Journalist Shared Leaked Messages: Is That Kosher?

This week, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was mistakenly added to a Trump administration Signal chat, leaked messages regarding confidential war strategies on Yemen. What does halacha say about that?

In a rather unusual turn of events, members of the Trump administration inadvertently revealed confidential war strategies regarding Yemen through a group chat, inadvertently including Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.

These sensitive discussions involved senior officials deliberating potential military actions against the Houthis, and the administration subsequently confirmed the authenticity of the leaked messages, highlighting a serious lapse in operational security. This scenario raises an intriguing ethical dilemma about the permissibility of revealing confidential information, prompting a reflection on what Judaism would say regarding the exposure of such sensitive conversations to the public.

In this article, Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin explores the halachic approach to this contemporary question.

*

By Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin – Chabad.org

Question:

Rabbi, I am a journalist who was added to a group chat of high-ranking government officials. I was exposed to some classified material. Is it OK if I share it with my newspaper? OK, just kidding! Obviously, I’m not a journalist. Still, I’m curious: What would Judaism say about it?

Response:

Revealing secrets is generally prohibited under the Biblical injunction, “You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people; you shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood. I am the L-rd.”¹

This injunction is so important that, according to the Midrash, it was one of the primary factors that contributed to our liberation from Egypt:

In the merit of four things, the Jews were redeemed from Egypt—they did not change their names; they did not change their language; they did not disclose each other’s secrets; and they did not break barriers of morality.²

This prohibition can extend even to conversations that you were not specifically told to keep secret. In fact, the very first verse in Leviticus states, “And He called to Moses, and the L-rd spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to say [leimor].” The word “leimor” means “to say over to others.” From this extra word, the Talmud understands that if G‑d would have not authorized Moses to share the communique that followed, he would have been forbidden to do so.³

This is especially true when it comes to revealing the inner workings and deliberative processes of a court or similar institution.⁴ The Talmud relates that Rabbi Ami expelled a student from the study hall because he had disclosed the details of a confidential discussion that had taken place in the study hall 22 years prior, saying, “This man reveals secrets.”⁵

However, before rushing to condemn Mr. Goldberg based on the above prohibitions, we need to note that there are some notable exceptions:

– According to some authorities, if no apparent harm will be caused by revealing the conversation, and there was no indication that the content was intended to remain confidential (e.g. the conversation was not conducted in a hushed tone or secluded area), while it still may be laudable to not reveal the information, there is no prohibition to do so.⁶

– A doctor who has information about a condition that may put the public at risk (such as severely impaired vision or a contagious disease) must share his knowledge with the appropriate parties—even if the patient specifically requests that he keep it a secret. In fact, if the doctor withholds the information, he may be guilty of the Biblical prohibition, “Do not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood.”⁷

– Under certain conditions, one can reveal private information that will save someone from financial losses.⁸

– If a person is sharing the negative information for a constructive and beneficial purpose, the prohibition against doing so does not apply. For example, if you are asked for information about a potential spouse or employee, and you know information that would prevent serious harm (e.g. the potential groom has an extremely bad temper, or the employee is a thief), you are permitted to reveal this information.

In this case, however, bear in mind the words of the Chofetz Chaim, the authoritative work on the matter of forbidden and permitted speech:In such a situation that the information may be revealed, the one asking for the private information should stress that he is not asking out of curiosity, but for a specific constructive reason; namely, he is thinking of making a match or hiring the person.

Additionally, when answering, take care to keep in mind that one is only permitted to reveal the information for a constructive and beneficial purpose, but not out of malicious intent. This means being careful not to reveal more than what is necessary, and it goes without saying that any exaggeration is prohibited.⁹

So how does this apply to the article in the Atlantic?

Since most politicians are extremely careful with what they say and reveal to the public, we must assume that the private text conversations discussed in the article were indeed intended to remain private. However, as we discussed, this does not automatically mean that one is prohibited from revealing them.

I make no claims or judgments about intentions, and I’m hardly in a position to judge whether the revelations have a beneficial purpose. If the author were writing just for the sake of peddling information about someone’s mishaps, for no beneficial reason, it would definitely be prohibited. However, a valid argument can be made that in the case of important information about politicians (as opposed to celebrities), which, among other things, will help Americans understand the inner workings of our public officials, one is permitted to reveal this information. This would especially be true of the information is being shared in order to save the public from a perceived danger and thus allowed under the Biblical exhortation not to “stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood.”

This article was originally published in 2014, following the publication of a book by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and adapted on 3/25/25.

1. Leviticus 19:16. See Semag Prohibition 9, Hagahot Maimonis on Hilchot Deiot 7:7, Magen Avraham on Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim 156. ↩︎
2. Bamidbar Rabbah 20:21. ↩︎
3. Talmud Yoma 4a. ↩︎
4. Talmud Sanhedin 29a. ↩︎
5. Ibid. 31a. ↩︎
6. Chofetz Chaim, Be’er Mayim Chaim, Hilchot Loshon Harah 2:27. See however, Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orech Chaim 156:14 where he cites the prohibition of revealing private information without any qualifications. ↩︎
7. Tzitz Eliezer 15:13, citing response of Chelkat Yaakov 3:136. ↩︎
8. See Sefer Hamitzvot, prohibition 297, Mishna Torah Hilchot Rotzeach 1:14 and Chofetz Chaim in Be’er Mayim Chaim, Hilchot Rechilut 9:1-3. ↩︎
9. Chofetz Chaim, Hilchot Loshon Harah 4:10-11. ↩︎