Plus, Trump says he will impose new tariffs on automobiles coming into the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fallout from a group chat in which Trump administration officials discussed sensitive military plans that inadvertently included a journalist continued to dominate Washington on Wednesday<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s our team\u2019s latest reporting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chat transcript released: <\/strong>The Atlantic published a full transcript<\/a> of the messages, in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth<\/a> specified types of U.S. military aircraft and the timing of recent airstrikes against Houthi militias in Yemen. The texts did not include information about specific targets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump officials react:<\/strong> National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard said the leaked group text chat was a mistake but reiterated her claim that no classified information was shared on the chain as she testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe both claimed no classified material was shared in the chat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt forcefully pushed back against The Atlantic\u2019s latest report at a briefing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe have said all along that no classified material was sent on this messaging thread,\u201d she said. \u201cThere were no locations, no sources or methods revealed, and there were certainly no war plans discussed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former officials react:<\/strong> Information about an upcoming U.S. military attack on an adversary is typically considered classified, according to at least four former national security and intelligence officials who handled legal matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The former officials did not know anything specific about the status of the information in the Signal chat, but they said it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which details of military operations would not be treated as secret and damaging if they were disclosed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawmakers react:<\/strong> The incident has provoked intense criticism from Democratic lawmakers, some of whom have called for the resignations of Hegseth and Trump\u2019s national security adviser, Michael Waltz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, respectively, said they would request an \u201cexpedited\u201d inspector general\u2019s report into the matter. Wicker also said he would ask for a classified briefing from the administration for committee members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asked directly whether he believes the information discussed in the chat is \u2014 or should be \u2014 classified, Wicker replied: \u201cThe information as published recently appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that, based on my knowledge, I would have wanted it classified.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired Air Force general, has rebutted the administration\u2019s assertion that the text chain did not include \u201cclassified\u201d material or any \u201cwar plans.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data,\u201d Bacon said. \u201cThey should just own up to it and preserve credibility.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explainer:<\/strong> Signal isn\u2019t infallible, despite being one of the most secure encrypted chat apps<\/a>, by Kevin Collier<\/p>\n\n\n\nSignal chat highlights a sharp departure from the norm in U.S. national security<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Analysis by Andrea Mitchell<\/strong><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n