White House scrambles to contain Signal chat fallout

The White House on Wednesday scrambled to contain the controversy of a Signal chat among national security officials that became public, opting for its signature defiant approach but one that left even some Republicans scratching their heads.

After The Atlantic published messages from the chat, which editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to, administration officials went on the attack against the publication and downplayed the significance of the revelations.

Officials seized on a headline description of “attack plans” rather than “war plans,” suggesting that slight difference in wording showed the controversy was overblown. They also argued no specific names, locations or sources of intelligence were revealed, although specific military aircraft, weapons and timing of strikes were laid out.

“I don’t know about downplaying. The press up-plays it. I think it’s all a witch hunt,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “The attacks were unbelievably successful, and that’s ultimately what you should be talking about I think.”

Trump acknowledged national security adviser Mike Waltz took responsibility for the mistake, while saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was doing a “great job” and “had nothing to do with it.”

Still, the publication of the messages and the subsequent response raised difficult questions for the administration and its handling of the entire episode. The situation was complicated by a Senate hearing on Tuesday in which Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were adamant that no classified information was discussed in the Signal chat.

Even some Republicans were not buying the White House’s defiant messaging.

“Recent revelations about the content of the texts — while not discussing war plans per se — do in fact detail very sensitive information about a planned and ongoing military operation,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a top Trump ally, said in a statement.

“I continue to support all members of President Trump’s national security team. Lessons learned,” he added.

But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said he felt the information laid out in the chat should have been classified. 

Meanwhile, former New Hampshire GOP Gov. Chris Sununu said the best thing the White House could do was to just “own it.”

"They're making a what should have been a tough story, a week-long gasoline fire," Sununu said on NewsNation. "The best thing you can do in these situations is you own it."

Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren posted on social media that the administration’s attempts “to wordsmith the hell outta this signal debacle is making it worse.”

The Atlantic first published a story on Monday headlined “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans,” which detailed how Goldberg was added to a group chat with several administration officials where they were discussing details of a planned strike against Houthi rebels earlier this month.

After the White House spent days downplaying the story and the content of the chat and insisting that nothing classified was shared, The Atlantic on Wednesday published a piece headlined, “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal.”

Messages published Wednesday showed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth detailing specific types of military aircraft involved in the operation and specific timing for airstrikes.

White House officials settled on a coordinated response early Wednesday, zeroing in on the phrase “attack plans” to argue the publication had mischaracterized its initial report. 

“Nobody is texting war plans,” Hegseth said Wednesday while in Hawaii. “There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.”

“My job…is to provide updates in real time,” he added. “General updates in real time, keep everybody informed. That’s what I did. That’s my job.”

Officials also relentlessly attacked Goldberg, painting the veteran journalist as a partisan with a spotty track record. And they broadly emphasized that the operation was ultimately successful and was undeterred by Goldberg’s inclusion in the messaging chain.

“It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,” Vice President JD Vance, who sent messages in the chat criticizing Europe and questioning if the president was aware of how the strikes contradicted his agenda, posted on X.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt faced a barrage of questions during a briefing with reporters on Wednesday about the controversy. She insisted that no classified material was sent on the thread, though experts have said information about a forthcoming military operation is typically classified.

As multiple journalists sought to drill down on her answers, Leavitt, at times exasperated, moved on to other reporters.

When asked if any administration officials will lose their jobs over the controversy, Leavitt did not explicitly rule it out.

“What I can say definitively is what I just spoke to the president about, and he continues to have confidence in his national security team,” Leavitt said.

The Trump playbook is typically to aggressively fight back against any controversy and weather the storm. But the furor over the Signal chat is unlikely to go away any time soon.

Wicker and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on the administration to expedite an inspector general report on the matter.

The White House has also said it is investigating itself how Goldberg was added to the Signal chat.

Waltz and Hegseth are under particularly intense scrutiny. 

Waltz appeared on Fox News on Tuesday, where he faced questions about how Goldberg ended up in the group. He said he took full responsibility for creating the message, though he claimed he did not know how Goldberg was included.

While Waltz has friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill, some Trump allies have suggested he should be held much more accountable for the mistake.

Hegseth is in the spotlight because he was the one who shared specific timing about the Houthi strikes. Democrats and a few Republicans already had concerns about Hegseth’s qualifications for the job prior to his confirmation, and the Signal controversy is likely to renew those doubts.  

But the Trump team is likely to dig in for the short-term. 

White House communications director Steven Cheung on Wednesday responded to a report that called for Waltz’s firing by calling the sources in the piece “nothing more than weak, bed-wetters who don't know anything about communications/messaging.”

“They would rather give The Atlantic and Democrats a victory, instead of fighting,” Cheung posted on X. That's why they're not part of this Administration.”