WH: Nothing Classified Shared on Signal03/27 06:23

   The Trump administration struggled Wednesday to stem the fallout from 
revelations that top national security officials discussed sensitive attack 
plans over a messaging app and mistakenly added a journalist to the chain.

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Trump administration struggled Wednesday to stem the 
fallout from revelations that top national security officials discussed 
sensitive attack plans over a messaging app and mistakenly added a journalist 
to the chain.

   The White House said the information shared through the publicly available 
Signal app with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, was 
not classified, an assertion that Democrats said strains credulity considering 
that it detailed plans for an upcoming attack on Yemen's Houthis.

   President Donald Trump during an Oval Office appearance to announce new 
tariffs on imported vehicles seemed frustrated as reporters repeatedly 
questioned him about the matter.

   "I think it's all a witch hunt," Trump said.

   The decision on determining whether the information is classified ultimately 
lies with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who in the chain listed weapons 
systems and a timeline for the attack -- "THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL 
DEFINITELY DROP," he wrote. The Houthis have been wreaking havoc on vital Red 
Sea shipping lanes since November 2023 as the Israel-Hamas war raged.

   Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
said the position that the Trump administration is staking out can be described 
with one word: "Baloney."

   "When you describe time, place, type of armaments used: Do they think the 
American public is stupid?" Warner said in an exchange with reporters.

   There are no signs that the controversy will fade soon for Trump, who has 
said he stands by his national security team and has assailed the reporter's 
credibility. At the same time, he has made clear his preference for his team to 
discuss such operations in person and in more secure settings, though it is not 
yet clear if changes will be implemented as a result.

   Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, said he and Sen. Jack Reed, the committee's top Democrat, will send 
a letter to the Trump administration requesting an expedited inspector general 
investigation into the use of Signal.

   They are also calling for a classified briefing with a top administration 
official "who actually has the facts and can speak on behalf of the 
administration."

   "The information, as published recently, appears to me to be of such a 
sensitive nature that, based on my knowledge, I would have wanted it 
classified," Wicker said.

   Asked about the call for an inspector general probe, Trump replied, "It 
doesn't bother me."

   But White House officials continue to insist no classified material was 
discussed in the March 13 to March 15 Signal chain and have launched scathing 
attacks on Goldberg. The Atlantic on Wednesday published the full content of 
the text exchange.

   Hegseth, White House national security adviser Mike Waltz and other 
administration officials on Wednesday uniformly insisted that no "war plans" 
had been texted on Signal, a claim that current and former U.S. officials have 
called "semantics."

   War plans carry a specific meaning. They often refer to the numbered and 
highly classified planning documents -- sometimes thousands of pages long -- 
that would inform U.S. decisions in case of a major conflict, such as if the 
United States is called to defend Taiwan.

   But the information Hegseth did post -- specific attack details selecting 
human and weapons storage targets -- was a subset of those plans and was likely 
informed by the same classified intelligence.

   Hegseth in an X posting said the message chain included, "No names. No 
targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no 
classified information." He did not directly address Democrats' concerns about 
the timing and weaponry details in the chain.

   "This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an 
'attack plan' (as he now calls it). Not even close," Hegseth, who is traveling 
to the Indo-Pacific this week, added.

   Hegseth told reporters Hawaii he had not texted "war plans" or "attack 
plans" in the Signal group, pointing out he had called his post a "team update."

   "My job, as it said atop of that (post), everybody's seen it now - 'TEAM 
UPDATE' - is to provide updates in real time, general updates in real time, 
keep people informed," he said before boarding a plane for Guam without taking 
follow-up questions. "That's what I did. That's my job."

   Waltz, who has acknowledged he built the Signal chain and has taken "full 
responsibility" for the episode, amplified Hegseth's contention.

   "No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS," Waltz posted on X. 
"Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM 
LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests."

   Several Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday called 
for Hegseth to step down.

   "This is classified information. It's a weapon system, as well as a sequence 
of strikes, as well as details of the operations," said Rep. Raja 
Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois who is on the committee. "He needs to 
resign immediately."

   Trump bristled at the suggestion that Hegseth should step down.

   "He's doing a great job," Trump said. "He had nothing to do with it."

   Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in an 
exchange with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard during the 
panel's hearing on global threats on Wednesday noted that her office's criteria 
on classified information make clear that it includes "information providing 
indication or advanced warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an 
attack."

   But Gabbard said the decision on whether the Signal chain should be 
classified lay with Hegseth. Asked by Himes if she believed the Pentagon's 
classification guidance was materially different from her office's, she 
demurred.

   "I haven't reviewed the DOD guidance, so I can't comment," Gabbard said 
referring to the Department of Defense.

   The Trump administration stance on the Signal chain is also a notable 
departure for a U.S. government that routinely classifies a vast amount of far 
more mundane material, including millions of documents pertaining to military 
and intelligence operations and activities.

   Advocates for open government have long complained that the push for secrecy 
goes too far, by protecting information that could shine a light on government 
activities or that would seem of little value to our adversaries, including 
material about UFO sightings and 60-year-old presidential assassinations.

   Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that having a journalist in a 
Signal group chat with the most senior Trump officials was a "big mistake." But 
he said he has been assured that the information shared did not threaten the 
operation or the lives of the service members.

   Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, during her White House press briefing, 
described the messaging thread "as a policy discussion, surely a sensitive 
policy discussion, amongst high-level Cabinet officials and senior staff." She 
dismissed the outrage as a "coordinated campaign" by Democrats to "sow chaos."

   Peppered with questions about how the administration can conclude classified 
information wasn't shared considering launch times and weapon systems were 
discussed in the chain, Leavitt said it was up to the public to decide whose 
opinion they trusted.

   "Do you trust the secretary of defense -- who was nominated for this role, 
voted by the United States Senate into this role, who has served in combat, 
honorably served our nation in uniform -- or do you trust Jeffrey Goldberg?" 
she asked.

   Leavitt is one of three Trump administration officials who face a lawsuit 
from The Associated Press on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. The AP says the 
three are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. The 
White House says the AP is not following an executive order to refer to the 
Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.