The AI Cold War, Signalgate, CoreWeave IPO, Tariff Endgames, El Salvador Deportations

Evidence shows that Signalgate did not fade from public and media attention within ~2–3 weeks of the leak; instead, it remained an active national‑security and political story for months.

Key points:

• The Signal leak was first widely publicized when Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic came out on 24–26 March 2025, with major outlets like The Guardian still describing the controversy as ongoing on 28 March ("continues through a fourth day"). Chamath’s prediction on 29 March therefore implied that by roughly mid‑April the matter would be largely forgotten. (theguardian.com)
• Well beyond that 2–3 week window, the Pentagon inspector general formally opened an investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal, reported by multiple outlets on 3 April 2025, and InsideDefense published the IG’s notification letter the same day—coverage that treats Signalgate as a live, serious scandal, not something already forgotten. (theguardian.com)
• On 22 April 2025 (about three and a half weeks after the leak), watchdog group American Oversight filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in its Signalgate lawsuit, seeking emergency court orders to preserve Signal records—again generating fresh, national‑level coverage well past the predicted attention window. (americanoversight.org)
• The story continued into the summer: a detailed Washington Post piece on 6 June 2025 covered the ongoing inspector‑general inquiry, and another on 23 July reported that Hegseth’s Signal messages drew on an email marked “SECRET/NOFORN,” directly contradicting administration denials. These are prominent, months‑later stories indicating sustained media interest. (washingtonpost.com)
• The episode has enduring visibility: it is documented in multiple up‑to‑date encyclopedia entries (English "United States government group chat leaks," German "Signalgate‑Affäre," Chinese and French pages), all treating Signalgate as a named, notable scandal of Trump’s second term—evidence that it was not quickly forgotten even in the longer run. (en.wikipedia.org)

Because Signalgate remained under investigation, in court, and in major media coverage for months after late March 2025, the prediction that it would be largely forgotten within roughly two Scaramuccis (about 2–3 weeks) is best judged as wrong.

The prediction is framed with a multi‑year horizon: that, as pending cases over officials’ use of private/ephemeral communications progress and in light of the Signalgate incident, U.S. law and policy will develop significantly clearer rules and consequences over the next few years.

Since the podcast (late March 2025), there have been concrete moves toward clearer policy on messaging apps and recordkeeping:

• The National Archives issued AC 23.2025 on May 2, 2025, explicitly addressing records created on third‑party messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp. It reiterates that messages about agency business are federal records regardless of platform, sets out obligations when personal accounts are used (copy or forward to an official account within 20 days), details penalties for unlawful destruction, and warns that auto‑delete features can violate record‑keeping rules unless records are preserved first. It also clarifies what counts as a transitory vs non‑transitory message and how retention schedules apply. (archives.gov)
• Reporting indicates that, shortly after Signalgate, the White House instructed staff at the U.S. DOGE Service that work‑related messages sent on personal devices and on Signal must be archived, that auto‑delete must be disabled, and that the baseline rule is to preserve all work‑related communications regardless of format. (e-pluribusunum.org)
• Individual agencies have updated or reiterated policies requiring preservation of email, text, and instant messages that meet the definition of a federal record, prohibiting use of personal messaging accounts for agency business unless records are promptly forwarded to official systems. Recent examples include HHS records‑management policy and GSA’s 2025 email/IT data retention directive. (hhs.gov)
• In litigation stemming from Signalgate (American Oversight v. Hegseth), courts have ordered preservation of specific Signal chats and, in June 2025, ordered the acting archivist (Marco Rubio) to be notified about Signal chats at risk of deletion and to refer potential Federal Records Act violations to the attorney general for enforcement. That underscores the legal consequences side of the prediction. (americanoversight.org)

However, several factors keep this from being judged "right" or "wrong" yet:

• Much of the underlying legal framework (e.g., the content‑based definition of federal records and the extension of Capstone retention practices to electronic messages, including texts and third‑party apps) predates 2025. The 2025 developments largely clarify and reinforce existing rules rather than create a wholly new regime. (congress.gov)
• Ongoing controversies show that practice and enforcement are still unsettled. Watchdog groups continue to file complaints about officials using Signal with auto‑delete for official business even after Signalgate, arguing that this may violate the Federal Records Act and agency rules, which suggests that clarity and compliance are still being worked out. (theguardian.com)
• Most importantly, as of November 30, 2025 we are only about eight months into the "next few years" window the predictor invoked. There is still substantial time for additional legislation, regulations, and case law to emerge that could either strongly validate or undercut the claim that U.S. law and policy will become significantly clearer on which communications must be preserved versus can remain off the record.

Because the prediction is explicitly about developments over the next few years and we are still early in that period, with the legal/policy trajectory not yet fully settled, the status of the prediction is too early to call.

As of now (late November 2025), the next scheduled U.S. midterm elections will take place in November 2026, and those elections have not yet occurred. Therefore, we cannot yet know whether Republicans will lose them, regardless of what immigration or deportation policies the Trump administration pursues. Since the outcome event in the prediction (the 2026 midterms) is still in the future, the prediction cannot be evaluated and remains too early to call.

Key point: the evaluation date (November 2025) is before the predicted event date (November 2026), so the truth value of the prediction is not yet observable.