Pete Hegseth Says the Signal Chat Had 'No Classified Information.' How Is That Possible?
The U.S. has a real problem with overclassification. But the assertion that details about impending air strikes would not be classified strains credulity.
After it came to light this week that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz had added Jeffery Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, to a Signal group chat where members of President Donald Trump's administration discussed upcoming air strikes on the Houthis, government officials issued a series of odd deflections. One of the strangest: that the information was definitely not classified.
"There was no classified material that was shared," Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified this week. "So, let's [sic] me get this straight," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X. "The Atlantic released the so-called 'war plans' and those 'plans' include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information."
Hegseth can choose to downplay the content of the messages, which included strategy considerations and two hours' advance notice of when the bombings would begin, including, per a message from Hegseth in the chat, the precise time "WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP." But one thing he cannot do convincingly is claim the information, which can be found in detail here, did not meet the bar for classification.
You don't have to look far for corroboration. According to the guide from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the agency Gabbard now oversees, "information providing indication or advance warning that the US or its allies are preparing an attack" qualifies as top secret. Hegseth then proceeded to share that information with a chat that contained a number unknown to him.
"Obviously, the unauthorized disclosure of an imminent combat operation could tip off the enemy and place American pilots, sailors, and soldiers in exceptionally grave danger," writes former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, now a conservative commentator, in the New York Post. "It could lead to mission failure, which itself could have catastrophic ramifications."
Many Americans are likely unaware of how low the bar is for classifying something. Indeed, the U.S. has a real problem with overclassification, zeroing in on things as meaningless as, say, how much peanut butter the U.S. Army purchased. For those familiar with the thin standard, however, it is beyond belief that impending air strikes—information that actually makes sense to classify and protect—would not meet the threshold. It is also particularly rich when considering the zealousness with which the government is willing to pursue the little people for sharing classified information.
"In any event, the claim that 'the information wasn't classified' is a red herring," adds McCarthy. "An official need not disclose documents physically marked classified in order to violate classified information laws. Some information is communicated orally and those communications are 'born classified' — i.e., they are classified from the moment they are generated — if the subject matter is secret under the guidelines, as information about imminent military operations is."
After spending years hammering former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who by all reasonable accounts also mishandled classified information, Republicans are likely eager to disabuse any onlookers of the notion that they would recklessly do the same. The effort has been unconvincing. Replace "the Trump administration" with "the Biden administration," and something tells me Republicans would not agree that details concerning an upcoming bombing were safe to share with a stranger.
