Trump brushes off group chat controversy as Democrats rail at Cabinet

President Trump offered the rare acknowledgment of a slipup by his Cabinet on Tuesday as Washington was gripped by the fallout from a stunning group chat-gone-public.

Democrats assailed two members of Trump’s Cabinet during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing over why in the world officials were discussing a planned military attack on a militant group in Yemen over the Signal platform, and how a journalist could have been let into the discussion.

Trump described the episode as a glitch in the morning while attacking The Atlantic and its Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who apparently was invited to the chat by a staffer working for the president’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz.  

Yet while Trump defended his team and signaled there would be no punishment, he also made it clear he saw the episode as a mistake that should not be repeated.

“It’s just something that can happen, it can happen,” Trump told reporters late on Tuesday. “You can even prepare for it, it can happen. Sometimes people are hooked in and you don’t know they’re hooked in. … It’s not a perfect technology, there is no perfect technology.”

He said Waltz should not apologize, but that in the future, a meeting like the one to discuss a military strike on the Houthis that included Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and many others should be held in person.

“No, I don’t think he should apologize. I think he’s doing his best. It’s equipment and technology that’s not perfect and probably he won’t be using it again,” Trump said, to which Waltz responded, “Yes, sir.”

“I agree with you, let’s get everybody in the room whenever possible,” the national security adviser added.

White House officials publicly downplayed the story, and while Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Hegseth and Waltz should both lose their jobs, sources close to the Trump administration said they doubted any principals would be fired. 

“I think this is one of these cases of ‘don’t f‑‑‑ing do it again,’” said one source close to the White House. “I do think internally someone is going to get chewed out.”

At the global threats hearing held by the Senate Intelligence panel on Tuesday morning, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe both denied sharing any classified material through the chat, despite Goldberg reporting the discussion included detailed talks about the strike in Yemen.

Gabbard and Ratcliffe at times pointed to Hegseth, who was not at the hearing, saying some of the information on the strikes was shared by the Department of Defense and that it would have been Hegseth and his department’s call on whether it was classified. Because it was shared, both suggested they believed it was not classified.

“The secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for DOD and deciding what would be classified information,” Ratcliffe said.

At another point, when Gabbard said she would “defer” to the Defense Department, she was chastised by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). 

“You’re the head of the intelligence community. You’re supposed to know about classifications,” he said.

Ratcliffe also defended his use of the app, even though the CIA has warned staff about the vulnerabilities of encrypted messaging platforms such as Signal.

In one of the hearing’s most glaring confrontations, Ratcliffe insisted no mistake was made in holding the group chat, which included Goldberg, on Signal.

“The unwillingness of the individuals on this panel who were on the chat to even apologize or acknowledging what a colossal screwup this is speaks volumes,” said Warner.

Multiple sources suggested the fact so many Cabinet members were part of the call would make it hard for any one person to take the blame.

“It wasn't like this was just Waltz, it was the entire national security apparatus. It was Waltz and Gabbard and Radcliffe and Marco, and they're all on there. And no one said, ‘Hey, this is not a good idea,’” a second source close to the White House said.

Waltz has been seen as a potential fall guy, but even before Trump’s public vote of confidence, there were questions about whether anyone would be punished, particularly because it might be seen as a capitulation to Democrats and the news media.

“How do you push Waltz over the edge without all the other people who didn't display some level of judgment … to not be having this kind of communication over an unsecure, although encrypted, over a commercial application,” the second source close to the White House said.

The White House said the Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on platforms administration officials can use to communicate, but it didn’t respond to a request for comment about if Signal has been approved for communication.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued guidance last year on protecting mobile communications that cited Signal as a recommended app with end-to-end encryption. But the app enables disappearing messages, which some experts have said could violate federal records laws if official business was discussed.

“It’s almost like pulling a thread. If Waltz goes, how do you not invite everybody else? I think the White House is kind of thinking, we need to just rally the troops, ride it out. Get on to the next storyline,” the source said, adding that the White House is focused on calming grumblings from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Critics faulted Waltz and Hegseth in particular. Waltz because he appeared to be the reason Goldberg was added to the chat, and Hegseth for potentially sharing sensitive information.

The role of national security adviser does not require Senate confirmation, making it an easier position to fill with a replacement if needed. The White House fought hard to get Hegseth’s imperiled nomination back on track and across the finish line and is seen as much less likely to dump him. 

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said neither Waltz nor Hegseth should be disciplined, while Mark Levin, one of Trump’s favorite Fox News hosts, said on the social platform X that Waltz “has been a fantastic National Security advisor and he is serving the country and the president superbly.”

The White House also sought to undercut the story with different lines of attack, mainly by arguing the military operation was not impacted by Goldberg’s inclusion in the Signal group. 

“The Atlantic story is nothing more than a section of the NatSec establishment community running the same, tired gameplay from years past,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement, describing it as an effort to “weaponize innocuous actions and turn them into faux outrage.”

Other White House allies have tried to pivot the conversation to attacks on the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan or questions about former President Biden’s competence while in office.

But those denials have been met with skepticism from even some administration allies and have run into the reality that Goldberg and The Atlantic published screenshots of the conversations.

“Oh for God's sake, the administration has already confirmed the authenticity of the message,” Brit Hume, a veteran Fox News analyst, posted on X in response to Hegseth’s comments.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who served in the Air Force, called the issue a “security violation.”

The second source close to the White House said that although Trump is expressing confidence in Waltz and the other national security officials as of Tuesday, that could easily change.

“The danger for Waltz et al. is that Trump is a one-way guy. He often puts other people to account for things that they do — a lapse in judgment, errors — at a standard that's different than he would hold himself. That’s the risk. He doesn’t like bad press,” the source said. “I think they’ve got a critical window, the next 12, 24 hours to see if they get through it.”

Rebecca Beitsch contributed.