The Trump administration is embroiled in yet another firestorm—this time over the national security team’s use of an encrypted, auto-deleting messaging app to discuss sensitive military operations, raising alarms about accountability, transparency, and potential violations of federal law.
Despite bipartisan calls for an investigation, Attorney General Pam Bondi has all but shut the door on a criminal probe, dismissing the exposed discussions as merely “sensitive” rather than classified. Critics argue the distinction is a legal sleight of hand, designed to shield high-ranking officials from consequences.
At the heart of the controversy is a Signal group chat that included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and other top officials—along with an unwitting journalist.
The discussions contained real-time details of U.S. military strikes in Yemen, information experts say would typically be classified as Top Secret or even Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).
Among those invited to participate was Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently included in the texts and who broke the story Monday.
The transcript of the exchange was published Wednesday morning by the Atlantic, which had previously concluded the information was too sensitive to publish, because of the administration’s lies concerning the text chat’s contents.
The administration indicated the information wasn’t classified, despite the danger of plans about impending military strikes falling into the wrong hands and tipping off an adversary.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said twice that the information contained in the chat weren’t “war plans.” In one crucial text, he laid out a detailed timeline for striking Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The text was apparently sent at 11:44 a.m. Eastern time, with details of strikes set for 12:15, 13:45, 14:10, 14:15, and 15:36 expressed in military time.
Each entry features the type of aircraft or weaponry used, including F-18s, strike drones and “sea-based Tomahawks.” One entry notes that a specific “Target Terrorist” is expected to be “@ his Known Location.”
Yet Bondi’s Justice Department appears unmoved. “No classified information was shared,” President Trump declared, echoing his administration’s blanket denials. But legal experts and national security veterans aren’t buying it.
“This wasn’t a casual group text—it was war planning on an unsecured platform,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official. “Disclosure of operational timelines risks lives and compromises missions. If this isn’t classified, what is?”
Government watchdog American Oversight has sued the officials involved, accusing them of violating the Federal Records Act by using Signal to evade transparency laws. The suit demands the recovery of deleted messages and an injunction against further destruction of records.
“War planning doesn’t belong in emoji-laden disappearing chats,” said Chioma Chukwu, the group’s interim director. “This is a five-alarm fire for accountability.”
Yet Republicans in Congress remain silent. Not a single GOP lawmaker has called for resignations, despite 74% of Americans—including 60% of Republicans—calling the breach a serious issue in a recent YouGov poll.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe, who were on the Signal chat thread, struggled mightily to account for the situation at Tuesday’s hearing. And the transcript calls into question a few of their responses — most notably when they said they didn’t recall prominent details that are now evident in the messages published by the Atlantic.
The texts make it clear that plenty of these kinds of specific details were discussed. Gabbard and Ratcliffe said they didn’t recall many of these things rather than denying them outright. When they did deny things, they cited the Defense Department rather than their own knowledge.
Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee also called for the chairman, Rep. Mike D. Rogers, to summon Hegseth to testify. Rep. Jared Moskowitz asked House Speaker Mike Johnson to form a committee to probe the leak.
House Democrats are demanding varied action, with some privately drafting articles of impeachment against Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz.
Rep. Ilhan Omar is reportedly pushing colleagues to support the move, though it faces steep odds in the GOP-controlled House.
Meanwhile, 70 House Democrats have demanded Hegseth’s resignation, calling the officials’ conduct “incomprehensible, irresponsible, and indefensible.”
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has flouted record-keeping laws. From burning USAID documents to firing inspectors general, the pattern is clear: When transparency is inconvenient, the rules don’t apply.
Now, with Bondi’s DOJ refusing to act, the question isn’t just about what was discussed in those messages—but whether this administration believes it’s above the law.
One thing is certain: If the roles were reversed, the outrage would be deafening.
The American people deserve answers. Will they ever get them?