Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration faced significant challenges on Wednesday following the disclosure that senior national security officials had shared sensitive military plans over a messaging app, inadvertently including a journalist in the conversation.
The White House maintained that the information conveyed via the publicly accessible Signal app to Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was not classified. However, Democrats have expressed skepticism over this claim, especially since the messages outlined an operation targeting Yemen’s Houthis.
During an Oval Office event where President Donald Trump announced new tariffs on imported vehicles, he appeared frustrated when pressed by reporters regarding the incident.
“I think it’s all a witch hunt,” Trump commented.
The determination of what constitutes classified information rests with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who had provided specific details about the military operation, including the proposed timeline for bombing. The Houthis have been disrupting critical shipping lanes in the Red Sea since November 2023 amid the tumult of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Senator Mark Warner, the leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, remarked that the administration’s position could succinctly be described as “Baloney.”
“When you’re talking about time, place, and types of armaments, do they think the American public is uninformed?” Warner asked reporters.
The controversy surrounding this incident shows no signs of abating for Trump, who has publicly backed his national security team while questioning the journalist’s credibility. Simultaneously, he has emphasized the importance of conducting such discussions in secure settings, though it remains uncertain whether procedural changes will follow in light of the incident.
Senators Roger Wicker and Jack Reed, the respective Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have announced plans to send a letter to the Trump administration seeking an expedited investigation by the inspector general regarding the use of the Signal app for sensitive discussions.
They have also requested a classified briefing from a senior administration official with the knowledge to clarify the situation.
“The information that was recently disclosed appears to be of a nature that warrants classification,” Wicker stated.
In response to questions about the inspector general investigation, Trump said, “It doesn’t bother me.”
Nevertheless, White House officials continue to assert that no classified information was disclosed in the Signal communications from March 13 to March 15 and have launched harsh criticism against Goldberg. On Wednesday, The Atlantic published the full exchange of texts.
Officials including Hegseth and Mike Waltz, the White House national security adviser, argued that the communication contained no “war plans,” a description that some current and former U.S. officials have dismissed as “semantics.”
“War plans” typically refer to detailed, classified documents developed for significant military operations, often comprising thousands of pages. In contrast, the details shared by Hegseth in the messaging chain—focusing on specific targets and timelines—were a specific subset likely influenced by classified intelligence.
In a post on X, Hegseth insisted that the messaging chain did not include specific names, targets, or classified information but merely provided a general update to his team.
“This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan,’” Hegseth commented, who is currently traveling in the Indo-Pacific region.
Hegseth emphasized that his intention was merely to keep his colleagues informed, referring to the communication as a “team update” instead of classified information.
Waltz, who acknowledged his role in creating the Signal communication, reiterated Hegseth’s assertion that no significant or sensitive information was shared.
“There were no locations, no sources and methods, and definitely no war plans,” Waltz emphasized, asserting that foreign partners had already been warned of impending strikes. He framed the administration’s actions as focused on protecting American interests.
In light of these events, several House Intelligence Committee Democrats have called for Hegseth’s resignation.
“This is classified information. It’s a weapon system, along with a sequence of strikes and operational details,” asserted Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois. “He needs to resign immediately.”
Trump reacted strongly to the suggestion that Hegseth should step down, defending him by saying, “He’s doing a great job. He had nothing to do with it.”
During a discussion in a hearing on global threats, Rep. Jim Himes, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, pointed out that the criteria for determining classified information includes any indications or warnings regarding potential military actions by the U.S. or its allies.
However, Gabbard indicated that the classification decision regarding the Signal communication was ultimately Hegseth’s responsibility and refrained from commenting on whether the Pentagon’s classification standards differed from those of her office.
“I haven’t reviewed the DOD guidance, so I can’t comment,” Gabbard stated.
The administration’s take on the Signal exchange contrasts sharply with the typical U.S. government approach, which often involves classifying a wide array of materials, including documents linked to military and intelligence operations.
Advocates for transparency have criticized excessive secrecy in government communications, suggesting it impedes accountability for actions that should be publicly accessible, while also prioritizing security.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the inclusion of a journalist in the messaging group as a “significant error,” though he maintained that the shared information did not endanger operations or personnel.
During a press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to the messaging exchange as “a sensitive policy discussion among senior officials,” denying that it was anything more concerning and labeling the negative reactions as a “coordinated campaign” by Democrats to “sow chaos.”
Leavitt faced queries regarding the administration’s confidence in classifying the information as non-sensitive, despite discussions of launch times and weapon systems, and pointedly invited the public to assess the reliability of differing narratives.
“Do you trust the secretary of defense — who was confirmed by the Senate and has served our nation honorably — or do you trust Jeffrey Goldberg?” she asked.
Leavitt is among three Trump administration officials facing a lawsuit from The Associated Press, alleging violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights over editorial disagreements. The White House contends that the AP has not adhered to an executive order mandating that the Gulf of Mexico be referred to as the Gulf of America.
Source
abcnews.go.com