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 2 Version 3
Intelligence chiefs deny they discussed war plans on Signal in House hearing Intelligence chiefs deny they discussed war plans on Signal in House hearing
(31 minutes later)
National intelligence head Tusli Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe argue ‘no classified information’ was leaked National intelligence head Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe argue ‘no classified information’ was leaked
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.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.
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. The 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.
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 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 the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, had shared in the group timings of the airstrikes and the weapons that would be used.
“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. “Now we come to learn that people in the most dangerous and sensitive jobs on the planet put extremely specific pre-decisional 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 think that it’s by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now.”“I think that it’s by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now.”
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. In an appearance before the Senate the previous day, 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.
“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”.“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”.
She sought to downplay the severity of the leak, saying the Signal chat was “a policy discussion” to which Goldberg “was inadvertently added”.She sought to downplay the severity of the leak, saying the Signal chat was “a policy discussion” to which Goldberg “was inadvertently added”.
“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.“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.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.“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.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.”“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. Republicans rejected 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 TrumplandSign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administrationA deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotionafter 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. “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.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. The 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.“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.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’.” “I think President Trump has handled this matter well,” the 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’.”