{"id":1045,"date":"2025-04-05T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-05T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenewamore.com\/?p=1045"},"modified":"2025-04-11T14:29:24","modified_gmt":"2025-04-11T14:29:24","slug":"congress-pushes-back-at-white-house-over-signal-group-chat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/thenewamore.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/05\/congress-pushes-back-at-white-house-over-signal-group-chat\/","title":{"rendered":"Congress pushes back at White House over Signal group chat"},"content":{"rendered":"
The White House\u2019s assertion that the case is closed surrounding national security officials\u2019 use of Signal is getting pushback in Congress, even among some Republicans who say their own probes will press on. <\/p>\n
On Monday, the White House said it had taken steps to ensure the inadvertent addition of a journalist to a group chat to discuss sensitive information about a pending airstrike in Yemen can \u201cnever happen again.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate\u2019s Armed Services Committee, noted lawmakers\u2019 plans to probe the matter are not over after asking for an investigation<\/a> by the inspector general of the Department of Defense.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that’s very hopeful messaging,\u201d he said when asked by The Hill about the White House\u2019s comments. \u201cAnd maybe it is \u2013 but we’ll wait and see what the inspector general for the DOD says.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s already ongoing. We already requested it \u2013 the committee did on a bipartisan basis \u2013 and we’ll look at it on a bipartisan basis.\u201d <\/p>\n Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) was among those on the Senate Intelligence Committee who told national security leaders gathered recently for the annual worldwide threats hearing that he had additional questions on the matter.<\/p>\n \u201cAll concerns haven’t been addressed. So there will be more to be learned going forward,\u201d he told The Hill.<\/p>\n To be sure, many Republicans were uninterested in addressing the topic at all. Even as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe appeared before lawmakers in the two days after the news broke, many did not raise the issue during their time for questions.<\/p>\n But bipartisan efforts to review the matter in the Senate will continue to move forward, while House Democrats have likewise pushed for outside review elsewhere across government.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not clear what steps the White House has taken, even as they seek to move past the controversy.<\/p>\n \u201cThis case has been closed here at the White House, as far as we are concerned,\u201d press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday.<\/p>\n \u201cThere have been steps taken to ensure that something like that can obviously never happen again moving forward, and the president and Mike Waltz and his entire national security team have been working together very well, if you look at how much safer the United States of America is because of the leadership of this team,\u201d Leavitt added, referencing President Trump\u2019s national security adviser.<\/p>\n And Trump also waived off the issue when asked by reporters Thursday about whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth would face investigation.<\/p>\n \u201cDon\u2019t bring that up again. \u2026 It\u2019s such a wasted story.\u201d<\/p>\n Administration officials have also expressed frustration that more focus hasn’t been placed on the success of the operation, which struck Houthi targets.<\/p>\n The fallout from the chat continues, however, with additional stories about the use of Signal.<\/p>\n The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Waltz had created other Signal groups<\/a> to discuss national security matters and that an ally, Israel, was annoyed<\/a> to see intelligence it supplied for the strike in Yemen shared publicly.<\/p>\n Politico reported<\/a> Wednesday that Waltz\u2019s team has set up at least 20 different Signal chats to coordinate on different matters.<\/p>\n Intelligence experts argue that despite its use of encryption, Signal is not an appropriate channel for discussing classified or sensitive information, and intelligence agencies have previously cautioned employees on Signal, noting it is a target of foreign adversaries.<\/p>\n Legal experts have said<\/a> the inadvertent sharing of national defense information with The Atlantic reported added to the group would likely violate the Espionage Act, while the chat\u2019s disappearing message function would also run afoul of public records laws.<\/p>\n