WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump attempted to mitigate concerns on Tuesday about an incident involving the unintended inclusion of a journalist in a private messaging group discussing a sensitive military operation against Yemen’s Houthis. The incident drew sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers who accused the administration of handling critical information negligently. Trump described the situation as a minor hiccup, highlighting it as the only significant issue within his administration over two months and reiterated his support for National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz.
According to The Atlantic, Waltz added Jeffrey Goldberg, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, to a chat consisting of 18 senior officials planning the military strike. Trump defended Waltz by hinting at a staff error, stating, “It was one of Michael’s people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there.” Despite the revelation of these sensitive discussions via the Signal app, Trump maintained that no classified details were shared. Democrats, however, expressed outrage over the choice to use a publicly accessible app for discussing such matters.
Waltz voiced uncertainty over how Goldberg’s contact appeared in the chat, explaining on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that White House experts were investigating the mix-up. “We made a mistake. We’re moving forward,” Waltz declared, taking full accountability for the incident. Trump criticized The Atlantic and left ambiguity regarding future changes in protocol for handling sensitive information. He mentioned the need for secure discussions, “If it was up to me everybody would be sitting in a room together.”
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was part of the Signal chat, admitted to traveling overseas at the time of the exchange but refused to specify the device used until the review by the National Security Council concludes. CIA Director John Ratcliffe also attended the hearing, where they faced heavy scrutiny from lawmakers. Sen. Jon Ossoff sharply criticized the situation, labeling it “an embarrassment” and insisted that the incident was mishandled.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined the Democrats in criticizing the administration’s use of Signal, remarking in a satirical post about the situation. The administration, in response, downplayed concerns, with Ratcliffe and Gabbard affirming that no classified information was disseminated. Nonetheless, The Atlantic reported that the conversation included detailed plans, though specifics were withheld from publication.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth omitted direct answers about the classification of the information shared in the Signal chat during his visit to Hawaii, repeating his former statement that insisted no concrete plans were disclosed over the app. Democrats argued the security lapse could have jeopardized lives, emphasizing that sensitive deliberations should remain confidential. Yet, Ratcliffe maintained that no rules were broken.
In the midst of calls for an investigation into the Signal usage, Gabbard and Ratcliffe agreed to partake in an audit examining officials’ communications methods. Senator Ron Wyden urged that the matter required investigation and suggested it warranted resignations. FBI Director Kash Patel, alongside Ratcliffe and Gabbard during the hearing, mentioned he was recently briefed on the case but did not confirm whether there was an investigation ongoing.
The White House defended its position, branding the uproar as a politically motivated distraction from their administration’s achievements. Signal, known for its robust end-to-end encryption, has been a tool for government communication, though the incident has raised questions regarding the app’s application for sensitive exchanges. Sen. Angus King expressed skepticism over the claim that no classified material was entailed, pondering the nature of the information conveyed.
In essence, while the administration maintains assurances that no critical information was compromised, the incident continues to invite scrutiny over the prudent management of communication channels in sensitive military operations.