U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday grilled Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe on their involvement in a controversial group chat on Signal, as Washington continued to reel from revelations that top U.S. national security officials and members of U.S. President Donald Trump’s cabinet used the private messaging app to discuss war plans against the Houthi militant group in Yemen in a conversation that also included a prominent U.S. journalist.
Democratic and independent members of the Senate Intelligence Committee hammered Gabbard and Ratcliffe with questions about the group chat—reported a day earlier by the Atlantic magazine’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently included in the group chat—while their Republican counterparts largely either sidestepped the controversy entirely or said they would discuss it in a subsequent closed-door briefing.
U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday grilled Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe on their involvement in a controversial group chat on Signal, as Washington continued to reel from revelations that top U.S. national security officials and members of U.S. President Donald Trump’s cabinet used the private messaging app to discuss war plans against the Houthi militant group in Yemen in a conversation that also included a prominent U.S. journalist.
Democratic and independent members of the Senate Intelligence Committee hammered Gabbard and Ratcliffe with questions about the group chat—reported a day earlier by the Atlantic magazine’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently included in the group chat—while their Republican counterparts largely either sidestepped the controversy entirely or said they would discuss it in a subsequent closed-door briefing.
The two officials took slightly different tacks. Gabbard initially declined to acknowledge that she was even on the group chat, whereas Ratcliffe promptly stated that he was part of the chat but contended that the CIA had long used Signal to “communicate and coordinate” as long as decisions made there are also captured in more official channels. “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information,” the CIA director said.
Gabbard then made a similar claim on multiple occasions, saying repeatedly that “there was no classified material” shared on the group chat.
Goldberg wrote that the chat included information and messages, some of which he chose not to publish out of concern for U.S. national security, that “if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel,” including “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”
Several lawmakers responded to Ratcliffe’s and Gabbard’s assertions that no classified information was discussed in the chat by calling for the entire text chain to be made public. “None of this was classified, but we can’t talk about it here?” asked Sen. Mark Warner, vice chairman of the committee. “You can’t have it both ways.”Warner, who described the group chat discussions as “sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior,” also raised the question—rhetorically—of whether the officials involved were using government or personal devices, and whether those devices had been scanned for potential malware from foreign adversaries. Later, after asking Gabbard whether she was overseas when the text conversation took place (she said that, yes, she was), Sen. Jack Reed asked her directly if she had used her private phone or a government-issued phone to conduct the Signal conversation. Gabbard refused to answer, saying the matter was “under review by the National Security Council.”
When Sen. Angus King, an independent, pushed the two officials on whether the war plans that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared on the chat included weapons systems, attack timings, and targets, Gabbard and Ratcliffe deflected questions back to Hegseth himself. “I can attest to the fact that there were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time,” Gabbard said, adding that she would “defer to the secretary of defense and the National Security Council on that question.”
Some parts of the hearing turned particularly contentious, such as the questioning of Ratcliffe by Sen. Michael Bennet, which quickly turned into a shouting match between the two men. “You’re the CIA director!” Bennet exclaimed, questioning why someone in Ratcliffe’s position would not check who was on the group chat and identify that one of them was a journalist. “Did you know that the president’s Middle East advisor was in Moscow on this thread, while you were, as director of the CIA, participating in this thread?” Bennet asked, referring to Trump envoy Steve Witkoff. “This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable; it’s an embarrassment,” he added. “You need to do better.”
While the hearing was scheduled weeks earlier to discuss “worldwide threats” to the United States and the intelligence communities’ annual threat assessment, it was dominated by what is now being referred to as “Signalgate,” and lawmakers asserted that there would be consequences for all the officials involved. “I’m of the view that there ought to be resignations, starting with the national security advisor and the secretary of defense,” said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Beyond the contentions of how much classified information was shared on the thread, and by whom, multiple senators also pointed to the broader implications of Washington’s adversaries getting a window into deliberations of senior Trump administration cabinet members. “A discussion by senior U.S. officials on the timing and risks of a proposed military campaign, and disagreements between the president and the vice president about U.S. plans and intentions would be of obvious interest to foreign intelligence services, would it not?” asked Sen. Jon Ossoff, referring to comments in the chat made by Vice President J.D. Vance that ordering the U.S. military to take action against the Houthis to protect international shipping lanes was “inconsistent” with Trump’s message that Europe should do more for its own security. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance wrote. While Ratcliffe acknowledged the intelligence implications for U.S. adversaries, his exchange with Ossoff—the last of the hearing—ended on a more contentious note. “This was a huge mistake, correct?” Ossoff asked, to which Ratcliffe simply responded: “No.” The two men then proceeded to talk over each other, with Ratcliffe saying that “the White House has made it clear that there was an inadvertent mistake of adding a reporter.” The senator got the last word, however, capturing how many in Congress feel about the incident and the possible road ahead. “This is an embarrassment. This is utterly unprofessional,” Ossoff said. “There has been no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error,” he added. “We will get the full transcript of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.”
This post is part of FP’s ongoing coverage of the Trump administration. Follow along here.
The post Senators Grill CIA and National Intelligence Directors on Signal Group Chat Fiasco appeared first on Foreign Policy.
