The White House doubled on its insistence on Wednesday that its best national security officials did nothing wrong when they discussed an ongoing military strike in Yemen on a commercial messaging application known as the signal.
Former military and intelligence officials, however, say that there is no doubt that such exchanges should never have occurred in this way and warned that American troops could have been endangered.
Here is what you need to know about the White House claims on the signal aspect:
Experts say that the moment of waiting military strikes is closely held sensitive information
President Donald Trump and his best collaborators do not deny that they started a discussion group in Signal to speak of a military attack in progress against Yemen.
The signal application on a smartphone is seen on a mobile device screen on March 25, 2025, in Chicago.
Kiichiro Sato / AP
Instead, they insist that the information was not classified because the data did not include the location of the strikes or specific sources and methods. They also say that they examine how the journalist – Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic – was inadvertently added to the chain.
“No location. No source & Methods. No war plan, “Mike Waltz, National Security Advisor, wrote on Wednesday on X.
The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, published a similar declaration, noting that no data of location, sources or methods has been compromised.
In interviews, several former defense and intelligence officials insisted that an exact location of a strike is not necessary for information to be damaging to national security.
According to the Atlantic, Hegseth gave a detailed report on weapons systems would be used at specific times, including F-18 fighter planes and tomahawk missiles. The White House has confirmed that the texts seem authentic.
“It is at this point that the first bombs will certainly drop,” wrote Hegseth at some point, noting the military time of 1415 (2:15 p.m.) for the planned strike.
Experts said that these details are so sensitive if they were disclosed, they could put troops to make the strike in danger because it gives the opponent time to prepare to retaliate.
“He was 100%classified,” said Darrell Blocker, a former CIA agent on the field and contributor Abc News, about the exchange of text reported, based on his three decades with a security authorization.
The blocker added that Trump’s national security team “failed soldiers, diplomats and intelligence officers by not respecting their own rules and orders.”
ABC News contributor Mick Mulroy, a former senior Pentagon and CIA officer, added that the location of a strike is not the most sensitive to an enemy.
“If he was disclosed to the enemy, they know where they are,” said Mulroy. “”[Adversaries] You just have to know when and which platform to search for. “”
The former officials also wondered if sources of intelligence had been compromised when Waltz reported in the cat that the “top missile missile” of the enemy had entered a building which had collapsed after the attack.
Charles Kupperman, a former assistant national security advisor during Trump’s first term, said that this detail most likely suggests the use of a general cost surveillance drone or reports a technology for monitoring aircraft. But that could also reveal the presence of assets on the ground in Sanaa which followed the movements of the senior Houthi officials, he said.
“So that we know where this gentleman was at this precise moment, you have real -time information,” Kupperman said.
“Attack plans” can be just as sensitive as “war plans”, say the experts
Trump’s best collaborators have also seized the Atlantic describing the online discussion group as discussing “war plans”, although in subsequent reports, he used the term “attack plans”.
“The Atlantic conceded: these are not” war plans “, wrote the press secretary of the White House Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday on Wednesday.” Wednesday. ” This whole story was another hoax written by a Hater Trump which is well known for its sensorist spin. “”
In general, experts say that “war plans” could refer to large conflict plans for another country, such as invading Iraq or responding to the attack on China. Attack plans can refer to a more specific and targeted military operation such as strikes in Yemen.
The two are very sensitive and should not be discussed on commercial applications not deleted for classified information, they say.
“We could actually argue that the attack plans are more sensitive because they are more detailed and specific per hour, instead and in the manner,” said Mulroy.
The signal is not supposed to be used to send sensitive and non -public data
On Wednesday, at a press conference on Wednesday, Leavitt also insisted that it was acceptable that government representatives use the signal.
“This is an approved application. It is an encrypted application,” she said.
The signal is indeed considered to be a highly secure encrypted application which can be used by government staff. But, according to a recent policy published by the Pentagon, it does not seem to be authorized to transmit sensitive information, such as the moment of a military strike.
The Ministry of Defense has not answered questions about current policy and if exceptions have been made that would have allowed Hegseth to use the application for sensitive information.
According to the memo of the Ministry of Defense of October 2023, the signal and other messaging applications are considered to be not classified and the staff is invited not to use them to transmit anything considered as “non -public”.
General Timothy Haugh, head of the National Security Agency, told legislators on Wednesday that US staff had been informed of the risks linked to the use of the signal.
“What we have done is that we have published an opinion on how to use the signal application and other encrypted applications because we encourage our employees and their families to use encrypted applications,” he said.
When asked if the opinion was because there were risks for this application, Hagh replied: “There are.”
Brian O’Neill, a former CIA executive and an intelligence veteran, said that Signal would not be the approved place to discuss a target entering the building of his girlfriend who collapsed later.
If it is not a revelation of sources and methods, this is “very close,” he said.
“It’s nothing that would be news for opponents,” said O’Neill. “But whatever, this is not the channel to transmit this kind of information.”
