Intelligence officials grilled after more Signal texts released; White House downplays scandal

While some Republicans defended the Signal messaging during the hearing, most ignored the issue altogether. But an unusually disciplined Democratic caucus hammered the issue in question after question. They argued the group chat was an unconscionable risk that could have endangered American pilots and accused the officials of falsely claiming that the group did not exchange classified information.

Goldberg had been inadvertently added to the group chat, but so far no one in the administration has explained how, though National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said Tuesday that he takes full responsibility.

The messages showed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not share complete war plans. But he did share critical details of the upcoming operation: most crucially, the precise timing of the launches from aircraft carriers of the U.S. military jets that were to strike Houthi targets.

At the House hearing on Wednesday, the Trump administration’s strategy for dealing with the crisis was clear: deny that there was anything wrong and downplay the entire matter.

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said the same information was being provided to allies. John Ratcliffe, the director of the C.I.A., said the new messages disclosed by The Atlantic made clear he had shared no classified intelligence.

The controversy may not long dog Gabbard, who was largely silent in the chat, and Ratcliffe, who was careful in what he wrote. But it will be another matter for Hegseth.

Launch times are typically closely guarded to ensure that the targets cannot move into hiding or mount a counterattack at the very moment planes are taking off, when they are potentially vulnerable. Democrats on the committee argued that the chats were vulnerable to interception by an adversarial power and if they had been given to the Houthis, would have put American pilots in danger from the rebel group’s sophisticated air defense systems.

The White House effort to defend Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday leaned heavily into a semantic argument. What he posted on the now-infamous Signal chat with his national security colleagues was not a “war plan,” they insist.

Technically, they may be right. What The Atlantic published, from the chain in which its top editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently included, is more like a timeline of a pending attack. But it is so detailed — with the time that F/A-18F Super Hornet jets were supposed to launch and the time that MQ-9 Reaper drones would fly in from land bases in the Middle East — that the answer may prove a distinction without a difference.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that the details included in the chat were not classified information, as determined by the secretary of defense himself. She said Trump has “great trust” in his national security team.

Leavitt added that she would characterize the group chat as a “sensitive policy discussion.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a news conference that he believed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “should be fired” for using a group chat to discuss military plans. Schumer was responding to a question about a letter sent on Tuesday by Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, his counterpart in the House, urging President Trump to fire Hegseth.

Democrats hammered on the officials’ assertions that classified information had not been disseminated, with Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas bluntly declaring: “You all know that’s a lie. It’s a lie to the country.” Representative Jason Crow, Democrat of Colorado, made the point that the Houthis have been able to shoot down a type of drone used in the attack, and accused the administration of not taking responsibility for the leak. “It is a leadership failure, and that’s why Secretary Hegseth, who undoubtedly transmitted classified sensitive operational information via this chain, must resign immediately,” he said.

During the communications, Goldberg was able to observe the messages, which he said he initially thought was a masquerade. He left the group after he realized that it “was almost certainly real” after the strikes forecast in the chat took place. The Atlantic said its release on Wednesday included all the texts except the name of a CIA officer working as an aide to Ratcliffe at the request of the CIA.

At least one retired military official suggested the information in the text chat should have been off limits in a non-secure communication chanel.

“The secretary of defense is the classification authority. So if he says, it’s not classified, then it’s not classified,” said a retired brigadier Army general, Mark Kimmitt, on CNN. “The relevant question is, should it have been classified? Look, the United States military is always careful to protect tactics, techniques and procedures because we feel that if the adversary, if the enemy knows, our TTPs that gives them a decided advantage. As I look at what was put out there, there were simply and clearly tactics, techniques and procedures that, if they weren’t classified, a responsible classification authority would say, ‘Let’s classify this information.‘”

Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi and the chairman of the Senate panel which has oversight of the Pentagon, became the first member of his party to call for an independent review. He and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the committee, will request an expedited investigation by the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General.

Information provided by the Associated Press was used to supplement this report.

Credit: NYT

Credit: NYT

Credit: AP

Credit: AP

Credit: NYT

Credit: NYT

Credit: AP

Credit: AP

Credit: AP

Credit: AP