When Group Chats Get Leaked

Speak freely, and carry a big vigilance

From Subscriber CY:

This story made me think about your group chat article. I would be interested to hear your take on it in a pod or on your Substack

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146

The Politico story is of a Young Republicans’ group chat and it’s become national news. The Young Republican X account put out a statement from the board of directors disavowing the comments:

We are appalled by the vile and inexcusable language revealed in the Politico article published today. Such behavior is disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican, and stands in direct opposition to the values our movement represents. Those involved must immediately resign from all positions within their state and local Young Republican organizations. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity, respect, and professionalism.

Vice President JD Vance put out a tweet in response to the controversy, citing Democratic Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones’ text messages that wish violence on the family of a political opponent:

This is far worse than anything said in a college group chat, and the guy who said it could become the AG of Virginia. I refuse to join the pearl clutching when powerful people call for political violence.

There’s a culture fight over whether The Left will maintain or reassert its dominance as Cultural Enforcer. I don’t think we’re going back to 2020, but there are some signs that the recent past hasn’t completely abandoned the Trump 2 present.

More broadly, I naively thought we’d reached the end of converting past private communications of fairly obscure figures into big national public scandals. Had we not reached a point of Mutually Assured Destruction with this? Do we not all have damaging information in our messages?

That’s not a specific comment on either of these situations. My assumption, based mostly on the Young Republicans’ disavowal, is that something had gone quite wrong within the leadership. I say “assumption,” because with private messages made public, it’s hard for an outsider to separate inside joke from honest conviction. Similarly with Jay Jones, one of his stated violent fantasies could be a reference to a bit from The Office. Was he kidding, or using the joke as a frame for deadly serious beliefs? I literally only know about this guy because of this scandal.

My overarching belief is that aspiring public figures now share so much of themselves in public that we needn’t draw off their text messages. Obviously I’m excepting situations where text messages shed light on or potentially constitute, an actual crime. But I don’t set the standard. I’m not in charge of society.

I think it’s good to have spaces where we can just talk, absent mass scrutiny. I’m not sure we’re designed to converse while feeling watched, 24/7, in a forever panopticon. Just as I have private communications I’d be proud of, I also have others that would make me look horrible. The great majority of us have our own version of Alec Baldwin calling his daughter a “thoughtless little pig” on voicemail. Perhaps that moment was a red flag indicator of how Baldwin would make far worse mistakes, but I see it and instantly think back to my own (thankfully hidden) worst outtakes in family life.

I’m a little more guarded in my group chats, though, because there’s always that slight chance of a leak. My humble brag is that I was in a group chat that leaked into a news story. Here’s why it’s a humble brag. When word of the story got out, I was worried. What did I say? I thought I was being reasonable? Would I have to explain any of it? When I read the article, I felt a wave of relief at not actually being mentioned. Then, after the relief passed, I understood why I’d escaped: I wasn’t nearly as famous or important as the people who got this dose of unwanted scrutiny. Sometimes, there are benefits to being lower status within a group.

Now, my approach to group chats is loose…to an extent. I speak freely in the sense that I’m communicating honestly, but I’d be lying if I said there’s no governor. This isn’t Instant Messenger from back when I was a teenager. You never really know where your words will travel and how they could potentially be made public. So I talk with the same general tone on the House of Strauss BCC Group Chat as I do with trusted GC friends. It’s me, but there’s a distance between that version of “me” and my actual unfiltered inner monologue.

I’m also a weird case because I might even be more revealing on a quasi public group chat than I am IRL, with longtime friends. When people start talking politics in person, my mind shifts to, “Does normie friend even know how to interface with 18 layers of extremely online discourse I’ve interfaced with?” There’s no good way to say, “I love you, and you’re smart, but I don’t know how to deal with your bog standard coastal millennial political takes.” My version of the haughty Social Justice, “It’s not my job to educate you!” retort is that I can’t be bothered to explain myself to the well adjusted. That’s not fair, but it’s how I feel.

But I digress. My main take is that if any of you are in proximity to public life, you need to chat with the understanding of Possible Public. Be blunt, be honest, but just know: It’s risky to put your pure, unrestrained id into text form. The magic of the group chat is that it’s at a remove from the overbearing din outside it. The curse of the group chat is what might happen if you completely forget that “at a remove” can be removed.