Defense Secretary Hegseth Asserts No Classified Info Was Exchanged in Signal Chat with Trump Officials

Defense Secretary Hegseth Asserts No Classified Info Was Exchanged in Signal Chat with Trump Officials

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth firmly stated that no classified information or war plans were shared in a recent Signal group chat involving Trump administration officials. This discussion centered around potential military strikes on Houthi targets and inadvertently reached a journalist, igniting controversy.

Earlier this week, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, unveiled the content of this group chat, sparking backlash from various quarters. This revelation prompted some Democrats to call for Hegseth and other defense officials to resign.

Key Statements from Hegseth

During a press engagement in Hawaii, Hegseth addressed the situation directly. He asserted, “Nobody’s texting war plans,” and emphasized that the shared material lacked critical details that characterize actual military strategies. Hegseth remarked, “I noticed this morning out came something that doesn’t look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack plans because they know it’s not war plans.”

In his comments, Hegseth insisted that the discussions contained no units, locations, routes, flight paths, sources, methods, or any classified information. He made it clear that the chat included no sensitive details that could jeopardize national security.

Keeping the National Security Team Informed

Hegseth stressed his role in keeping President Donald Trump’s national security team apprised of relevant information in real time. He clarified, “My job is to provide updates in real time – general updates in real time. Keep everybody informed. That’s what I did. That’s my job.” His commitment to timely communication underscores the responsibilities of defense officials in managing national security discussions effectively.

The Group Chat Incident

Goldberg revealed that he received an invitation to join the Signal group chat on March 11 from National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. This exchange led to a series of messages that Goldberg later shared, which included discussions that he deemed contained significant details. However, he refrained from publishing specifics that could endanger national security.

While Goldberg noted conversations regarding “war plans,” he chose to omit sensitive concentrations of information, such as exact details about weapons packages, designated targets, and operational timings, highlighting the delicate balance between transparency and security.

Response to Goldberg’s Report

Earlier that day, Hegseth criticized Goldberg in a post on social media platform X. He challenged Goldberg’s assertions, stating that the materials released did not resemble established war plans. Hegseth articulated his frustration, saying, “So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic released the so-called ‘war plans’ and those ‘plans’ include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information. Those are some really sh—y war plans.”

His remarks emphasized the lack of any concrete operational details in the chat, effectively dismissing Goldberg’s claims regarding the content as unfounded. He added, “This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan’ (as he now calls it). Not even close.”

Implications and Reactions

The fallout from this incident has raised questions about communication among national security officials and the potential risks posed by unguarded discussions. The quick spread of this information serves as a reminder of the challenges in maintaining operational security while engaging with the media. The controversy continues to receive attention as officials try to clarify what took place during the chat and the implications of such an information breach.

As the situation evolves, it will be crucial for officials to ensure robust protocols maintaining the integrity of sensitive discussions. The incident will likely spur further dialogue regarding the nature of communication within government and the responsibility officials have regarding information sharing.

Moving forward, the focus remains on safeguarding classified information and understanding the ongoing media landscape as it intersects with national security. The incident provides a crucial case study in the complexities surrounding today’s digital communication environments and the importance of discretion in governmental discourse.

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report.