Was classified info shared on Signal? Senators, judge demand answers
Top Trump officials respond to Signal leak
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded after The Atlantic published messages from the Signal app in a chat that reportedly included the publication's editor-in-chief. Virginia Tech's Cayce Myers joined LiveNOW from FOX's Josh Breslow to discuss the developments.
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators is demanding a full investigation into whether Trump administration officials used the encrypted messaging app Signal to share sensitive or classified military information — a potential breach that could have exposed national defense plans and violated federal record-keeping laws.
The request, led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.), comes as a federal judge moves to preserve the now-controversial Signal messages. The conversation, published in part by The Atlantic, included a discussion of weapons systems and timelines for a strike on Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.
Why are lawmakers investigating the Signal messages?
The backstory:
In a letter to the acting inspector general of the Department of Defense, Wicker and Reed cited concerns that "sensitive and classified information" may have been shared over unclassified networks — and possibly with individuals lacking the proper security clearance. That’s a serious issue under federal law, whether or not the information was officially marked classified.
RELATED: Pentagon announces investigation into leaks, which could include polygraph tests
The Signal chat reportedly involved top national security officials in Trump’s administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and was used to discuss operational details ahead of a strike earlier this month.
While President Trump has dismissed the episode as "frivolous," lawmakers across both parties are calling for more transparency.
What did the Signal chat actually contain?
Dig deeper:
The Atlantic’s report included portions of the Signal conversation in which Hegseth allegedly outlined both weapons systems and a timeline for the U.S. strike in Yemen. That level of detail prompted alarm among Democrats — and even some Republicans — who say the use of encrypted apps to discuss military action undermines established protocols.
RELATED: Trump officials reportedly texted war plans in group chat that included magazine editor
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy pilot, said the leak was "careless" and "put pilots at risk." He joined other Democrats in calling for Hegseth’s resignation, saying any uniformed officer would have already been fired for similar conduct.
What legal action is underway?
What's next:
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said Thursday he will issue a temporary restraining order preventing the destruction of Signal messages, following a lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight. The suit alleges violations of federal record-keeping laws by Trump officials and the National Archives.
In court, Boasberg limited the preservation order to messages sent between March 11 and March 15 — the period surrounding the reported strike planning. A government attorney said the administration was already taking steps to preserve those records.
Atlantic reveals new Signal texts from Pete Hegseth
The Atlantic revealed new text messages from Pete Hegseth. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: "The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT "war plans." This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.
At the same time, Senate Republicans have voiced concern but stopped short of calling for resignations. Wicker has requested a classified hearing to further review the contents of the Signal chat and hear directly from administration officials.
Could this involve classified information?
What we know:
Messages exchanged on Signal between Trump administration officials included discussions of U.S. military strikes in Yemen, including references to weapons systems and a strike timeline, according to excerpts published by The Atlantic.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has confirmed the chats occurred and requested a formal investigation. A federal judge has ordered those Signal messages preserved, and the White House National Security Council says it is reviewing the matter. While the administration insists no classified information was shared, no documentation has been provided to support that claim.
What we don't know:
The administration maintains that no classified information was shared, but no supporting evidence has been provided. Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed that claim during a news conference, while also dismissing the controversy as overblown.
Legal experts note that under the Espionage Act, improperly handling "national defense information" — even if not formally classified — can still be a violation.
RELATED: 'The Atlantic' publishes Signal group chat that shared attack plans
Democrats like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) want to dig deeper, including scanning phones for malware and investigating whether Defense Secretary Hegseth may have used Signal to share military plans elsewhere. So far, Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have not signaled support for those expanded efforts.
Trump, the courts, and a broader legal battle
The other side:
The Signal case has become entangled in broader legal fights surrounding the Trump administration. Trump has lashed out at Judge Boasberg, calling his assignment to the case "disgraceful" and labeling the Obama appointee "Highly Conflicted."
Separately, the White House confirmed that the National Security Council is conducting its own review of the Signal exchange. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday the administration is being "incredibly transparent," but offered no updates.
Leavitt is also named in a separate First and Fifth Amendment lawsuit from the Associated Press, which claims the Trump administration is retaliating over editorial decisions related to language use — including a controversial executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America."
Read more from The Atlantic here.
The Source: This article is based on reporting from the Associated Press, including courtroom coverage, public statements from lawmakers, and published excerpts from The Atlantic. All quotes are sourced directly from officials and legal filings, with additional context from ongoing lawsuits involving the Trump administration. This article was reported from Los Angeles.