The White House's defense of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday focused on a semantic distinction regarding his communication in a Signal chat with national security colleagues. Officials asserted that the information shared was not a “war plan,” but rather a detailed timeline of an anticipated military strike.
The document, published by The Atlantic, included specific timings for military operations, such as the launch of F/A-18F Super Hornet jets and MQ-9 Reaper drones from land bases. This level of detail raises concerns about operational security, particularly since the timing could have allowed targeted Houthi fighters in Yemen to evade attack if the information had leaked.
Hegseth’s messages included precise timestamps, indicating his knowledge of operational security protocols. For instance, he noted, “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” and “1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts.” National security experts have suggested that this information was likely classified at the time Hegseth shared it.
President Trump, while meeting with U.S. ambassadors, downplayed the situation, insisting that the shared details were not classified, which would have changed the nature of the incident. The White House has not disclosed who, if anyone, declassified the information before or after the attack.
Concerns about the potential fallout were echoed by Representative Jim Himes, who remarked on the dangerous implications of the leak. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt maintained that the information disclosed did not constitute a “war plan,” labeling the narrative as sensationalist.
This assertion was contradicted by CIA Director John Ratcliffe during Senate testimony, where he confirmed the chat’s authenticity and accuracy. Both Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, stated that the information was not classified but refrained from commenting on the classification status of Pentagon operational plans.
The situation raises questions about the integrity of military communications, especially given that over 18 Trump administration officials participated in discussions on an unclassified app, whose servers operate outside of the United States. Such actions have historically led to concerns over the safety and security of military operations.