi Gabbard testified that no classified information was shared, and the National Security Council is now investigating the breach.

American Oversight is focusing on the potential destruction of government records if Signal’s disappearing messages feature was used.

However, it remains unclear whether the auto-delete function was enabled or whether any messages were actually lost.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-fighting-trump-over-el-salvador-deportations-assigned-lawsuit-over-signal-chat-leak

Commentary:

At the heart of this lawsuit is speculation—what could have happened with deleted messages on Signal.

That’s a shaky foundation for such a politically charged case.

There’s no direct evidence yet that records were deleted illegally.

If no data was lost, then this entire case rests on hypotheticals.

More concerning is the judge overseeing the case.

James Boasberg has previously issued sweeping rulings against Trump’s immigration policies, including blocking the deportation of dangerous gang members who entered the U.S. illegally.

That action alone raised serious concerns about judicial overreach.

Now, Boasberg is again placed in a position to potentially rule against Trump’s team.

Whether the assignment was “random” or not, the optics are deeply troubling.

Congress even considered impeaching Boasberg for politicizing his bench—a rare and serious step.

Calls for Boasberg to recuse himself are reasonable under these circumstances.

Any judge with a track record of bias, or who has already taken action against a defendant in a related context, should step aside to preserve public trust in the judiciary.

This lawsuit also reflects a growing trend of using the courts as political weapons.

Instead of resolving actual legal violations, some lawsuits seem designed to score headlines and tie up opponents with costly legal battles.

That’s not justice—it’s theater.

If the courts continue down this path, the damage won’t just hit one administration.

It could erode trust in the rule of law for generations.

The Bottom Line:

This case appears to be based on assumptions about missing messages, not hard facts.

The assignment of the lawsuit to a judge with a history of bias against Trump raises serious ethical questions.

Rather than being a pursuit of justice, this could be the latest example of using the courts for political payback.