Under rigorous questioning from Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard repeatedly denied that the chat log contained any classified information. Both insisted during the hearing that no classified or intelligence content was ever present in the chat group.
Read Also...:
Trump says national security advisor doesn't need to apologise after journalist was added into group text discussing war plans
03-26, 2025
FBI launches task force targeting anti-Tesla 'domestic terrorism'
03-26, 2025
Papua New Guinea shuts down Facebook in test to stop 'pornography, misinformation, hate speech'
03-26, 2025
Signal is 'as safe as messaging apps get', but not for national security
03-26, 2025However, when asked if Hegseth's alleged sending of sensitive operational details in the chat regarding an impending strike against Iranian-backed militants constituted classified information, both senior intelligence officials deferred to the Secretary of Defense. Ratcliffe stated that the Secretary of Defense was the original classification authority for determining whether information was classified, and that he understood from media reports that the Secretary of Defense had indicated the information was not classified.
Gabbard, when asked whether such information should be classified, told the committee that she would defer the question to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council. This subtle passing of responsibility pointed to one of the most controversial and least experienced cabinet members in the Trump administration.
Much of the group chat content reported by The Atlantic revolved around general foreign policy discussions about the wisdom of the March strike. These discussions were undoubtedly sensitive deliberations among senior officials that the U.S. government would typically prefer to keep private, but were likely not classified. However, Hegseth's text messages, reportedly containing "operational details of an impending strike in Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would deploy, and the sequence of the attack," have drawn the most scrutiny.
Multiple current and former defense officials have stated that any discussion of the timing, targets, or weapon systems to be used in an attack would typically be classified, as premature disclosure of such plans could endanger the lives of U.S. military personnel. Furthermore, the encrypted messaging platform Signal, used by the officials, is a commercial application not approved for transmitting classified information.
During Tuesday's hearing, Intelligence Committee Chairman, Republican Senator Tom Cotton interjected to say that Gabbard and Ratcliffe were distinguishing between military intelligence information authorized for classification by the Secretary of Defense and information collected and controlled by civilian intelligence agencies like the CIA. Cotton pointed out that their testimony indicated there was no classified information from the "intelligence community" contained within. Ratcliffe and Gabbard both agreed, reiterating that there was no classified information in the communications relevant to them.
At least one Democratic lawmaker pushed back on this, noting that Ratcliffe and Gabbard had both testified that no classified information was contained in the text exchanges at all. Hegseth denied discussing war plans via text message late Monday, although the Trump administration had earlier acknowledged that the information appeared to be authentic. Hegseth told reporters after arriving at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii that no one sends war plans via text message, and declined to comment further when asked why the details were inadvertently shared with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.
The Secretary of Defense has also lashed out at the reporter, calling him "deceptive and hardly credible." Gabbard initially declined to directly answer on Tuesday whether she had participated in the chat, citing an ongoing National Security Council review, but later answered direct questions based on her recollection of the chat. Ratcliffe and Gabbard both stated that they did not recall any discussion of operational plans, although Gabbard later conceded that there was "discussion around general targets." The National Security Council later confirmed that The Atlantic's reporting that Hegseth sent "precise information on weapon packages, targets and timing" was accurate.
Ultimately, the dispute may hinge on the interpretation of Hegseth's classification authority as Secretary of Defense. Hegseth has the authority to declassify such information, but Ratcliffe stated on Tuesday that he did not know whether Hegseth had done so. Neither Gabbard nor Ratcliffe directly criticized Hegseth or made any explicit statements indicating they blamed him for sparking the controversy that has engulfed the President's cabinet.
Ratcliffe, in particular, sought to tread carefully, emphasizing that Signal was approved for use on U.S. government computers, including at the CIA, but he did not take responsibility for Hegseth's information. He did concede at one point, hypothetically, that "advance deliberations of an attack should go through classified channels." Gabbard, meanwhile, frequently claimed not to remember the details discussed in the chat.
