
The larger problem uncovered by the Signal scandal
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
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


Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Key Congressman Questions Hegseth Decision to Slash Test Office
A top House Republican who oversees Pentagon spending expressed surprise and concern about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's order last month to slash nearly half the staff of the Pentagon's test oversight agency, even as the US embarks on major military initiatives including the F-47 fighter and the Golden Dome defensive system. 'This decision is surprising, especially at a time when the test and evaluation community was in the early stages of transforming to meet unprecedented production and fielding requirements,' Representative Ken Calvert of California, chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, told Bloomberg News in a statement.

36 minutes ago
Hegseth to testify on Capitol Hill as House Dem calls Marine deployment to LA ‘outrageous'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to testify before a House panel on Tuesday, his first time on Capitol Hill since being sworn in five months ago and as questions swirl about the deployment of troops to Los Angeles as part of an immigration crackdown. Hegseth planned to appear before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee alongside Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and acting Pentagon Comptroller Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell to discuss the administration's upcoming 2026 budget request. During the hearing, Hegseth is widely expected to dodge many of the specifics on the military's spending blueprint, which has not been released, and instead highlight recent gains in recruiting numbers and new technology initiatives in the Army. But overshadowing much of his testimony will be the Pentagon's decision to send some 4,800 troops, including 700 Marines, to Los Angeles following several days of clashes between protesters and law enforcement there. The troops, known as Task Force 51, are being called under a law known as Title 10, which allows the president to send military forces to protect federal property and personnel. Gen. Eric Smith, commandant of the Marine Corps, is scheduled to testify separately Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. On the eve of Hegseth's testimony, Rep. Betty McCollum on Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, accused President Donald Trump of deliberately escalating the situation in Los Angeles by pushing for military reinforcements not requested by California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. She called decision to send Marines in particular " outrageous." "The active duty military has absolutely no legal role in domestic law enforcement. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth should read the Constitution and follow the law," she said. The Pentagon has not had a news conference since the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, referring reporters with questions about the mission to Hegseth's posts on X. On X, Hegseth said the troops were needed to protect federal immigration officers and detention buildings. "There is plenty of room for peaceful protest, but ZERO tolerance for attacking federal agents who are doing their job. The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE," Hegseth said in a statement. U.S. officials said the troops would carry guns and ammunition separately for use only in self-defense and to protect federal property. They would not patrol the streets or help law enforcement arrest protesters, the officials said. Unclear is whether Trump is preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that says the president can call on a militia or the U.S. armed forces if there's been "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" in a state that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." On his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump referred to the L.A. protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and "paid insurrectionists." When asked if Hegseth had spoken with Trump on Monday, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told ABC News, "the Secretary is in regular contact with the President regarding the National Guard presence in Los Angeles." Following his testimony, Hegseth is expected to travel with the president to Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Tuesday to participate in activities tied to the Army's 250th birthday celebration. Under Hegseth, the military has taken over control of hundreds of miles along the U.S. southern border with Mexico in an effort to tamp down unauthorized entry by migrants. He's also eliminated programs aimed at increasing diversity among military personnel, slashed the number of general officers and initiated efforts to build a $175 billion U.S. missile defense shield. At the same time, Hegseth also faces reports of dysfunction and infighting among his personal staff at the Pentagon. Since his Jan. 25 swearing in, Hegseth has fired or sidelined several of his own top political advisers and he's gone without a chief of staff since April. Tuesday's hearing also would be Hegseth's first appearance since revelations that he relied on a commercial messaging app known as Signal to relay details about a pending military attack to other high-ranking officials and others, including his wife. Hegseth's use of Signal is now under internal investigation by the Defense Department's inspector general.


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Auditor general's report on company behind ArriveCan to be released today
OTTAWA - The latest probe into the company behind the controversial ArriveCan app is among four reports being released today by Canada's auditor general. Karen Hogan looked into all contracts awarded and payments made to GC Strategies for its work on the app to determine whether they were in line with government policy and whether the government got value for taxpayers' money. In September, the House of Commons unanimously agreed to ask Hogan to look into the contracts and her report is set to be tabled in the House around 10 a.m. ET. As of March 2024, GC Strategies — a two-man team which last week was banned from entering into contracts or real property agreements with the federal government for seven years — had received $100 million in federal government contracts since 2011. Hogan's previous report on the app's development found it did not deliver the best value to taxpayers and concluded that three federal departments disregarded federal policies, controls and transparency in the contracting process. GC Strategies received nearly a third of the $60 million total cost of the ArriveCan project, despite being awarded contracts through non-competitive processes. Hogan also will table a report today on Canada's plans to purchase F-35 fighter jets and whether the Department of National Defence ensured the aircraft would be delivered on time and on budget. Another report will look at whether the government provides adequate office space for public servants while minimizing costs to taxpayers. Canada's environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco will also table four reports today, including an audit of the National Adaptation Strategy, the federal government's $2.1 billion initiative to help communities withstand the impacts of climate change. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025.