Have any federal or state investigations publicly released evidence confirming officials' roles in Minneapolis Signal chats?
Executive summary
No federal or state investigative body has publicly released authenticated evidence proving that named Minnesota officials administrated or coordinated the Signal chats that tracked federal immigration agents; the FBI has confirmed only that it opened an inquiry after media posts highlighted purported chat screenshots and videos, and independent verification of those screenshots remains absent in mainstream reporting [1] [2] [3].
1. What investigators say — an opened probe, not a public dossier
FBI Director Kash Patel told reporters the FBI “opened an investigation” into the Signal group texts after reporting by conservative commentator Cam Higby drew attention to purported encrypted-chat materials, and Patel said the agency would weigh free‑speech concerns as it probes possible legal violations [1] [4]; none of the public statements from the FBI cited by reporting release screenshots, chat logs, subpoenas, affidavits, or other evidentiary materials tying specific elected or appointed Minnesota officials to administrative roles in the chats [1].
2. The journalistic trail — claims, screenshots, and who amplified them
The materials at the center of the allegation were posted first by Cam Higby, who said he “infiltrated” Signal groups and shared screenshots and short videos claiming activists used encrypted channels to track ICE and direct rapid responses; conservative and right‑leaning outlets and social accounts widely amplified Higby’s thread, and outlets such as Fox News and ZeroHedge covered those claims as part of their reporting [5] [6] [7]. Those reports describe messages that appear to show activists sharing plate numbers, locations of federal vans, and mobilization "dispatches," but they do not document that a law enforcement or prosecutor’s office has authenticated the images as produced in an official legal filing [6] [7].
3. Allegations about named officials — unverified in mainstream outlets
Multiple social posts and some aggregating websites asserted that Minnesota figures — including a governor’s adviser and state officials — appeared as “admins” or coordinators in the leaked Signal material, and some smaller outlets repeated those names [3] [8]. Fact‑checking sites and broader mainstream coverage indicate these identifications have not been independently verified and that major outlets covering the protests have not published authenticated evidence tying those officials to the chat logs [2] [1].
4. Past precedent and a relevant caveat — FBI surveillance of Signal elsewhere
Reporting from prior months shows the FBI has, in at least one instance, monitored encrypted messenger groups in counterterrorism or counter‑extremism probes and that those investigations can be subject to oversight and court review; The Guardian reported such FBI activity in 2025 in a different context, but that report does not establish that FBI surveillance generated public evidence linking Minnesota officials to the Minneapolis Signal groups now under scrutiny [9]. That prior precedent explains why an agency might open a probe, but it is not evidence that any specific officials were involved.
5. Why no public proof yet — legal, evidentiary and political filters
There are several reasons a law enforcement investigation would not immediately result in public release of evidence: investigative materials can be sealed, subject to grand jury rules, withheld to protect ongoing inquiries, or simply not corroborated enough to reach charges; public statements from the FBI and reporting describe an active probe and media claims but do not show court filings or prosecutorial determinations that would constitute public, authenticated evidence tying officials to chat administration [1] [4]. At the same time, the partisan amplification of Higby’s thread and the subsequent rapid spread via right‑leaning outlets and social platforms introduces clear incentives for political actors to frame preliminary claims as definitive before judicial substantiation [5] [6].
6. Bottom line — claim exists, confirmation does not
The reporting shows an active federal inquiry prompted by social‑media posts and alleged Signal screenshots; it also shows vigorous media amplification and unproven naming of public officials in the leaked material, but no federal or state agency has publicly produced authenticated chat logs, court filings, indictments, or other evidentiary releases that confirm officials’ roles in those Signal groups as of the reporting available [1] [2] [3].