In Washington, controversy swirled as the Trump administration grappled with the fallout from reports that sensitive military plans were discussed via a messaging app, mistakenly involving a journalist in the conversation. The White House maintained that information shared with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, on Signal was not classified, despite Democrats arguing otherwise due to its detailing of strategic plans for an attack on Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
During an Oval Office event focused on tariffs, President Trump expressed irritation at the persistent questions about the incident, dismissing the situation as a “witch hunt.” The decision on whether the shared information was classified rests with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Hegseth’s communication allegedly included detailed timelines and weapons for the attack, as the Houthis have disrupted crucial shipping routes amid ongoing regional conflicts.
Senator Mark Warner, a leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration’s stance, labeling it “Baloney.” He questioned the administration’s apparent underestimation of the public’s judgment regarding the details shared, which include exact timings and types of armaments.
The issue shows no signs of disappearing soon. Though Trump stands by his national security team, he has indicated a preference for in-person discussions of sensitive operations, though it remains to be seen if procedural changes will follow. Meanwhile, Senator Roger Wicker and Senator Jack Reed plan to request a swift inspector general investigation into the use of Signal and demand a classified briefing with a senior administration figure.
Wicker expressed concern over the sensitivity of the information, which aligns with his belief that it warranted classification. Confronted with calls for an investigation, Trump appeared unfazed. However, the administration continues to assert that no classified material was discussed and has been critical of Goldberg, with The Atlantic having published the full text of the exchange.
Hegseth, along with White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, has denied the sharing of “war plans,” a claim some have dismissed as semantics. While traditional war plans consist of extensive documents prepared for major conflicts, the shared details on targets and timelines likely hinged on classified intelligence.
Hegseth emphasized that the shared messages contained no specific names, targets, or methodologies, attempting to downplay the significance of the shared details. Waltz, acknowledging his role in setting up the discussion chain, reinforced Hegseth’s narrative, asserting that critical information had already been communicated to foreign partners.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have called for Hegseth’s resignation, deeming the information “classified” and concerning for national safety. President Trump, however, defended Hegseth’s performance and dismissed suggestions of stepping down.
During a House Intelligence Committee hearing, Democratic Representative Jim Himes discussed the criteria for classifying information with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, pointing out that the signal chain could meet those criteria. Gabbard deferred, suggesting that the responsibility for classification lay with Hegseth.
The Trump administration’s handling of the Signal exchange appears contrary to the U.S. government’s usual stance on classifying information, which often extends to far less sensitive material. Open government advocates argue against excessive secrecy which can obscure public understanding.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the error of including a journalist in the chain but downplayed the risks posed by the shared information. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the exchange as a necessary policy discussion, accusing Democrats of orchestrating a campaign to destabilize the administration.
In response to questions regarding the exchange’s classification, Leavitt urged the public to decide whom to trust, between the vetted, experienced Secretary of Defense and Jeffrey Goldberg. The White House remains embroiled in a legal dispute with a news agency over allegedly punitive actions linked to editorial choices.