Investigation into Lindsey Halligan’s Use of Disappearing Signal Messages Raises Legal Concerns

Investigation into Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s Use of Disappearing Messages Raises Legal and Ethical Concerns

The use of the encrypted messaging app Signal by Lindsey Halligan, interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to communicate with journalist Anna Bower about an ongoing prosecution has sparked an investigation by the ethics watchdog American Oversight. Halligan’s messages, which were set to auto-delete after eight hours, raise questions about compliance with federal record-keeping laws and the politicization of the Justice Department.

• Lindsey Halligan, appointed by former President Donald Trump, used Signal to discuss criminal cases against political figures such as New York Attorney General Letitia James.
• American Oversight filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding release of Halligan’s Signal messages, citing potential violations of the Federal Records Act.
• Halligan engaged in a 33-hour text exchange with journalist Anna Bower, challenging her reporting on the James indictment, but never clarified if conversations were off the record.
• Critics argue Halligan's use of disappearing messages undermines transparency and could constitute illegal destruction of federal records.
• The Justice Department confirmed Halligan’s messages as authentic but denied any wrongdoing, praising her performance in prosecuting politically sensitive cases.

Background on the Signal Messaging Controversy

Lindsey Halligan, installed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025, rapidly pursued indictments against prominent figures critical of former President Donald Trump, including Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. Her appointment followed the abrupt departure of her predecessor who reportedly resisted politically motivated prosecutions.

Halligan's use of Signal, an encrypted app that allows messages to disappear after a set time, came to light when senior editor Anna Bower of Lawfare published a detailed report including screenshots of their exchange. The messages included discussions of sensitive ongoing prosecutions, raising alarms about potential violations of federal record retention statutes and grand jury secrecy rules.

The Nature of Halligan’s Communication with Journalist Anna Bower

On October 11, Halligan initiated contact with Bower via Signal, challenging tweets Bower had posted referencing a New York Times report about Letitia James's indictment. The prosecutor disputed Bower’s interpretation of grand jury testimony concerning James’s use of a Norfolk property, claiming the reporter’s summaries were factually incorrect. Notably, Halligan never explicitly stated that their exchanges were off the record, a central negotiating point in journalistic ethics.

The messages revealed Halligan’s frustration with media coverage, her insistence that Bower’s reporting was biased, and her criticism of the New York Times. While Bower often sought clarification to correct potential errors, Halligan’s explanations remained vague, declining to specify inaccuracies and citing grand jury confidentiality. The unusual direct engagement on a high-profile and politically charged case sparked debate among legal and journalistic circles.

Legal and Ethical Implications of Using Disappearing Messages

Experts and watchdog groups have expressed grave concerns that Halligan’s use of auto-deleting messages violates the Federal Records Act, which mandates preservation of official communications for public accountability. Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, emphasized that no federal official can circumvent record-keeping laws by declaring messages off the record or using disappearing platforms.

Similarly, Donald Sherman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called for an Inspector General investigation into whether Halligan destroyed official records unlawfully. Prior controversies involving officials’ use of Signal for government business have underscored the risks to transparency and oversight.

Political Context Surrounding Halligan’s Appointment and Actions

Halligan, a former personal attorney to President Trump, was rapidly installed following the removal of Erik Siebert, who opposed pursuing criminal charges against Trump’s political adversaries. Halligan’s subsequent indictments have been widely viewed as part of a politicized effort within the Justice Department, amplifying scrutiny of her conduct.

The Justice Department praised Halligan’s work while dismissing reporting critical of her as “lazy” and “uninterested in the facts.” However, her controversial communication practices may fuel defense arguments alleging selective and vindictive prosecution, particularly in the politically sensitive cases of James and Comey.

Ongoing Investigation and Potential Outcomes

American Oversight’s Freedom of Information Act request demands disclosure of all Signal messages sent or received by Halligan concerning government business beginning September 22, 2025. The Justice Department is legally required to respond within 20 business days. Failure to comply may result in litigation.

Should the investigation confirm that Halligan used Signal’s auto-deletion feature to destroy official records, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General may initiate a formal inquiry, possibly leading to disciplinary or corrective actions.

Broader Questions of Transparency in the Digital Age

Halligan’s use of Signal highlights a growing dilemma in government communications: how laws crafted for paper and traditional emails apply to encrypted, ephemeral digital messaging platforms. The case raises significant questions about federal accountability, the preservation of the public record, and the risk of eroding trust in legal processes when officials use communications that evade oversight.

Conclusion

The unfolding controversy surrounding Lindsey Halligan’s use of Signal to discuss active prosecutions with a journalist illuminates the intersection of technology, law, and politics in contemporary American governance. As watchdogs push for transparency and legal compliance, the Justice Department faces pressure to clarify policies on secure messaging and uphold ethical standards. The outcome of the investigation will have lasting implications for how prosecutors engage with the media and manage sensitive information in an era of disappearing digital communication.