‘Sloppy’: Trump downplays shock over leaked Signal chat about Houthi attack

Donald Trump’s administration has been in the news for an article in The Atlantic that revealed Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief, was added to a group discussion about Yemen bombing plans.

The White House remained in damage control on Tuesday, seeking to dismiss allegations that government secrets were at risk.

At a meeting of US ambassadors, Trump remarked, “As I understand it, there was no classified information.” He brushed the scandal aside.

“We’ve looked into it pretty much,” she said. It’s pretty simple, to be honest. It’s simply a possibility, not a fact.

He stated to the media that he had no desire to seek punishment, forbid the use of Signal, a social media app, or demand an apology from those responsible.

Trump’s comments come in response to Goldberg’s article, published a day prior, wherein the editor explains how he received an invitation on the messaging platform Signal from a user identified as White House national security adviser Michael Waltz.

After accepting the invitation, Goldberg was soon sat down with the discussion about the benefits of bombing Houthi fighters in Yemen.

Goldberg shared discussions with senior government figures like Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in his published article, though he did not provide any specific military details from the conversation.

Vance, Hegseth and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller, for instance, were quoted as debating the timing of the attacks and whether economic gain could be “extracted” from Europe in exchange for the bombings.

The Houthis are known to strike naval and shipping vessels in the Red Sea, which is where the vice president expressed concern.

In Washington, DC, the article almost immediately made a splash. Questions were raised about why sensitive information was discussed on a non-government platform, and whether the text messages would be preserved, as required by federal records laws.

At Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Ratcliffe, both of whom were present in the Signal conversation, were the subject of some of those questions.

“This was not only sloppy,” he said. It not only violated all procedures, but if this information had gotten out, American lives could have been lost. The committee’s top Democrat, Senator Mark Warner, said, “If the Houthis had this information, they could reposition their defensive systems.”

“It’s also just mind-blowing to me that all these senior people were on this line, and Security Hygiene 101 was not even checked out.

Senator Ron Wyden, another Democrat at the hearing, called the Signal chat “  obviously reckless, obviously dangerous”.

According to Wyden, “both the intentional destruction of federal records and the mishandling of classified information are potential crimes that should be investigated right away.” And I want to make it clear that I believe resignation should be done, starting with the defense secretary and the national security advisor.

Questions involving classified information

However, the White House has taken the position that no classified information was made available during the Signal chat.

In his article, Goldberg is clear that top-secret information was included in the group chat’s messages.

If an adversary of the United States had read the information contained there, it might have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, Goldberg wrote.

He could have faced legal repercussions if Goldberg had repeated that information in his book. Instead, Goldberg offered a broad-strokes description of what transpired in the chat.

The Hegseth post contained operational details of upcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons deployed by the United States, and attack planning, he wrote, to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation.

The Trump administration, however, disputed that assessment on Tuesday, claiming no secrets were revealed during the Signal chat.

“Jeffrey Goldberg is well-known for his sensationalist spin”, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on social media. “History: 1. What are the facts about his most recent story: 1. No “war plans” were discussed. 2. No confidential information was sent through the thread.

Ratcliffe and Gabbard denied ever sharing top-secret information with Signal, whether or not it was during a chat or not, at the Capitol Hill hearing.

“  To be clear, I haven’t participated in any Signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all”, Ratcliffe said.

Gabbard repeated, “I have the same answer.” As Goldberg’s article reported, Gabbard, in contrast to Ratcliffe, refused to even acknowledge that she had part of the conversation.

Their position led to a heated confrontation with Senator Warner, who argued that — if the chat did not contain classified information — its contents should be released immediately for review.

Why won’t you go into the specifics, please? Is that because everything is “classified”? Warner asked.

As Warner interjected, Gabbard said, “Because this is currently under review by the National Security,” and Gabbard began to respond. “Because it’s all classified. Share the text right away if it’s not classified.

At the meeting with the US ambassadors, meanwhile, Trump denied there was any national security breach.

Trump told reporters, “Our national security is now stronger than it has ever been.” He instead attributed Goldberg’s access to the private chat through the Signal app, specifically.

“  It’s not a perfect technology. No technology is perfect. The really good ones are very difficult to access and are cumbersome, he claimed.

Trump and The Atlantic rekindle a fight.

Trump was able to renew his broadside against The Atlantic magazine, where Goldberg works, as a result of the scandal over the sensitive information in the Signal conversation.

Trump has criticised the magazine in the past, particularly after it published a 2020 report that claimed the Republican leader had privately disparaged fallen soldiers as “losers” and “suckers”. Trump has publicly questioned the service of soldiers like the late Senator John McCain despite not having served in the military.

That article was also written by Goldberg. Trump, meanwhile, had denied the allegations, calling the article a “disgrace”.

The Republican leader has long criticised mainstream media outlets, making claims that their reporting might be against the law.

Trump again criticized Goldberg for his reporting during his discussion of the scandal at Tuesday’s meeting.

“I happen to know the guy’s a total sleaze bag”, Trump said. The Atlantic is a magazine that has failed. very badly, very poorly. Nobody gives a damn about it. This gives it a little more of a shot. They have composed more stories, I’ll tell you. And they’re just a failing magazine. That is understood by the general public.

After Trump addressed Waltz, who was also present at the meeting, and proceeded to defend the adviser’s glaring error by inviting Goldberg to the Signal conversation.

“He’s a very good man. Trump remarked, “That man is a very good man, right there,” gesturing to Waltz. He does a good job and will keep doing it, which is very good.

Waltz, a former US representative for the state of Florida, himself chimed in to point the finger at The Atlantic and its editor.

There are many lessons, I believe. Many journalists in this city have established themselves as experts in fabricating lies about the president, according to Waltz.

“This one in particular, I’ve never met. I don’t know. never spoken to. And we are looking into him and reviewing how the heck he got into this room”.

Democrats have praised Goldberg for his restraint, including for voluntarily removing himself from the Signal chat and for keeping national security secrets.

At the intelligence hearing, Senator Warner claimed that no matter how disparaging the Secretary of Defense or others might find him, this journalist had at least the ethics to not report everything he heard.

Trump has a vehement opposition to “free-loading” Europe.

However, the statements Goldberg did utterly quote were conversations between senior officials about whether to postpone the attacks on Yemen and whether Europe would gain the most from the bombings.

An account seeming to belong to Vice President Vance, for example, posted a comment highlighting how much European trade runs through the Red Sea and surrounding waterways.

“The Suez is where 3 percent of US trade occurs. 40% of trade occurs in Europe. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary”, Vance reportedly wrote.

“I’m not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his current position on Europe.”

Vance initially backed off the bombings by a month, but he ultimately withdrew his objections, though not without drawing a second swipe at Europe.

“if you think we should do it let’s go. Vance appears to have written, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

Hegseth, the defense secretary, reportedly responded, “VP: I completely dislike your dislike of European free-loading.” It’s PATHETIC”.

The skepticism about US-Europe relations appears to be confirmed by the backroom fighting.

Trump has accused Europe of profiting from the US, citing trade deficits that show Americans consuming more European goods than the other way around. On April 2, his administration plans to implement what Trump has called “reciprocal tariffs”, matching import taxes other countries impose.

Trump was asked if he concurred with Hegseth and Vance’s assessment that Europe was “free-loading” at the meeting on Tuesday.

Do you really want me to respond to that? Trump asked, deadpan. “Yes . They may have been freeloading, in my opinion. The European Union’s been absolutely terrible to us on trade. Terrible .

Source: Aljazeera