Key Takeaways:
- Senator Mark Kelly Questions Intel Chiefs: Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) grilled top intelligence officials about a private Signal chat that may have exposed classified military plans.
- Potential Security Breach: The Atlantic reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared details of war plans, including strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, in a chat that included a reporter.
- Classification Policies in Question: Kelly asked if the officials knew about Defense Department rules barring the use of unsecured platforms like Signal for discussing sensitive information.
- Heated Exchange: Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, admitted she hadn’t read the policy, while CIA Director John Ratcliffe said he wasn’t familiar with it.
- Concern Over Leaks: Kelly pressed Gabbard and Ratcliffe on whether the information shared in the Signal chat should have been public, but Gabbard declined to answer directly.
In a tense Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) called out top intelligence officials for their alleged mishandling of classified information. The hearing centered on a private Signal chat involving former Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other national security leaders.
According to a bombshell report by The Atlantic, the chat included a journalist and discussed sensitive details of U.S. military operations, potentially violating federal secrecy laws. Specifically, the conversation reportedly revealed plans for strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, a group the U.S. has targeted in recent years.
Kelly opened the hearing by questioning Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, CIA Director, about the alleged security breach. He wanted to know if they were aware of Defense Department policies that prohibit discussing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on unsecured platforms like Signal.
“So, I understand that DOD policy prohibits discussion of even what is called Controlled Unclassified Information or CUI on unsecured devices,” Kelly said. “Are both of you aware of that DOD policy?”
Gabbard and Ratcliffe gave conflicting responses.
“I haven’t read that policy,” Gabbard admitted.
Ratcliffe, on the other hand, stated, “Not familiar with the DOD policy, but I would say that the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for the DOD and decides what would be classified information.”
The exchange raised eyebrows, as it suggested a possible lack of awareness about critical security protocols among top officials.
Kelly pressed further, asking if the intelligence community had similar policies to protect sensitive information. Gabbard confirmed that it does.
But things heated up when Kelly asked Gabbard directly: “Of what’s been disclosed publicly of the Signal chain, would either of you feel that that would be approved for public release?”
Gabbard deflected, saying, “I don’t feel I can answer that question here.”
The tension in the room was clear. Kelly’s line of questioning exposed potential gaps in how classified information is handled by top officials, raising concerns about national security.
What’s at Stake?
The discussion highlighted the importance of protecting classified information, especially in an era where communication often happens on digital platforms. Signal, a encrypted messaging app, is popular for its privacy features, but it’s not approved for discussing sensitive government information.
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) refers to data that isn’t classified but still sensitive and not approved for public release. Federal rules, including those from the Defense Department, strictly prohibit discussing such information on unsecured devices or platforms.
By allegedly violating these rules, Hegseth and others in the Signal chat may have compromising national security. The inclusion of a reporter in the chat only adds to the concern, as it potentially expose military plans to the public and even adversarial actors.
A Pattern of Security Concerns?
This isn’t the first time security practices under President Trump’s administration have come under scrutiny. Several high-profile incidents have raised questions about how classified information is handled.
While Tuesday’s hearing didn’t provide all the answers, it made one thing clear: the handling of sensitive information remains a critical issue that demands accountability. As Kelly’s questioning demonstrated, lawmakers are taking these breaches seriously.
Whether this particular incident leads to consequences for those involved remains to be seen. But one thing is certain—the discussion has reignited the debate over how to balance transparency with security in an increasingly digital world.