
The larger problem uncovered by the Signal scandal
After the White House argued, repeatedly, that there was no classified information in the now-infamous group chat of national security officials, The Atlantic published it.
CNN reporters annotated the entire chat, which included Hegseth's description of F-18s and drones preparing to strike targets, which anybody listening in would have known were to occur in Yemen since the name of the chat included the word 'Houthi.'
The White House and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth continued to argue, even after release of the chat, that the information wasn't classified, but only sensitive.
Multiple experts advised on CNN Wednesday that people should not get sidetracked by whether or not the information was classified.
What's below are the assessments of:
Retired Brigadier Gen. Mark Kimmitt, who during his military career worked as deputy director for strategy and plans for US Central Command, and then worked in the State Department as assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs during the George W. Bush administration
and Beth Sanner, a CNN National Security analyst who was deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration during portions of both the first Trump and Joe Biden administrations.
Kimmitt and Sanner both appeared on CNN Wednesday, and I subsequently followed up with Sanner on the phone.
CNN has reported that sources within the Pentagon believe that the information shared by Hegseth, which detailed when, to the minute, US fighters and drones would strike Houthi targets, was clearly classified.
Whether it was technically classified is beside the point, according to Kimmitt.
'I think everybody's missing the relevant issue,' he said, noting that Hegseth has the authority to declassify Pentagon information.
'If he says it's not classified, it's not classified,' Kimmit said. But 'the fundamental question that we should be asking is, 'Should it have been classified?' And the answer, of course, is yes.'
'I think we're watching a lot of bob and weave, instead of just making this simple,' said Sanner, who added that the rule of thumb is that anything that shouldn't be put into an unclassified email should be treated as classified material.
'Another really easy way to look at this is, 'If I'm sitting in Moscow or Beijing, would I be happy to get this information and think that I've gotten something really interesting?'' she said. Obviously yes.
First, the military portions of what was shared clearly should not have been shared.
'If there are planes, trains automobiles, whatever, heading toward an attack, it is classified,' Sanner said.
And if Hegseth wants to declassify something, there is a process of documentation that should be followed, she said.
Sanner said that the simple existence of the group chat on Signal likely did not violate any protocol, but when Vance and Hegseth got into a debate, that is the type of information that enemies would be particularly interested in.
'They have learned so much about how policymaking is being done in the US government, and, in fact, how it's not being done,' she said.
'The president has made a decision to go to war, but clearly that has been without complete deliberations, and that's something we should get our heads around,' she said.
Vance raised concerns about the strike in the group chat, but there's no evidence those concerns were conveyed to the president.
The White House and Hegseth have argued that what Hegseth shared in the chat was not, technically speaking, a 'war plan' even though it included some details about timing, targets and method of attack.
Asked if this was a semantic distinction between a war plan and a plan of attack, Kimmitt said no.
'There's a distinction with a difference,' he argued.
'War plans are preparatory plans that come in excruciating detail that are ready to conduct an operation in the future. They are plans. They're not operations,' he said.
When something becomes operational, like the Yemen attack, it might become even more sensitive than a war plan.
'War plans are probably less sensitive because they are speculative in nature. Operations plans, which we saw released as part of these texts, clearly are less speculative, more active, and put more soldiers and sailors and airmen at risk.'
But when Kimmitt was asked about the argument made by Democratic members of Congress that this Signal chat actively put US service members in harm's way, he said that is probably a 'somewhat inflammatory' view. Signal is a relatively secure app, and the operation was in fact successful, he said.
'I came up in an Army that was somewhat forgiving of mistakes that were made unintentionally and did not create any harm,' he said.
The White House and Hegseth have gone to great lengths to argue there was no classified material in the Signal chat. Kimmitt argued that is making the problem worse.
'The coverup, or the pushing back on this, I think it's probably something that doesn't show a lot of maturity, and people ought to think very hard about it. Just admit the screw-up. Fix it. Don't do it again,' he said.
The cavalier attitude of using an app like Signal for these kinds of deliberations needs to change, Sanner said.
Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were both in foreign countries during portions of the group chat, and Sanner said the administration needs to tighten things up as it deals with countries like Russia, China and Iran.
The app may be encrypted, but the phone being used – and we don't know if these were personal or government phones – might be compromised, particularly in a foreign country.
The issue should not be a partisan one, Sanner said, but rather an opportunity for change.
'We have to understand that all the politicization of this issue is making it harder for everyone to do the right thing, which is to fix their comms so that our adversaries cannot know what we're doing and how we're doing it,' she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Homeland Security seeks weapons, drones for LA immigration crackdown
WASHINGTON —The Department of Homeland Security has asked the Pentagon for help in transporting weapons from Fort Benning in Georgia and another site in Wyoming to Los Angeles, where its immigration crackdown has become increasingly militarized. The request came Monday after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered thousands of National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the objection of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump and Hegseth said the troops are needed to restore order, protect federal buildings and law enforcement officials arresting and deporting migrants in the United States illegally. The request from Homeland Security, confirmed by a Defense official, also seeks 'drone surveillance support,' direction to troops on detaining or arresting 'lawbreakers,' and graduates from an organization like the Marines' School of Advanced Warfighting School for setting up a joint operation center. It's unclear what type of weapons Homeland Security officials are seeking for their immigration crackdown in California. Also unclear: who would use them and who they would be used against. Pentagon officials are reviewing the request, according to the official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its request. On Wednesday, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, asked Hegseth if he would authorize drones and the use of 'military forces to detain or arrest American citizens.' Reed is a member of the Senate Defense Approprations subcommittee and the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Hegseth did not answer directly, saying, 'Senator, every authorization we've provided, the National Guard, and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the president of the United States. Is lawful and constitutional.' Active-duty troops are generally barred by federal law from participating in law enforcement operations, based on century's old tradition separating the military from domestic policing. There is an exception under the Insurrection Act that allows the president to use the military to put down an internal rebellion. National Guard troops have fewer restrictions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are carrying out a directive from Trump to find immigrants living in the United States without legal status. Protests have sprung up against the sweeps the agency is carrying out in various neighborhoods. News that Homeland Security officials want ammunition, drones and combat expertise follows another request it made of the Pentagon. That one seeks for the first time more than 20,000 National Guard troops for their 'support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' That could put Guardsmen far from the southern border -- where they have supported enforcement operations for years -- and thrust them into center of the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration in American cities. "DHS requested 20,000 National Guard members to help carry out the president's mandate from the American people to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens," DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. "The Department of Homeland Security will use every tool and resource available to get criminal illegal aliens including gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and other violent criminals out of our country. The safety of American citizens comes first.' More: Trump wants 20,000 troops to hunt, transport immigrants. Cost estimate: $3.6 billion It's not a given that these requests will be granted in part or in full. Pentagon officials review the proposals and decide what the military can spare without compromising its mission. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Homeland Security seeks weapons, drones for LA immigration crackdown
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LA Protest Coverage Sparks Cable News Ratings Growth, CNN Doubles Audience
The Los Angeles protests over Donald Trump's ICE raids have sparked ratings growth across cable news since Friday, as viewers across the country tune in to follow the developing situation while the president deploys thousands of troops to the city. Most notably, CNN doubled its primetime audience by averaging 765,000 viewers from Friday through Tuesday, according to Nielsen figures, compared to 383,000 for the same week-earlier period. Demo viewership in primetime also saw a 109% spike, as CNN reached 142,000 viewers in the key cable news demo among adults 25-49, from 68,000 demo viewers the previous week. CNN saw by far the biggest boost, which can also be attributed in part to the protests picking up on Saturday, when the network televised a live performance of George Clooney's play 'Good Night, and Good Luck' — the special scored 7.34 million viewers globally. Still, both Fox News and MSNBC also saw slight upticks in viewership during the period as well. Fox News averaged 2.32 million primetime viewers from Friday through Tuesday — up 5% from the previous week's 2.2 million — while MSNBC saw a 12% uptick in viewership to reach 906,000 viewers (up from 809,000 the week prior). Fox and MSNBC also posted demo gains of 17% and 28%, respectively, at 269,000 and 91,000 viewers. The trend was similar in total-day viewership, though CNN only saw a 52% uptick, to 465,000 viewers, by that measure. Like primetime, CNN saw the biggest increase among the major cable news networks but remained in third place behind Fox (1.48 million) and MSNBC (571,000). The protests also resulted in a surge for local news in the L.A. market. KCAL, CBS' local Los Angeles channel, saw a 158% viewership jump during Saturday's primetime news programming, as well as a 166% increase in viewership during Sunday's 8-11 p.m. news slot compared to the previous week. Sister station KCBS also saw a 26% increase for its 11 p.m. news. As expected, having two relatively small-market teams in the NBA Finals has turned out to be drag on ratings. The first two games between the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Indiana Pacers averaged 8.84 million viewers, scoring 8.91 million and 8.76 million, respectively, for Games 1 and 2. Viewership for Game 2 fell nearly 30% below last year's matchup between the Celtics and the Mavericks — which brought in 12.3 million viewers — and marked the least-watched Game 2 since 2007, excluding 2020, when the pandemic-confined game brought in 7.54 million viewers. Reflecting continued growth for women's sports, the 2025 NCAA Women's College World Series drew a record audience, averaging 1.3 million viewers across 15 games on ESPN. That represents a 24% gain from last year, outpacing the previous high set by the 2021 tournament. The finals, which pitted Texas against Texas Tech, averaged a total linear viewership of 2.2 million, as both Games 1 and 2 ranked as the most-watched ever (2.1 million viewers) for those contests. ABC procedural 'The Rookie' has climbed its way into Nielsen's streaming charts due to its strong viewing on Hulu, appearing in the company's top 10 most-watched acquired streaming programs for the past nine weeks and 13 of the 19 weeks reported in 2025. While the show has benefited from the new season's next-day viewing on Hulu, Nielsen reports that recent episodes only account for 33% of the show's 2025 viewing, meaning that most viewers might be discovering the show for the first time on Hulu. Most recently, 'The Rookie' was the No. 5 most-streamed acquired show during the week of May 5, with 674 million viewing minutes, behind frequent list toppers 'Bluey' at No. 1, 'Grey's Anatomy' at No. 2, HBO's 'The Last of Us' third and 'NCIS' fourth. The post LA Protest Coverage Sparks Cable News Ratings Growth, CNN Doubles Audience appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans struggle to defend Trump's military parade as tanks prepare to roll in D.C.
Around this time eight years ago, Donald Trump attended Bastille Day celebrations in France in 2017, which the president apparently loved — in part because it included a military parade along the Champs-Élysées. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' the Republican said after the event, adding, 'It was military might.' Soon after, Trump began pushing for a related display in Washington, D.C., which was not an especially popular idea, even among many of his allies. According to multiple reports, Gen. Paul J. Selva, the then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the president during a Pentagon meeting that military parades were 'what dictators do.' There were similar reactions on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said ostentatious American military parades would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' adding that he wasn't interested in a 'Russian-style hardware display.' Around the same time, GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana explained, 'Confidence is silent. Insecurities are loud. When you're the most powerful nation in all of human history, you don't have to show it off, like Russia does, and North Korea, and China. And we are the most powerful nation in all of human history. Everyone knows that, and there's no need to broadcast it. I think we would show our confidence by remaining silent, and not doing something like that.' The White House's plan ultimately unraveled in 2018 — though in politics, it's often tough to keep bad ideas down. On Saturday, June 14, the president will finally get the military parade he's long sought, ostensibly celebrating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. The event will also fall on Flag Day, as well as Trump's 79th birthday. Seven years after Graham said such displays would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' the South Carolinian told NBC News this week that he's now 'okay' with the parade. And while that trajectory was probably predictable given Graham's broader political evolution, as HuffPost noted, many of his colleagues were more reluctant to talk about the event. They snapped. They stared off into space. They zipped into Senate elevators and smiled as the doors closed with them safely inside. This is how nearly a dozen Senate Republicans reacted Wednesday when asked the simplest question: Do you plan to attend President Donald Trump's military parade in D.C. on Saturday, and are you comfortable with its estimated $45 million price tag? What's more, GOP senators aren't just loath to answer questions about the military parade, they're also disinclined to show up for the festivities: Politico reported that most congressional Republicans won't be in attendance when tanks start rolling down Constitution Avenue, and 'those begging off include members of the Republican leadership in both chambers.' As for intraparty criticism, Graham has apparently changed his mind, but other Senate Republicans have subtly made clear that they're not fully on board with Trump's vision. 'I wouldn't have done it,' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told NBC News this week. 'I'm not sure what the actual expense of it is, but I'm not really, you know, we were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that,' Paul said. (He clarified that he was 'not proposing' that that's the image Trump intends to project, but he's worried what message the parade will send.) As for Louisiana's Kennedy, the senator echoed the point he raised during the president's first term. 'The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history. We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows and we're a lion,' the senator said. It's a point Trump will probably never fully understand. This article was originally published on