U.S. House of Representatives bans WhatsApp over data privacy concerns
TOI World Desk | TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Jun 24, 2025, 00:22 IST
( Image credit : TOI.in, TOIGLOBAL )
The U.S. House of Representatives has banned staffers from using WhatsApp on government devices due to data privacy and transparency concerns. Meta's spokesperson Andy Stone strongly disagreed, highlighting WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption. The House recommends alternative platforms like Microsoft Teams and Signal, amidst broader scrutiny of Meta's practices and the introduction of advertising within WhatsApp.
In a move highlighting growing government unease over digital security, the U.S. House of Representatives has officially barred staffers from using WhatsApp, the widely used messaging app owned by Meta. The ban, which applies to all government-issued devices, was communicated in an internal email from the House’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and was first reported by Axios.
According to the CAO’s directive, House staff are not permitted to download, access, or retain WhatsApp on government smartphones or desktop computers. Any existing installations must be promptly removed. The decision stems from concerns over WhatsApp’s data privacy practices and a perceived lack of transparency regarding how user information is managed and protected.
Meta, however, is not taking the ban quietly. Andy Stone, a spokesperson for the tech giant, responded swiftly on X (formerly known as Twitter), expressing the company’s strong disagreement with the House’s stance.
“We disagree with the House Chief Administrative Officer’s characterization in the strongest possible terms,” Stone wrote. “We know members and their staffs regularly use WhatsApp and we look forward to ensuring members of the House can join their Senate counterparts in doing so officially.”
In a follow-up post, Stone pointed out that WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption offers “a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO’s approved list that do not offer that protection.” He did not, however, address the CAO’s concerns about Meta’s overall data handling transparency.
The CAO, whose office oversees House technology infrastructure and cybersecurity, has endorsed several alternative communication platforms for official use, including Microsoft Teams, Signal, and Apple’s iMessage—each of which meets the current standards for secure government communication.
This development arrives amid broader scrutiny of Meta’s practices. The company is currently entangled in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, challenging Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. Critics argue that these purchases have stifled competition and allowed Meta to consolidate power across multiple digital communication platforms.
Complicating matters further, Meta recently announced the introduction of advertising within WhatsApp—a significant shift for an app historically marketed as privacy-focused and ad-free. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described the move as “the next chapter” in WhatsApp’s evolution, aiming to transform it into a core revenue driver for the company.
Despite Meta’s defense of its security features, the House’s action reflects a broader hesitation within government institutions to rely on consumer tech platforms that aren’t fully transparent about their data governance. Whether the ban will remain permanent or lead to increased pressure on Meta to clarify its practices remains to be seen.
As the intersection of technology and government continues to evolve, the House’s stance signals that security and transparency are no longer optional—they’re mandatory.
According to the CAO’s directive, House staff are not permitted to download, access, or retain WhatsApp on government smartphones or desktop computers. Any existing installations must be promptly removed. The decision stems from concerns over WhatsApp’s data privacy practices and a perceived lack of transparency regarding how user information is managed and protected.
Meta, however, is not taking the ban quietly. Andy Stone, a spokesperson for the tech giant, responded swiftly on X (formerly known as Twitter), expressing the company’s strong disagreement with the House’s stance.
“We disagree with the House Chief Administrative Officer’s characterization in the strongest possible terms,” Stone wrote. “We know members and their staffs regularly use WhatsApp and we look forward to ensuring members of the House can join their Senate counterparts in doing so officially.”
In a follow-up post, Stone pointed out that WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption offers “a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO’s approved list that do not offer that protection.” He did not, however, address the CAO’s concerns about Meta’s overall data handling transparency.
The CAO, whose office oversees House technology infrastructure and cybersecurity, has endorsed several alternative communication platforms for official use, including Microsoft Teams, Signal, and Apple’s iMessage—each of which meets the current standards for secure government communication.
This development arrives amid broader scrutiny of Meta’s practices. The company is currently entangled in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, challenging Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. Critics argue that these purchases have stifled competition and allowed Meta to consolidate power across multiple digital communication platforms.
Complicating matters further, Meta recently announced the introduction of advertising within WhatsApp—a significant shift for an app historically marketed as privacy-focused and ad-free. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described the move as “the next chapter” in WhatsApp’s evolution, aiming to transform it into a core revenue driver for the company.
Despite Meta’s defense of its security features, the House’s action reflects a broader hesitation within government institutions to rely on consumer tech platforms that aren’t fully transparent about their data governance. Whether the ban will remain permanent or lead to increased pressure on Meta to clarify its practices remains to be seen.
As the intersection of technology and government continues to evolve, the House’s stance signals that security and transparency are no longer optional—they’re mandatory.