Signal-gate: Did Trump officials share classified information on chat group? Is that a crime?

“The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the president and national security advisor stated, no classified information was shared.”

“Nobody’s texting war plans. As a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack plans, because they know it’s not war plans. There’s no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.”

“Now, it wasn’t classified, as I understand it. There was no classified information. There was no problem, and the attack was a tremendous success. So I can only go by what I’ve been told. I wasn’t involved in it, but I was told by—and the other people weren’t involved at all. But I feel very comfortable, actually.”

Following the shocking Yemen war plan leak , which was reported on Monday (March 24), Donald Trump’s White House — including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Defence Secretary Hegseth, and even the US president — has repeatedly argued that there was no classified information in the now-infamous group chat of national security officials, along with The Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg.

For those who are waking up to this news, on Monday, The Atlantic published plans for US strikes in Yemen that its editor-in-chief received after he was mistakenly added to a chat group of top Trump officials. Initially, Goldberg withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks. However, following the numerous assertions from the Trump administration that the chats didn’t contain any classified information, on March 26, The Atlantic published additional details of the chats .

This situation has led many to ask: what is classified information? Who decides whether that information will be classified or not? And what happens to those who leak such details?

What new details did The Atlantic publish?

On March 26, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published new details of the Yemen war chat on the ‘Houthi PC small group’ on Signal in which he was inadvertently added by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

On March 15, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a message to the group at 11.44 am local time, “Weather is favourable. Just confirmed w/CENTCOM we are a go for mission launch.”

The text continues:
•“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
•“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s).”

What this meant was that the first F-18 warplanes would launch at 12:15 pm, with the first window for strikes starting an hour and a half later — the same time that MQ-9 Reaper drones would be launched.

More F-18s were set to launch at 2:10 pm in a second strike package, with drones over the target five minutes later.

“This is when the first bombs will definitely drop”, pending earlier ‘trigger based’ targets,” Hegseth said.

The second wave of F-18 strikes was to start at 3:36 pm — the same time that the first sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles were to launch, the defence secretary wrote. “We are currently clean on OPSEC,” he added — a reference to operational security, which in fact had been compromised due to Goldberg’s presence in the chat.

As The Atlantic reports, Waltz followed up with his message at 1.48 pm with real-time intelligence about conditions at the attack site. “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.”

This, however, confused US Vice President JD Vance, who responded with a “what?”

Responding to this, Waltz wrote, “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

What has been the White House’s response to the leak?

Anger, denial and indignation — that’s how Trump’s team has reacted to the leak, with many even attacking the credibility of Goldberg.

In the aftermath of the leak, Hegseth fended off questions on the issue, saying: “I’m incredibly proud of the courage and skill of the troops. And they are ongoing and continue to be devastatingly effective. The last place I would want to be right now is a Houthi in Yemen who wants to disrupt freedom of navigation, so the skill and courage of our troops is on full display.”

When pushed on the leak, Hegseth said that “nobody was texting war plans”. “Nobody was texting war plans and that’s all I have to say about that”. He further took jabs at Goldberg, who he described as “deceitful and highly discredited.”

Hegseth later addressed the controversy on X, posting: “So, let’s me get this straight. 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. Those are some really sh**ty war plans. This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan’ (as he now calls it). Not even close. As I type this, my team and I are travelling the INDOPACOM region, meeting w/ Commanders (the guys who make REAL ‘war plans’) and talking to troops. We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes.”

Waltz , however, seemed less defiant in his stance. He said he took “full responsibility” and that he was investigating how Goldberg had gained access to the chat. “I take full responsibility. I built the group,” Waltz told Fox News’ Ingraham Angle on Tuesday. “It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

During a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who were part of the group chat, firmly denied that the messages contained classified material. They asserted that no intelligence information requiring classification had been shared in the chat.

“There were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time,” Gabbard told the committee. Ratcliffe, echoing this stance, maintained that no sensitive intelligence information from the CIA or the broader intelligence community was involved.

However, when asked about whether operational details concerning forthcoming strikes that Hegseth reportedly shared were classified, both officials deferred to the defence secretary, citing his authority to determine classification.

When asked whether such details should be considered classified, Gabbard deferred, stating, “I defer to the Secretary of Defence and the National Security Council on that question,” as per reports by CNN.

US President Trump, himself, asserted that no classified information had been shared and that it was all a “witch hunt”.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also insisted that no classified information was shared. “There was no classified information transmitted,” Leavitt told reporters. “There were no war plans discussed.”

She even posted on X, “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.”

Were the details of the attack ‘not classified’?

While Trump and his officials insist that the details were not classified, security experts and former defence officials state otherwise. As the New York Times wrote, “To many of the people who worked in the classified world of military and intelligence operations, you don’t need a fancy red folder or special government markings to know the plans for an upcoming attack are highly classified.”

Many sources within the government said that the details Hegseth shared on the group were the kind that a commander would be giving to the president in a highly classified setting as the operation unfolded.

Ryan Goodman, a law professor who formerly worked at the Pentagon, told The Guardian: “The Atlantic has now published the Signal texts with attack plans in response to administration denials. I worked at the Pentagon. If information like this is not classified, nothing is. If Hegseth is claiming he declassified this information, he should be shown the door for having done so.”

Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official in the first Trump administration, also told The New York Times, “It is highly classified and protected. Disclosure would compromise the operation and put lives at risk. Next to nuclear and covert operations, this information is the most protected.”

But how is information classified and who’s in charge?

The US government uses three levels of classification to designate how sensitive certain information is: confidential, secret and top secret. The lowest level, confidential, designates information that if released could damage US national security. The other designations refer to information the disclosure of which could cause “serious” (secret) or “exceptionally grave” (top secret) damage to national security.

At the top secret level, some information is “compartmented.” This means only certain people who have a top secret security clearance may view it.

And who decides what’s confidential, secret and top secret? Executive Order 13256 outlines who has the power. Authority to take certain pieces of information and classify them as top secret is given only to specific individuals. They include the president and vice president, agency heads and those specifically designated by authorities outlined in the executive order.

What’s the punishment for leaking classified information?

Depending on the nature of the information leaked, punishments can vary from officials losing their jobs to being jailed.

The primary laws governing the disclosure of classified information are the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. For instance, in 2024, Jack Teixeira , a 21-year-old military cyber-specialist, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for leaking classified documents about the war in Ukraine and other military secrets.

With inputs from agencies