This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/signal-leak-house-committee-hearing

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Intelligence chiefs to face grilling from House Democrats over Signal blunder Intelligence chiefs deny they discussed war plans on Signal in House hearing
(about 3 hours later)
National intelligence head Tusli Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe to give testimony on threats to lawmakers National intelligence head Tusli Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe argue ‘no classified information’ was leaked
House Democrats will on Wednesday demand answers from two US intelligence chiefs who were revealed as members of a group chat used by Trump administration officials to discuss plans to bomb Yemen in the presence of a journalist, just hours after the full transcript of the conversation was released. US intelligence chiefs on Wednesday denied breaking the law or revealing classified information in a group chat where they discussed details of air strikes on Yemen in the presence of a journalist, despite allegations from Democrats that the leak was reckless and possibly illegal.
News of the group chat’s existence and the inclusion of Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, has prompted outrage on Capitol Hill at a convenient time for Democrats, who are in the minority in both the Senate and House of Representatives and reeling from Donald Trump’s return to the White House two months ago. Director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe were giving their second day of congressional testimony on global threats facing the United States, which Democratic lawmakers seized on to condemn their use of the Signal app to discuss arrangements to bomb the Houthis in a group that included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic.
Responding to attacks on Goldberg’s reputation from Trump and other top officials as well as their claims that no classified information was revealed, the Atlantic published the texts in their entirety on Wednesday morning. The messages show that the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, shared in the group precise timings of the air strikes, which the outlet notes could have put US pilots at risk if they had been intercepted. The hearing before the House intelligence committee took place less than two hours after the Atlantic released a full transcript of the chat, which revealed that defense secretary Pete Hegseth had shared in the group timings of the air strikes and the weapons that would be used.
The messages are expected to come up when the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, both participants in the group chat on the Signal app, give annual testimony to the House intelligence committee with their assessments of the threats facing the United States. “Now we come to learn that people in the most dangerous and sensitive jobs on the planet put extremely specific predecisional discussions about a military attack on Signal, which could be intercepted by the Russians and the Chinese,” the committee’s top Democrat Jim Himes said. “Everyone here knows that the Russians or the Chinese could have gotten all of that information, and they could have passed it on to the Houthis, who easily could have repositioned weapons and altered their plans to knock down planes or sink ships.
“I am horrified by reports that our most senior national security officials, including the heads of multiple agencies, shared sensitive and almost certainly classified information via a commercial messaging application, including imminent war plans,” the Democratic ranking member Jim Himes said. “I think that it’s by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now.”
“These individuals know the calamitous risks of transmitting classified information across unclassified systems, and they also know that if a lower-ranking official under their command did what is described here, they would likely lose their clearance and be subject to criminal investigation. The American people deserve answers, and I plan to get some on Wednesday at the intelligence committee’s worldwide threats hearing.” In an appearance before the Senate the day prior, Gabbard had said that the chat did not contain details of the strikes’ timing, targets or weapons used – an assertion that Himes said was contradicted by the Atlantic’s transcript.
When Ratcliffe and Gabbard appeared a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Tuesday, Democrats questioned them extensively about the Signal group, while Republicans either avoided the topic or said they would ask about it in a private session. “My answer yesterday was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof, on the details that were posted there,” Gabbard said, adding that she was “not directly involved with that part of the Signal chat”.
Gabbard declined to answer many questions, saying the matter was under investigation by the national security council, while Ratcliffe argued that using Signal was permitted by government rules. However, both declined to give many specifics, including how Goldberg came to be added to the group. She sought to downplay the severity of the leak, saying the Signal chat was “a policy discussion” to which Goldberg “was inadvertently added”.
“You’re the CIA director. Why didn’t you call out that [Goldberg] was present on the Signal thread?” the Democratic senator Michael Bennet asked Ratcliffe at one point. “The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the president [and] national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared. There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared,” Gabbard said.
Ratcliffe argued that Signal was “an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information”, despite earlier warnings from the defense department that it could be targeted by Russian hackers.
“I didn’t transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success,” the CIA director said.
Democrats countered that what was revealed in the group was classified. Raja Krishnamoorthi had an aide hold up the printed Signal messages in which Hegseth shared exact details of the strikes.
“This is classified information. It’s a weapon system as well as sequence of strikes, as well as details about the operations,” Krishnamoorthi said. “This text message is clearly classified information. Secretary Hegseth has disclosed military plans as well as classified information. He needs to resign immediately.”
Republicans refuted the claims by having Ratcliffe and Gabbard note that details such as the names of the targets or specific locations were not revealed in the chat.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
“The Democrats are obviously making the assertions that what was in the Signal chat was classified, and claiming that secretary Hegseth put this war plan out to the world, which he clearly did not,” the Florida Republican Greg Steube said.
Democrats have been reeling in the months since Donald Trump won the November election and Republicans clinched majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, but the emergence of the Signal chat has provided them with an opportunity to paint the new administration as reckless.
Democratic congressman Jimmy Gomez prompted fury from the witnesses when he asked Gabbard and Ratcliffe if they knew whether Hegseth, who pledged not to consume alcohol during his confirmation process after reports emerged that he had a history of excessive drinking, may have been under the influence when using the chat.
“I think that’s an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no,” Ratcliffe replied.
When Ratcliffe and Gabbard appeared before a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Tuesday, Democrats questioned them extensively about the Signal group, while Republicans either avoided the topic or said they would ask about it in a private session. In the day since, some Republican senators said they would demand the Trump administration investigate the group chat, while others have restated their support for Trump’s national security team.
“I think President Trump has handled this matter well,” Republican senator Lindsey Graham said on Wednesday. “Further, I believe that all the participants in the chat were under the impression they were using an appropriate and secure form of communication. This will also fall into the category of ‘lessons learned’.”