Intelligence Chiefs Distance Themselves From Information Shared in Signal Chat
The nation's top two spy chiefs who participated in a Signal chat discussing U.S. strikes in Yemen rejected assertions that detailed military information on planned and completed strikes was classified intelligence under questioning from Democratic senators on Tuesday.
But even as the two officials, C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, acknowledged the sensitivity of information about strike targets, they sought to evade specifics on the content of the chat, offered carefully parsed answers on responsibility for the leaks and declined to release the details of the exchanges.
Ms. Gabbard initially declined to confirm that she was even added to the chat. And Mr. Ratcliffe, who said it was up to the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to determine what information could be shared in an unclassified chat, flatly rejected the conclusion of one Democratic senator who asked him to agree that the entire episode had been a serious and damaging mistake.
It took the intelligence chiefs several rounds of questions from lawmakers about the Signal chat, detailed Monday in The Atlantic, to describe their view of events. But the picture that emerged from two hours of testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee — a previously scheduled hearing that was supposed to be about the array of threats against America — was the spy chiefs' contention that no sensitive information from their areas of responsibility was shared.
Instead, Mr. Hegseth is under the microscope for his decision to put sensitive defense information, most likely classified, into the chat.
Signal, a widely available messaging platform, uses a powerful form of encryption. But it does not have the security protections of classified government computers.
Both Mr. Ratcliffe and Ms. Gabbard were in the group chat set up by Michael Waltz, the national security adviser. Mr. Waltz, or a staff member, inadvertently also included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, in the chat.
Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Ratcliffe declined to answer many questions about the chat, including whether personal or government phones were used. But Ms. Gabbard did acknowledge that at least part of the chat took place while she was on a long overseas trip to India and other countries. Mr. Ratcliffe defended his use of the app as 'lawful,' and said that the C.I.A. had placed it on his official government computer.
Democratic lawmakers pressed the two intelligence chiefs on a variety of issues. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona asked Mr. Ratcliffe if targeting information should have been discussed, and Mr. Ratcliffe said it should be conducted 'though classified channels.'
But Mr. Ratcliffe also noted that it was up to Mr. Hegseth, who held the classification authority, to determine what was appropriate to share.
The relentless questioning by Democrats clearly annoyed Mr. Ratcliffe and Ms. Gabbard. When Mr. Ratcliffe said his testimony was being mischaracterized, Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, shot back: 'This sloppiness, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies is entirely unacceptable. You need to do better.'
Senator Jon Ossoff, Democrat of Georgia, pushed Mr. Ratcliffe to agree that the episode was 'a huge mistake, correct?'
Mr. Ratcliff pushed back with a single word — 'no' — and he and the senator repeatedly talked over one another before Mr. Ossoff admonished him, calling the incident an embarrassment. 'There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error,' he said. 'And by the way, we will get the full transcript of this chain and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.'
enator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the panel, repeatedly warned the spy chiefs about the consequences of discussing sensitive information on platforms not designed for classified discussions, calling it 'sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior.'
'It not only violated all procedures, but if this information had gotten out, American lives could have been lost,' Mr. Warner said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
43 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democrats in Virginia have a hefty fundraising advantage heading into November general election
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Democrats in Virginia have built up a hefty fundraising advantage for their effort to reclaim the governor's mansion in a November election that is seen as a bellwether for the party in power in Washington ahead of the 2026 midterms. Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA spy turned congresswoman, has a more than 2-to-1 fundraising advantage over her GOP opponent for governor, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who has struggled to draw support from her fellow Republicans. Both were unopposed for their party's nominations and were able to focus on the fall general election without having to overcome a challenge in this week's primaries. The match-up means Virginia is all but certain to elect the state's first female governor. Spanberger has amassed $6.5 million toward her campaign for governor over the last two months after raising $6.7 million between January and March, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project. Combined with the money Spanberger raised in 2024, she has gathered $22.8 million and still has $14.3 million in her coffers. Earle-Sears, meanwhile, spent more than she earned between April and June, bringing in $3.5 million and spending $4.6 million. Between January and March, she also raised a little over $3.1 million. In total, she has raked in nearly $9.2 million since launching her campaign last September. Now, she has a little under $3 million in the bank, according to Virginia Public Access Project data. In a statement, Earle-Sears' campaign said the candidate is putting forward a message for Virginians that money can't buy. 'Clearly the Spanberger campaign needs a lot of help attempting to erase Abigail's bad voting record on issues that actually matter to Virginians,' press secretary Peyton Vogel said in an email. 'This race isn't being bought — it's being built on a message that matters.' Virginia is one of two states, along with New Jersey, that host statewide elections this year. The contests will be closely watched as a measure of whether voters in the shadow of Washington will embrace President Donald Trump's aggressive effort to overhaul the federal government, or be repelled by it. Democrats' outsized fundraising lead ahead of the primaries may reflect local Democratic enthusiasm and the party's ability to push people to the polls in light of Trump being in office. Mark J. Rozell, dean of George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government, also referenced the noticeable frostiness among leading state Republicans. The party's statewide nominees have yet to campaign together, despite securing their nominations at the end of April. 'Enthusiasm drives fundraising and in Virginia right now the Democrats' voting base has much greater enthusiasm' than Republicans, Rozell said. 'It is reminiscent of Trump's first term in office when Democratic fundraising and ultimately voting overwhelmed the Republicans in Virginia.' Money does not guarantee success, however. In the last Virginia governor's race, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe outspent Republican Glenn Youngkin, who had invested $20 million of his own money in the race. Youngkin still clinched the election by nearly two points. Youngkin, who is term-limited from seeking reelection, has offered more than $21,000 in support to Earle-Sears through his political action committee. When asked whether he would donate more, his PAC responded, 'Governor Youngkin is working to elect the entire GOP ticket and is urging all Virginians to support the commonsense team this November to keep Virginia winning.' The Democrats' fundraising advantage isn't confined to the governor's race. State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, who eked out a primary win in a close three-way contest for lieutenant governor, raised nearly $1.8 million in her primary race and has $462,000 remaining. The Republican nominee, conservative talk-radio host John Reid, raised nearly $312,000 since launching his campaign and has $116,000 remaining. The only statewide GOP candidate with a fundraising lead, incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares, has $2.3 million in the bank after raising a total of $4.6 million. His Democratic opponent, Jay Jones, has raised $2.7 million. He had about $493,000 left at the beginning of June, reports show. This year, all three Democratic statewide candidates are backed by Clean Virginia, a political group that pushes for clean energy and often takes on legislative challenges against Dominion Energy, Virginia's largest utility. The two groups are some of the most influential entities lobbying on state politics and policy. With energy demand likely to be a key issue in November, their influence could be significant. According to the nonpartisan public-access group, Spanberger has taken in $465,000 from the environmental organization. On Tuesday, Clean Virginia endorsed Hashmi's candidacy for lieutenant governor, following its previous donations to her state Senate campaign committee. During his campaign, Jones also received $1.5 million from Clean Virginia, while his primary opponent, Democrat Shannon Taylor, accepted $800,000 from Dominion Energy between 2024 and 2025. Clean Virginia released attack ads targeting Taylor for accepting Dominion money. The energy utility has become entangled in other statewide battles. On the Republican ticket, Earle-Sears accepted $50,000 from Dominion in March. Miyares also gained $450,000 from the utility so far this year. Clean Virginia has donated to both Democrats and Republicans, including to candidates running for the House of Delegates, where all 100 members are up for reelection in November. Democrats who control the legislature are hoping to keep or expand their thin majority and amend the state's Constitution to protect rights to voting, marriage equality and abortion. Democratic candidates have raised about $16.9 million in those races, with $3.2 million stemming from House Speaker Don Scott. Meanwhile, Republicans have raised $8.8 million, with former Minority Leader Todd Gilbert earning over $643,000, and newly tapped Minority Leader Terry Kilgore raising nearly $470,000. ——— Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sanders wades into battleground district with Wisconsin endorsement
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has endorsed Democrat Rebecca Cooke in her attempt for a rematch against Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) in a battleground Wisconsin district. Sanders said in a statement, first reported by NBC News, that he's supporting Cooke to represent Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District because she will 'stand up for working families and take on the greed of powerful special interests.' 'Rebecca is a working-class fighter who developed her populist roots in rural Western Wisconsin,' the senator continued. 'A daughter of farmers, a waitress and a small business owner — she's lived through failed policies from Washington elites and is ready to deliver tangible outcomes that working people will actually feel.' Cooke previously ran for the House seat twice, losing the Democratic nomination in 2022 before winning the primary last year. Democrats eyed Van Orden's seat as a possible pickup opportunity, and she narrowly lost to him by less than 3 points. She's now seeking to face him again in what the party hopes will be a stronger year for its prospects in 2026. Sanders said Cooke would be an ally to him in the House to enforce antitrust laws against monopolies, raise the minimum wage and expand Medicare. Cooke said she's 'honored' to receive Sanders's endorsement, calling him a 'champion for the working class.' 'He's spent his career fighting for the same values that drive our campaign here in Wisconsin's Third District: putting people over politics, taking on corporate greed, and building a future that works for everyone—not just the wealthy and well-connected,' she said. Cooke faces a couple primary opponents but has notched a wide range of Democratic endorsements from progressives and moderates. That includes support from the Blue Dog PAC, which backs moderate Democrats, and EMILY's List. Updated at 11:48 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump can keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, appeals court rules
An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. 5 Members of the California National Guard and police officers wear gas masks as they form a barier at a loading dock of the Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In its decision, the court concluded that 'it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in federalizing control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. 5 A protester holds flowers near members of the California National Guard guarding a federal building during 'No Kings Day' protests in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. REUTERS 5 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to the media after a federal judge halted President Donald Trump's orders to deploy the state's National Guard on June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. 5 President Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office of the White House alongside members of his cabinet on June 10, 2025. 5 Protesters wave a Mexican flag on top of a destroyed car during the Los Angeles riots on June 8, 2025. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
