Gabbard suggested the chat was merely a policy discussion rather than a meaningful insight into U.S. military operations.
Democratic members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence grilled Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe during an open hearing on March 26 over their handling of a Signal chat that described an ongoing U.S. military operation and was inadvertently shared with a journalist.
That chat allegedly included Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, Gen. Michael Kurilla, Vice President JD Vance, and others.
In it, the officials allegedly discussed an upcoming and then ongoing military operation against Houthi targets in Yemen.
Members of the group allegedly continued to discuss details of the unfolding military operation while Goldberg was on the chat despite not knowing who he was.
Texts shared throughout the operation allegedly included updates on operational security; local weather conditions in Yemen; the timing and sequence of attacks to be conducted; the specific types of weapons platforms to be used, including F-18 fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and sea-launched Tomahawk missiles; and an informal assessment of damage to one of the buildings struck in the attack.
Intelligence Committee Democrats expressed anger and disbelief that such operational details would have been shared with a journalist in the chat and that the leak could have placed U.S. service members at risk.
Intelligence leaders had pushed back on that idea on March 25 during a similar hearing with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, when Ratcliffe said that his communications on the chat “were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) took issue with that characterization on March 25, saying the information included in the chat should have been classified according to current U.S. policy and that intelligence leaders’ suggestions to the contrary were misleading.
“The idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified, we all know is a lie. That’s ridiculous,” Castro said.
Current classification rules published by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence suggest that Top Secret classifications be applied to any communications that include “military plans, weapons systems, or operations,” “foreign activities of the United States,” or “information detailing damage assessment.”
To that end, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) noted that authorities currently in place under Executive Order 13526 place the responsibility for classification on the agency heads in question.
As such, he suggested Hegseth resign immediately for improperly allowing the leak of operational information that should have been classified.
“The reason why it’s important that this information not be disclosed is that we don’t want the adversaries to know what’s about to happen,” Krishnamoorthi said.
“Using the DOD’s manual, as well as the executive order in operation today with the Trump administration, this text message is clearly classified information. Secretary Hegseth has disclosed military plans as well as classified information. He needs to resign immediately.”
“No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent,” he wrote on social media platform X.
He said the bottom line is that “President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”
Hegseth said that Goldberg’s story was a hoax and contained no classified information.
“So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic released the so-called ‘war plans’ and those ’plans’ include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information,” Hegseth wrote on X.
Gabbard appeared to downplay her testimony from the previous day, during which she said she was not aware of weapons packages, targets, or timing being discussed on Signal.
When pressed by the House on March 26 over the fact that she had been on the chat in question, the intelligence leader said that she had misremembered the details.
“My answer yesterday was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof, on the details that were posted there,” Gabbard said.
“I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.”
Gabbard suggested the chat was merely a policy discussion rather than a meaningful insight into U.S. military operations.
“It was a mistake that a reporter was inadvertently added to a Signal chat with high-level national security principals having a policy discussion about imminent strikes against the Houthis and the effects of the strike,” Gabbard said.
