Latest news with #MQ9Reapers
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fox Reporter Destroys Trump Team's Excuse for War Plans Group Chat
Even the chief national security correspondent at Fox News is calling bullshit on the Trump administration's Signalgate story. Trump and co. are sticking to the story that the Signal chat that The Atlantic editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was added to did not contain any classified information, even though the messages contained precise timing about plans to bomb Yemen. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and press secretary Karoline Laeavitt have been steadfast in this. Fox's Jennifer Griffin thinks they're lying. 'There is a debate about whether the operational details Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared in the Signal Group Chat were 'classified'or not. So I surveyed a range of current and former US defense officials who agreed 'war plans' is not the right term but what was shared may have been FAR MORE sensitive given the operational details and time stamps ahead of the operation, which could have placed US military pilots in harms way,' Griffin wrote. 'What Hegseth shared two hours ahead of the strikes were time-sensitive 'attack orders' or 'operational plans' with actual timing of the strikes and mention of F18s, MQ9 Reapers and Tomahawks. This information is typically sent through classified channels to the commanders in the field as 'secret, no [form] message. In other words the information is 'classified' and should not be shared through insecure channels.' Griffin continued. 'This kind of real time operational information is more sensitive than 'war plans,' which makes this lapse more egregious, according to two former senior US defense officials. 'This information was clearly classified,' according to former senior defense official #1. The Defense Secretary can retroactively declassify information after the fact, but the fact that this was shared in real time before the strike took place makes it unlikely to have been declassified when it was being shared and seen by the journalist for The Atlantic who was inadvertently included in the Signal chat.' It says a lot when the administration's own media wing is starting to get tired of its gaffes.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fox News star eviscerates Trump officials' Signalgate excuses: ‘FAR MORE sensitive' than ‘war plans'
While the MAGA-boosting opinion hosts at Fox News have been fervently running defense for the Trump administration amid the Signal chat leaks scandal, several other reporters and analysts at the right-wing network have provided scathing coverage of the startling security breach. One notable standout has been Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, who destroyed the narrative being pushed by the White House's national security team that nothing classified was shared in the group chat and 'war plans' weren't sent out beforehand. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg essentially called the administration's bluff on Wednesday when he published the texts sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the group chat that gave minute-by-minute details of an airstrike on Houthi rebels in Yemen. The messages, sent 31 minutes before the planes launched and two hours before they first hit their targets, gave a detailed timeline of the strikes and the types of weapons that would be used. Hegseth and the White House, however, doubled down on their initial claims that no classified information was shared in the chat group — which national security adviser Mike Waltz inadvertently added Goldberg to — and insisted that the whole thing was nothing more than a 'misinformation campaign' by The Atlantic while attacking Goldberg and his wife. Many of the president's most loyal supporters also followed suit and quickly downplayed the explosive revelation, insisting that Goldberg had 'overpromised' that Hegseth shared classified materials while echoing the administration's semantic argument that 'attack plans' are different than 'war plans.' Griffin, however, explained on Wednesday that defense experts she spoke to said that the details Hegseth shared in the unsecured chat — which included a random journalist — were 'far more sensitive' than typical 'war plans,' basically eviscerating the administration's dismissal of leaked chat. 'I surveyed a range of current and former US defense officials who agreed 'war plans' is not the right term but what was shared may have been FAR MORE sensitive given the operational details and time stamps ahead of the operation, which could have placed US military pilots in harms way,' she tweeted. 'What Hegseth shared two hours ahead of the strikes were time sensitive 'attack orders' or 'operational plans' with actual timing of the strikes and mention of F18s, MQ9 Reapers and Tomahawks,' Griffin added. 'This information is typically sent through classified channels to the commanders in the field as 'secret, no forn' message. In other words the information is 'classified' and should not be shared through insecure channels.' A former senior defense official also told Griffin that 'attack orders' could put the military immediately at risk if leaked as it 'allows the enemy to move the target and increase lethal actions against U.S. forces.' 'This kind of real time operational information is more sensitive than 'war plans,' which makes this lapse more egregious, according to two former senior U.S. defense officials,' she continued. ''This information was clearly classified,' according to former senior defense official #1.' Noting that the defense secretary can always retroactively declassify information, Griffin pointed out that Hegseth sharing the airstrike details in real time 'makes it unlikely to have been declassified' when Goldberg saw them in the group chat. 'According to a second former senior U.S. defense official, when Hegseth says he didn't release 'war plans' that is pure semantics. These were 'attack plans,'' she concluded. ''If you are revealing who is going to be attacked (Houthis — the name of the text chain), it still gives the enemy warning. When you release the time of the attack — all of that is always 'classified.'' Griffin also appeared on Fox News' Special Report on Wednesday evening to share some of that reporting while highlighting the fallout over the Signalgate scandal on Capitol Hill, which has even seen some Republicans push back on the White House's defiant stance. Additionally, she noted that the DoD's own manual states that the material Hegseth shared in the chat should have been classified. It isn't just Griffin, who represents Fox News' 'hard news' division, who has been highly critical of the Trump administration amid the brewing controversy within the Murdoch media empire. During the White House press briefing on Wednesday, correspondent Jacqui Heinrich — whom Trump recently lambasted for her tough interview of a GOP senator — grilled press secretary Karoline Leavitt over how the administration can justify its defense of Hegseth's messages. 'So, why aren't launch times on a mission strike classified?' Heinrich wondered, prompting Leavitt to brush off the question and defer to the Pentagon. 'With regard to the Signal message case, the administration is making a mess…by getting bogged down in a dispute over whether the details of Yemen bombing raids were a war plan and whether those details were, or should have been, classified,' Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume declared on Wednesday. 'All that has done is prolong the story.' He added: 'The same goes for attacking the reporter who, through no fault or action of his own, received the Signal conversation. All attacking him did was give him a reason to release further details from the Signal chat, which appeared to contradict the administration's claim that no 'war plans' were discussed.' In a column for the New York Post, which is owned by Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, Fox News legal analyst Andrew McCarthy called the Signal chat scandal an 'unconscionable security breach' and the administration if providing 'incredibly foolish' excused over it. McCarthy, meanwhile, was one of Trump's favorite legal experts during his New York hush money trial. On top of that, the editorial boards of Murdoch's two top U.S. newspapers — the Post and The Wall Street Journal — published scathing op-eds on Wednesday describing Signalgate as 'security malpractice' and warned that 'Team Trump will pay a price for whistling past the Signal group-chat fiasco.' Even some of the network's MAGA firebrands are growing exasperated with the White House's spin. 'Trying to wordsmith the hell outta this signal debacle is making it worse. It was bad,' Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren posted on Wednesday. 'And I'm honestly getting sick of the whataboutisms from my own side. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Admit the F up and move on.'
.jpg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C50%2C0%2C50%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)

The Independent
27-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Fox News star eviscerates Trump officials' Signalgate excuses: ‘FAR MORE sensitive' than ‘war plans'
While the MAGA-boosting opinion hosts at Fox News have been fervently running defense for the Trump administration amid the Signal chat leaks scandal, several other reporters and analysts at the right-wing network have provided scathing coverage of the startling security breach. One notable standout has been Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, who destroyed the narrative being pushed by the White House's national security team that nothing classified was shared in the group chat and 'war plans' weren't sent out beforehand. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg essentially called the administration's bluff on Wednesday when he published the texts sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the group chat that gave minute-by-minute details of an airstrike on Houthi rebels in Yemen. The messages, sent 31 minutes before the planes launched and two hours before they first hit their targets, gave a detailed timeline of the strikes and the types of weapons that would be used. Hegseth and the White House, however, doubled down on their initial claims that no classified information was shared in the chat group — which national security adviser Mike Waltz inadvertently added Goldberg to — and insisted that the whole thing was nothing more than a 'misinformation campaign' by The Atlantic while attacking Goldberg and his wife. Many of the president's most loyal supporters also followed suit and quickly downplayed the explosive revelation, insisting that Goldberg had 'overpromised' that Hegseth shared classified materials while echoing the administration's semantic argument that 'attack plans' are different than 'war plans.' Griffin, however, explained on Wednesday that defense experts she spoke to said that the details Hegseth shared in the unsecured chat — which included a random journalist — were 'far more sensitive' than typical 'war plans,' basically eviscerating the administration's dismissal of leaked chat. 'I surveyed a range of current and former US defense officials who agreed 'war plans' is not the right term but what was shared may have been FAR MORE sensitive given the operational details and time stamps ahead of the operation, which could have placed US military pilots in harms way,' she tweeted. 'What Hegseth shared two hours ahead of the strikes were time sensitive 'attack orders' or 'operational plans' with actual timing of the strikes and mention of F18s, MQ9 Reapers and Tomahawks,' Griffin added. 'This information is typically sent through classified channels to the commanders in the field as 'secret, no forn' message. In other words the information is 'classified' and should not be shared through insecure channels.' A former senior defense official also told Griffin that 'attack orders' could put the military immediately at risk if leaked as it 'allows the enemy to move the target and increase lethal actions against U.S. forces.' 'This kind of real time operational information is more sensitive than 'war plans,' which makes this lapse more egregious, according to two former senior U.S. defense officials,' she continued. ''This information was clearly classified,' according to former senior defense official #1.' Noting that the defense secretary can always retroactively declassify information, Griffin pointed out that Hegseth sharing the airstrike details in real time 'makes it unlikely to have been declassified' when Goldberg saw them in the group chat. 'According to a second former senior U.S. defense official, when Hegseth says he didn't release 'war plans' that is pure semantics. These were 'attack plans,'' she concluded. ''If you are revealing who is going to be attacked (Houthis — the name of the text chain), it still gives the enemy warning. When you release the time of the attack — all of that is always 'classified.'' Griffin also appeared on Fox News' Special Report on Wednesday evening to share some of that reporting while highlighting the fallout over the Signalgate scandal on Capitol Hill, which has even seen some Republicans push back on the White House's defiant stance. Additionally, she noted that the DoD's own manual states that the material Hegseth shared in the chat should have been classified. It isn't just Griffin, who represents Fox News' 'hard news' division, who has been highly critical of the Trump administration amid the brewing controversy within the Murdoch media empire. During the White House press briefing on Wednesday, correspondent Jacqui Heinrich — whom Trump recently lambasted for her tough interview of a GOP senator — grilled press secretary Karoline Leavitt over how the administration can justify its defense of Hegseth's messages. 'So, why aren't launch times on a mission strike classified?' Heinrich wondered, prompting Leavitt to brush off the question and defer to the Pentagon. 'With regard to the Signal message case, the administration is making a mess…by getting bogged down in a dispute over whether the details of Yemen bombing raids were a war plan and whether those details were, or should have been, classified,' Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume declared on Wednesday. 'All that has done is prolong the story.' He added: 'The same goes for attacking the reporter who, through no fault or action of his own, received the Signal conversation. All attacking him did was give him a reason to release further details from the Signal chat, which appeared to contradict the administration's claim that no 'war plans' were discussed.' In a column for the New York Post, which is owned by Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, Fox News legal analyst Andrew McCarthy called the Signal chat scandal an 'unconscionable security breach' and the administration if providing 'incredibly foolish' excused over it. McCarthy, meanwhile, was one of Trump's favorite legal experts during his New York hush money trial. On top of that, the editorial boards of Murdoch's two top U.S. newspapers — the Post and The Wall Street Journal — published scathing op-eds on Wednesday describing Signalgate as 'security malpractice' and warned that 'Team Trump will pay a price for whistling past the Signal group-chat fiasco.' Even some of the network's MAGA firebrands are growing exasperated with the White House's spin. 'Trying to wordsmith the hell outta this signal debacle is making it worse. It was bad,' Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren posted on Wednesday. 'And I'm honestly getting sick of the whataboutisms from my own side. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Admit the F up and move on.'
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fox News Reporter Shares Damning Reaction To War Plans Group Chat From U.S. Officials
Fox News' chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin said the group chat that Trump officials inadvertently added a reporter to ahead of a recent bombing campaign in Yemen was possibly 'FAR MORE sensitive' than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims. The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg reported Monday that national security adviser Michael Waltz added him to a group chat earlier this month on the messaging app Signal, in which members discussed classified 'war plans,' which Hegseth has denied. 'There is a debate about whether the operational details … Hegseth shared in the Signal Group Chat were 'classified' or not,' Griffin wrote Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, adding that she has since 'surveyed a range of current and former US defense officials' about this. Griffin said these unnamed officials 'agreed 'war plans' is not the right term but what was shared may have been FAR MORE sensitive given the operational details and time stamps ahead of the operation, which could have placed US military pilots in harms way.' 'This information was clearly classified,' one former senior defense official told her. Hegseth claimed Monday that 'Nobody was texting war plans' on Signal, only for Goldberg — who had initially withheld sharing some of the messages over concerns that their content was too sensitive — to publish damning exchanges Wednesday suggesting otherwise. 'What Hegseth shared two hours ahead of the strikes were time sensitive 'attack orders' or 'operational plans' with actual timing of the strikes and mention of F18s, MQ9 Reapers and Tomahawks,' Griffin wrote later that evening. One former senior defense official told Griffin that if such 'attack orders' fell into the wrong hands, they would allow 'the enemy to move the target and increase lethal actions against US forces' and put American servicemembers 'directly and immediately at risk.' 'This information is typically sent through classified channels to the commanders in the field as 'secret, no forn' message,' Griffin wrote Wednesday. 'In other words the information is 'classified' and should not be shared through insecure channels.' A burgeoning group of Republicans have since come to agree with that position, joining aghast Democrats in reacting to the blunder. Hegseth's claim that he never discussed 'war plans,' meanwhile, is 'pure semantics,' one former senior defense official told Griffin. 'If you are revealing who is going to be attacked (Houthis - the name of the text chain), it still gives the enemy warning,' they told the veteran reporter. 'When you release the time of the attack - all of that is always 'classified.'' Trump Says Pete Hegseth Had 'Nothing To Do' With War Plans That Hegseth Texted To Journalist Pete Hegseth Has Social Media Outburst Over War Plans Text Scandal Pete Hegseth Sued After Journalist Was Added To Group Chat
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fox's Jennifer Griffin: Info Hegseth sent ‘classified' and meant only for secure channels
Fox News's Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin said she surveyed current and former defense officials on Wednesday who said Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared 'classified' information via the Signal group chat with President Trump's cabinet members and The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who was mistakenly added to the message thread. 'What Hegseth shared two hours ahead of the strikes were time sensitive 'attack orders' or 'operational plans' with actual timing of the strikes and mention of F18s, MQ9 Reapers and Tomahawks,' Griffin wrote in a Wednesday post on X. 'This information is typically sent through classified channels to the commanders in the field as 'secret, no forn' message. In other words the information is 'classified' and should not be shared through insecure channels,' she added. Griffin's discussion with past defense officials revealed that the information shared about the U.S. strike on the Houthis in Yemen could have put American lives at risk. ''Attack orders' or 'attack sequence' puts the joint force directly and immediately at risk, according to former senior defense official #1. 'It allows the enemy to move the target and increase lethal actions against US forces,'' the journalist wrote. 'This kind of real time operational information is more sensitive than 'war plans,' which makes this lapse more egregious, according to two former senior US defense officials.' The Trump administration, including Hegseth and national security adviser Mike Waltz, have both shared multiple statements alleging that the information was not classified. 'No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information,' Hegseth wrote in a Wednesday post on X. Griffin's sources said Hegseth could technically 'retroactively' declassify information but highlighted his refusal to call the messages war plans is 'pure semantics' and interviewees noted that if the information was given to the wrong person, the Signal chat could have provided a warning about the attack to foreign adversaries. ''If you are revealing who is going to be attacked (Houthis – the name of the text chain), it still gives the enemy warning. When you release the time of the attack – all of that is always 'classified,'' a former senior US defense official told the Fox News reporter. President Trump said he would ask Hegseth to review what information should be considered classified, while White House officials have tapped Elon Musk to investigate how Goldberg was added to the Signal chat. The Trump administration also faces a lawsuit initiated by the group American Oversight. Plaintiffs claim officials violated their obligations under the Federal Records Act to preserve information related to national security as the Signal chat settings were set to disappear after a certain number of weeks. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg will preside over the case. He's the same judge who was assigned to President Trump's Venezuelan deportation case where he blocked the Republican administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.