A heated Senate Intelligence Committee hearing exposed deep divisions among lawmakers and officials regarding the handling of sensitive information in a Signal text chain.
According to Fox News, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called for the immediate resignations of National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following revelations about a potential national security breach involving a Signal text chat accessible to a journalist from The Atlantic.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced intense questioning during the hearing about the nature of communications in the Signal chat, particularly regarding discussions about U.S. operations against Houthi forces in Yemen. She maintained throughout the proceedings that no classified information was shared in the conversations, though she declined to provide specific details about the chat's contents.
Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) pressed Gabbard repeatedly on her involvement in the group chat with senior Trump administration officials. Warner expressed frustration with what he perceived as evasive responses, emphasizing that such behavior from regular intelligence officers would result in termination.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed his participation in the group chat, defending the use of Signal's end-to-end encryption as permissible and lawful in this instance. FBI Director Kash Patel revealed he had only recently been briefed on the matter and could not provide updates about any potential investigation.
The controversy has highlighted concerns about information security practices among top government officials. Several Democratic senators expressed alarm about the potential mishandling of sensitive information and federal records.
President Trump has indicated he does not plan to remove Waltz from his position as national security advisor despite the growing controversy. This stance has intensified the partisan divide over the handling of the situation.
Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) offered a more nuanced perspective on classification authority, explaining that different department heads maintain distinct responsibilities for protecting sensitive information within their jurisdictions. This clarification came after several exchanges about who could definitively determine whether classified information had been compromised.
When questioned about specific details regarding weapons packages, targets, or timing in the Signal conversation, both Ratcliffe and Gabbard indicated they were not aware of such discussions, with Gabbard deferring to the Department of Defense for further clarification.
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) directed pointed questions about the specific content of the Signal messages, particularly concerning military planning details. The responses from intelligence officials remained carefully measured, with most deferring to ongoing reviews by the National Security Council.
Warner's comparison of the situation to potential consequences for lower-ranking officials highlighted the broader debate about accountability standards across different levels of government. The incident has sparked discussions about the need for consistent application of security protocols regardless of position.
The combination of modern communication technologies and traditional security requirements has created new challenges for government officials. The incident has prompted calls for updated guidelines on the use of encrypted messaging apps in official communications.
The Signal text chain controversy has placed National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the center of a heated debate over information security practices within the Trump administration. Senator Wyden's call for their resignations stems from concerns about the potential exposure of sensitive operational details through unclassified channels, particularly regarding military actions against Houthi forces in Yemen. While Director of National Intelligence Gabbard maintains no classified information was compromised, the incident has triggered broader discussions about communication protocols and accountability measures for senior government officials handling sensitive national security matters.
