Intel chiefs stand by defense of Signal chat at House hearing after new texts emerge

Washington — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe defended their participation in a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal that included sensitive details about military strikes in Yemen after more text messages came to light and revealed new details about what was shared.

The spy chiefs were on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify before the House Intelligence Committee alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, National Security Agency Director Gen. Timothy Haugh and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse at a hearing ostensibly focused on the global security threats facing the U.S. But the Signal leak and its fallout dominated much of the questioning, especially from Democrats.

Gabbard and Ratcliffe continued to insist that no classified information was sent in the group chat, baffling Democrats who cited executive orders and internal government guidance to argue that the operational details should have been considered highly classified.

Shortly before the hearing began, The Atlantic published additional messages showing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provided detailed information to the group of senior Trump officials about the strikes targeting Houthi rebels earlier this month, including a timeline of when fighter jets would take off and what kind of weapons would be used. 

White House national security adviser Mike Waltz inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, to the chat, and Goldberg revealed the first batch of texts earlier this week. He initially declined to publish the most sensitive texts because, he wrote, the information “could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel.” The magazine decided to unveil the withheld messages after Gabbard, Ratcliffe and other officials publicly asserted that the information wasn’t classified.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the committee, chastised the intelligence leaders at the start of the hearing, saying they put the lives of troops at risk. 

“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,” Himes said. 

Gabbard acknowledged that the conversation was “sensitive” but denied that classified information was shared in the chat. 

“There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared,” she told lawmakers, echoing the defense from the White House that “war plans” were not discussed, despite the detailed guidance for an impending attack. Hegseth and other administration officials attacked The Atlantic and Goldberg in the wake of the latest texts’ release, accusing them and the media at large of blowing the situation out of proportion.

Himes told Gabbard that, under the ODNI’s own guidance, “information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack” should be classified as top secret. Gabbard said the information Hegseth disclosed in the chat would fall under the Defense Department’s classification guidance and she was unfamiliar with the department’s specific guidance for classification. 

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, pointed out that the Defense Department’s manual on classification says that “information shall be classified if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause describable damage to national security.” Krishnamoorthi also cited an executive order issued by President Barack Obama and retained by President Trump that says information should be classified if “its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, including military plans, weapons systems or operations.”

“Applying the executive order as well as the DOD manual to this fact pattern, we clearly have weapon systems that have been identified. That is classified information,” Krishnamoorthi said after reading Hegseth’s texts. 

Ratcliffe defended his participation in the chat, saying that a CIA official whose name he sent to the group was his chief of staff and is not undercover. He accused Goldberg of insinuating that Ratcliffe improperly disclosed the name to the group and said Signal is an acceptable means of communication for the CIA.

“My answers haven’t changed. I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. 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,” Ratcliffe said.

Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat, accused the officials of misleading the public about the information’s classification, arguing there has been “much less sensitive” information presented to lawmakers that has “high classification.”

“The idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee would not be classified, y’all know, is a lie. That’s ridiculous,” he said. 

Castro asked Haugh, the NSA director, whether such details would be classified if intercepted by his agency. Haugh said it would be classified to protect sources and methods, “not necessarily based off the content.” 

Republicans on the committee had a muted response to the scandal during the hearing, with most focusing their questions on other areas of national security. Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas, the Republican chairman of the committee, said at the top of the hearing that he wanted members to discuss “the real and existential threats that face our nation” after the Senate Intelligence Committee was consumed with questions about the group chat. 

One of the feistiest moments during the hearing came when Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of California asked about Hegseth’s drinking habits and if the intelligence officials had knowledge of the defense secretary being under the influence before the sending the texts about the strikes. Gabbard said she did not have any knowledge of Hegseth’s personal activities. Ratcliffe shot back, “I think that’s an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no!” 

“Of course we want to know if his performance is compromised!” Gomez said during the heated back and forth. 

Gabbard and Ratcliffe were both grilled by Democrats on the Senate panel on Tuesday about the security breach. Both acknowledged that they were part of the chat, but denied that classified information was shared.

Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, pressed both of them about whether targets, weapons systems or timing were discussed in the chat during Tuesday’s hearing. They claimed they did not recall those details being discussed. 

“In the Signal chain that we have been talking about, was there any mention of a target in Yemen?” Kelly said. 

“I don’t remember mention of specific targets,” Gabbard responded. Ratcliffe said that answer was “consistent with my recollection.”

Gabbard also said she didn’t recall “specific names of systems or weapons being used or named,” which Ratcliffe echoed. They also said they did not remember mentions of timing or military assets that were used. 

Mr. Trump said Tuesday that he would “look into” whether administration officials should continue using the encrypted messaging app to communicate, but largely dismissed the severity of the leak. 

Annual threat assessment 

This week’s House and Senate hearings coincided with the release of the intelligence community’s annual threat assessment. This year’s 31-page report details threats posed by foreign illicit drug actors, such as drug cartels in Mexico, Islamic extremists, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. 

“Cooperation among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea has been growing more rapidly in recent years, reinforcing threats from each of them individually while also posing new challenges to U.S. strength and power globally,” the assessment says. 

According to the report, Russia’s war in Ukraine has accelerated cooperation between the four nations and Russia has become increasingly reliant on the other countries to carry out its military objectives and mitigate economic consequences imposed by its adversaries. 

Despite the heavy costs associated with the Ukraine invasion, “Russia has proven adaptable and resilient” and its air forces are “more modern and capable than at the start of the invasion,” the assessment says. 

“The war in Ukraine has afforded Moscow a wealth of lessons regarding combat against Western weapons and intelligence in a large-scale war,” the report says. “This experience probably will challenge future U.S. defense planning, including against other adversaries with whom Moscow is sharing those lessons learned.” 

It added that the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin loses his grip on power “probably is less likely now than at any point in his quarter-century rule.” 

China is viewed as “most capable” of threatening U.S. interests abroad. The country poses “the most comprehensive and robust” military threat to U.S. national security and the “most active and persistent” cyber threat to government, private sector and critical infrastructure networks in the U.S., according to the report. But intelligence agencies assess China as being “more cautious than Russia, Iran, and North Korea about risking its economic and diplomatic image in the world by being too aggressive and disruptive.” 

The intelligence community expects Beijing to dial up pressure on Taiwan in 2025 as it seeks reunification with the self-ruled island. 

Meanwhile, Iran will continue to target former and current U.S. officials over the killing of Qassem Soleimani, who led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the report said. Mr. Trump, however, has revoked the security details for several former officials despite the ongoing threat posed by Iran. 

The report also says that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not reauthorized the program, “though pressure has probably built on him to do so.” 

In North Korea, leader Kim Jong Un is increasing his stockpile of nuclear warheads and has “no intention of negotiating away his strategic weapons programs, which he perceives as a guarantor of regime security and national pride.”