Signal texts release raises pressure on Trump to contain anger

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and top allies struggled to fend off criticism over the inadvertent inclusion of a journalist in a Signal chat discussing military attacks in Yemen, after newly disclosed texts showed how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed specific operational details.

Trump and senior administration officials on Wednesday ratcheted up criticism of Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg — who National Security Advisor Mike Waltz mistakingly added to the chat — and maintained that specific timing of planned strikes, U.S. weapons systems and targets contained in text messages did not amount to “war plans” or classified information.

“It had no impact on the attack, which was very successful,” Trump said during an appearance on a conservative talk radio show.

Yet that effort was failing to gain traction outside of the president’s most fervent loyalists. On Capitol Hill, Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who serves as chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, agreed with Democrats’ request to provide to lawmakers an expedited watchdog report on the incident. Wicker said he would also seek a secure briefing for his committee, and that he believed that the information disclosed in the chat was classified.

And four of the officials on the chat, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, sought to distance themselves from the controversy, saying they had done nothing wrong and had been told by others that no classified information was shared.

“Obviously, someone made a mistake — someone made a big mistake and added a journalist,” Rubio told reporters on a trip to Jamaica. Asked if the information in the text was classified, he responded, “Well, the Pentagon says it was not.”

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, acknowledged to a House panel that details of the attack had been shared. She maintained she “was not directly involved” in portions of the chat where some of the most sensitive material was provided.

“I’m going to leave all that to the legal experts,” Bessent said when asked on Fox News about the texts. “You know, I’ll say one of the few advantages of being one of the older people in the cabinet is that I still like to pick up the phone and call people.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared undeterred by the blowback Wednesday, attacking Goldberg as an “anti-Trump hater” and calling Democratic critics in Congress “hysterical.”

But the saga has demonstrated the limits of the Trump administration’s defiant, flood-the-zone approach, in which officials — including the president — responded to The Atlantic’s initial report by attacking its veracity and dismissing concerns about a security breach as overblown.

In response, the magazine published a story Wednesday saying it had come to believe that “people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions” after Trump and other officials insisted that the disclosure did not include classified material.

The Atlantic published a transcript that included a text message from Hegseth to the full group — which included Vice President JD Vance, Waltz and others — giving precise times for two waves of US attacks against the Houthis, and featuring details of what weapons system would be used.

Trump again Wednesday downplayed the significance of a breach, saying during his talk-show appearance that “there weren’t details” in the texts “and there was nothing in there” that was “compromised.”

On the chain, Hegseth said the effort would include strikes by F-18 Hornet fighter jet and MQ-9 Reaper attack drones.

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” reads one text from Hegseth. “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s).”

The Atlantic said the White House had asked it not to disclose the plans. Earlier Wednesday, Leavitt called the reporting a “hoax,” arguing that the magazine had described the content as “war plans” in its original story but “attack plans” in the subsequent post.

“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,’” Leavitt wrote on X. “This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”

“No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent,” Waltz posted on X.

The texts touched off a firestorm of accusations from Democrats and national-security experts who argued that top officials should not have used Signal, a publicly available messaging app, for such high-level and sensitive discussions. Calls grew louder on Wednesday for Hegseth and others to resign.

“The Signal incident is what happens when you have the most unqualified Secretary of Defense we’ve ever seen,” Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly wrote on X. “We’re lucky it didn’t cost any servicemembers their lives, but for the safety of our military and our country, Secretary Hegseth needs to resign.”

Hegseth, who is currently traveling in Asia, had also denied any wrongdoing.

“Nobody’s texting war plans,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “You know who sees war plans? I see them.” He described his text as “general updates” to “keep everybody informed.”

Goldberg said Hegseth sent the chat on the attack plans more than 30 minutes before the strikes occurred. If the Houthis or a foreign US adversary had been aware of the texts, they could have prepared air defenses and jeopardized the lives of the U.S. fighter pilots launching the strikes.

In a classification guide released as part of a 2016 Freedom of Information Act request, “general information or assessments regarding military plans, intentions, capabilities, or activities of the U.S.” would be confidential, while “specific information or assessments regarding the military plans” should be marked as secret. Information “providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack,” should be categorized as top secret, the guide said.

While subsequent administrations could update the document, officials from previous administrations signaled the guidelines were still operative.

“In the DNI’s own guidance, this type of information should be classified TOP SECRET,” former Biden State Department spokesman and CIA official Ned Price wrote on X, referring to the Director of National Intelligence.

_____

(With assistance from Stephanie Lai, Erik Wasson, Roxana Tiron and Courtney McBride.)

_____