Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

House Intelligence Committee hearing Underway; Intel Officials Testify as Group Chat Fallout Grows. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:00]

SHANE HARRIS, STAFF WRITER COVERING NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE, THE ATLANTIC AND SHARES BYLINE WITH JOURNALIST INCLUDED ON SIGNAL GROUP CHAT: Well, if that's what they really believed at the time, who told them that? Why did they not understand that this level of sensitive detailed information is normally treated as classified?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Shane, I want you to listen to what Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, just said at this hearing. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: A mistake that a reporter was inadvertently added to a Signal chat with high level national security principles, having a policy discussion about imminent strikes against the Houthis and the effects of the strike. National security adviser has taken full responsibility for this, and the National Security Council is conducting an in-depth review, along with technical experts working to determine how this reporter was inadvertently added to this chat.

The conversation was candid and sensitive. But as the president of national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared. There were no sources, methods, locations, or war plans that were shared. This was a standard update to the national security cabinet that was provided alongside updates that were given to foreign partners in the region.

The Signal message app comes pre-installed on government devices. In December of 2024, CISA stated, quote, "We strongly urge highly targeted individuals to immediately review and apply best practices provided in the guidance to protect mobile communications, including consistent use of end-to-end encryption, and they named Signal as an app as an example of such an end-to-end encrypted messaging app.

Ideally, these conversations occur in person, however, at times, fast moving coordination of an unclassified nature is necessary where in- person conversation is not an option. I'm also aware that a suit was -- a lawsuit was filed yesterday on this issue. As a result of that pending litigation, I'm limited in my ability to comment further on that specific case. My office of general counsel will be in close contact with the Department of Justice on this matter. The most important thing to the American people and to all of us is the success of this military operation against terrorists who have been and continue to attack American service members was extremely successful, thanks to the leadership of President Trump and the actions of our brave men and women in uniform.

As the heads of America -- the American People's Intelligence Community, we will continue to provide the President, you, and Congress, and our war fighters with timely, unbiased, relevant intelligence to keep our country secure, free, prosperous, and at peace.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. That was part of her opening statement. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. So, let's get some reaction from Shane Harris, who together with Jeffrey Goldberg, wrote the latest article detailing specific elements of this chat, which if you read it very closely, even not that closely, provide very sensitive and potentially very, very highly classified information about an upcoming U.S. military airstrike against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. What's your reaction, Shane?

HARRIS: Well, a number of things. I mean, first of all, I mean, Director Gabbard, as other officials in the administration continue to do, keeps insisting this information isn't classified. I think we need to hear from her and others why do they think that? Because it seems like everyone who has worked in government, and even some people who've been talking to us who work in government now are saying no, this kind of information is always classified. So, what does she mean by that?

I'm not aware about Signal being pre-installed, to use her words, on government devices. That seems rather noteworthy. Her point about the national security adviser taking full responsibility for this, has he? He's still saying that we don't know how Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the chat. You can see in the text we published today, it says, Michael Waltz added you to the chat. So, either Mr. Waltz or someone who was handling his phone appears to have done that.

There's just so many more questions about why this was set up in the first place. Are other group conversations happening like this as well? That's something I think we also need to know.

BLITZER: Walk us through, Shane, if you don't mind, your decision making, this week, and it's extremely sensitive, and I speak as a former Pentagon correspondent who came across intelligence information all the time. How did you and Jeffrey Goldberg ultimately decide to go ahead and publish the unredacted conversation, which you did a couple hours ago?

HARRIS: Yes, I mean, really this, I think, came out of what administration officials were saying yesterday, and there are two really salient points to that. One is that lots of officials, including the president, were saying, this is unclassified. Well, if it's unclassified, then our question was, why aren't you publishing the information? But also, they continue to insist that we were deceiving people and that we were not portraying this information accurately. That we were not telling our readers the truth about what was in these text messages.

[10:35:00]

So, for those two reasons, we felt compelled to publish them in their entirety today. There is one limited redaction in there at the request of the CIA. We are not publishing the name of the CIA director's chief of staff, because ordinarily intelligence officers are not identified publicly. Everything else though, that you see at The Atlantic today is what was in that Signal chain, up to the point, where I should note, Jeffrey Goldberg removed himself from that chain, which I think was a quite responsible thing to do.

BLITZER: Yes, and in the first article he deliberately decided not to publish, make public very sensitive, potentially highly classified top secret information that could have undermined U.S. -- the U.S. Intelligence Community and the U.S. military's community ability to deal with what they call sources and methods. And now, he decided to come forward.

If the administration, Shane, had publicly acknowledged, and they have refused to do so, that this information was in fact classified, would you have handled it differently in this second article?

HARRIS: We might have. I mean, it's hard to know because they never said whether it was classified or not. You know, I should also note that when we went to them initially for comment, we did not have officials saying to us, this is highly classified. You can't disclose this. We've had multiple interactions with government officials about this. So, you know, had they come out and said, yes, it was classified, it was sensitive, this shouldn't have been revealed, that might have changed our posture.

Of course, that's not what they did. I mean, they came out and essentially tried to dismiss this. And I've even seen some officials and people in their camp trying to imply that there was some nefarious way that Jeff Goldberg was added to this chat, which was interesting considering the White House is saying they still don't know actually how he was added to it.

BLITZER: Shane, I want you to stick around. The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Himes is speaking right now. I want to listen to part of his opening statement.

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT), RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: -- just confirmed with CENTCOM we are go for mission launch, 12:15 Eastern Time, F-18 launch, first strike package. 13:45 trigger-based F-18, first Strike window starts. Target terrace is at his known location, so should be on time. Also, strike drones launch, MQ-9s. 14:10, more F-18s launch. Second strike package. Do either of the directors want to reflect on their testimony yesterday in the context of what I just read? KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Sure. One, I was not on that Signal chat. Two, I have not reviewed it. And three, as you just indicated, that was made public this morning.

HIMES: But, Director, you didn't, prior to yesterday, Senate, you were on this -- you were on the Signal chat, correct?

PATEL: No.

HIMES: OK. But did you review the material on the Signal chat?

PATEL: No, I wasn't on it.

HIMES: OK. Director Gabbard?

GABBARD: Yes, Ranking Member. My answer yesterday was based on my recollection or the lack thereof on the details that were posted there. I was not -- and the -- what was shared today reflects the fact that I was not directly involved with that part of the Signal chat and replied at the end reflecting the effects, the very brief effects that the national security adviser had shared.

HIMES: So, it's your testimony that less than two weeks ago, you were on a Signal chat that had all of this information about F-18s and MQ-9 Reapers and targets on strike, and you in that two-week period simply forgot that that was there, that's your testimony?

GABBARD: My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.

HIMES: That was not your testimony. Your attempt testimony was that you were not aware of anything related to weapons, packages, targets, and timing.

GABBARD: As the testimony yesterday continued on, there were further questions related to that where I acknowledged that there was a conversation about weapons. And I don't remember the exact wording that I used, but I did not recall the specific details that were included.

HIMES: Director Gabbard, we've -- you've reasserted that there was no classified information. I think we can all agree that that information shouldn't have been out there. But let me ask you this, are you familiar with the ODNI's classification guidance?

GABBARD: I'm familiar with that.

HIMES: I've actually got a copy right here. If I read you a part of that guidance, I wonder if you could tell me what the level of classification indicated is. I'm reading from your classification guidance. And the criteria is information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack. Do you recall what the -- your own guidance would suggest that be classified? GABBARD: I don't have the specifics in front of me, but it would point to what was shared would fall under the DOD's classification system and the secretary of defense's authority --

[10:40:00]

HIMES: So, let me help you because there's a very clear answer you don't -- I guess you don't have it, but information providing in -- this is the ODNI guidance information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack should be classified as top secret. Do you disagree with that?

GABBARD: I don't disagree with that. I just point out that the DOD classification guidance is separate from the ODNI's classification guidance.

HIMES: Do you think it would be materially different?

GABBARD: And ultimately, the secretary of defense holds the authority to classify or declassify?

HIMES: Do you think it's likely that DOD guidance is materially different from what I just read?

GABBARD: I haven't reviewed the DOD guidance. So, I can't comment.

HIMES: Director Gabbard, a lot of this suggests sort of a lack of sobriety when there's punch emojis and fire emojis, it's a lack of sobriety. I don't mean that literally. But I have one last question for you because I think people really listen to what you have to say.

You, on March 15th, as DNI, retweeted a post from Ian Miles Cheong, who is listed on R.T., that's Russia Today's website as, quote, "a political and cultural commentator who has contributed content to R.T. since at least 2022." Director Gabbard, do you think that it's responsible for you as head of the Intelligence Community and the principal's presidential intelligence adviser to retweet posts from individuals affiliated with Russian State media?

GABBARD: That retweet came from my personal account and I would have to go back to look at the substance of the tweet.

HIMES: Can I -- just a lack -- just so that we don't have a lack of confusion amongst our allies and enemies and us, can I act perhaps that you not think that you should be saying one thing on your personal account, then you say, officially?

GABBARD: I've maintained my First Amendment rights to be able to express my own personal views on different issues.

HIMES: Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gentleman yields. Now, recognized the distinguished vice chairman, General Kelly.

REP. TRENT KELLY (R-MS), VICE CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Yes, I now for the first 30 seconds, Mr. Ratcliffe or Director Ratcliffe, formerly known as Texas from this Mississippi guy. I'd like to give you 30 seconds if you have anything to respond to what Ms. Gabbard, just -- Director Gabbard, I'm sorry, just said.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: Well, Mississippi, it's good to see you again. And I appreciate the opportunity. You know, there's so much talk about this Atlantic article and about things that were said and that could have happened instead of a focus on what did happen.

So, my responsibility as CIA director, one of its responsibilities is to kill terrorists, and that's exactly what I did along with President Trump's excellent national security team. That's what we should be focused on. With regard to that article, I also would appreciate the opportunity to relay the fact that yesterday I spent four hours answering questions from senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because there were hidden messages. Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information and that the reporter, who I don't know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that that.

That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat. In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff who is not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading, and I appreciate the opportunity to reflect that my answers haven't changed.

I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success, is what everyone should be focused on here, because that's what did happen, not what possibly could have happened.

KELLY: Thank you, Director Ratcliffe. Director Patel, thank you for the great job that you've done. So, first of all, your coordination and trying to comply with the letter that was sent last year and the year before, asking for the baseball shooting, of which -- what I got was basically what happened on the field and I was there, so I don't need to know that, although no one from the FBI ever talked to me about what happened. They talked to people who were not there. But I appreciate your commitment to getting us the full unredacted report or the redactions are to protect innocent people who are not part of the process, not the people who made decisions to classify that as suicide by cop, as opposed to an assassination attempt of many members of Congress, of which I was one.

[10:45:00]

Thank you for your commitment, Director Patel, because I know that you will give us what we have asked for so that we can put this to rest. Mr. Winsthrop (ph) and myself and several others. Can I get your commitment to do that, Director Patel?

PATEL: In fact, I just got an update, Mr. Vice Chairman, from my team. You'll have all of those materials to you and your committee by the close of business today or at the latest tomorrow morning.

KELLY: And just really quickly, Director Ratcliffe, and I don't want to go over time, I think it's so important for everybody to have their time. Can you tell me the impact that DOGE has had in causing you to fire people you shouldn't have fired or released people who are instruments of national security no longer there? Tell me if you've had any impact specifically that DOGE has caused you to lose someone who was necessary for national security?

RATCLIFFE: Given the fact that, as of this date, no one from DOGE has been on the CIA campus and I've had no direct communication with DOGE other than conversations with Elon Musk at cabinet meetings. I would say the impact is zero.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue to monitor this important House Intelligence Committee hearing, and we'll get back to it shortly. But Shane Harris is still with us. He co-authored this latest article in The Atlantic Magazine with Jeffrey Goldberg, including all the specific text messages that were on that chat.

In the text release today, Shane, there was no information on location. Was information on location on various different texts that weren't released?

HARRIS: No, there is information on location. They're talking about the home that one of the targets goes into, specifically saying his girlfriend's house, which they then report was blown up or collapsed in an attack. And obviously, the location is Yemen.

So, when officials are saying there's no information on locations, I don't know what they're trying to imply there. You know, were there grid coordinates? No. I mean, but did everyone understand where the bombs were falling? Yes. You know, what I think is also --

BLITZER: And let me just interrupt for a moment, Shane. That's a very sensitive issue. They knew this Houthi leader was going into a building where he had a girlfriend, and then that building was blown up. And presumably that young girlfriend was killed in the process. Do we know what happened to her?

HARRIS: We don't. And I think we're going to still continue reporting on that. But I think what is also notable about that is officials have been saying, well, there was no sources and methods revealed. How you know a building was blown up and a person walked into a building and who was in the building is derived from sources and methods of intelligence gathering.

So, again, I think officials are trying to suggest that these messages that they sent do not say something that they in fact do say. And I was impressed by the fact that Director Gabbard continued to try and push this somehow onto Secretary Hegseth by saying, well, it's the defense secretary and the defense secretary's guidelines that govern what kind of information he can share that might be classified, referring to the, you know, the strike package that was detailed.

So, we're getting a lot of clear indication here that I think officials are trying to deflect from what's really in the messages. And it's not surprising that they're attacking us in the process of doing that and are sort of pointing fingers at one another. No one has explained how this isn't classified information, that is still a key question.

BLITZER: I just want to be precise on the attack, the targeting of this Houthi leader who was walking into that building to see his girlfriend. The Houthi official was killed in that attack. Is that right?

HARRIS: That's what we understand, yes. And that's what they report in the messages.

BLITZER: You heard the CIA director, Ratcliffe, just accuse your magazine, The Atlantic Magazine, of deliberately misleading about whether the name of a CIA agent was in the chat. How do you respond to him? He says it was his chief of staff whose name he referred to who wasn't an undercover agent.

HARRIS: Right. We took out the name of that CIA officer, I would add, at the CIA's request because that is the director's chief of staff. And intelligence officers are not normally identified in public. I don't know where he's getting the idea about undercover agents. Agents are different than officers. But on that point, at the agency's request, we did not publish her name.

BLITZER: And you did the right thing. The national security adviser, Mike Waltz, Shane, seemed to imply that Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor- in-chief of The Atlantic Magazine, had something to do with getting himself added to this very sensitive group chat conversation. What's your reaction to that?

[10:50:00]

HARRIS: I'm not even sure how he would do that. I mean, that is -- it just sort of defies logic. If you've ever used Signal, you have to add someone from the outside to your group. So, I don't know what subterfuge Mr. Waltz thinks that Jeff Goldberg used to try and get into his Signal chat. And again, you can go to The Atlantic and read the chats and they start with Michael Waltz has added you in this case, Jeff, to the chat. So, again, either Michael Waltz or somebody with his device added Jeffrey Goldberg to that Signal group.

BLITZER: And I just want to be precise. Jeffrey Goldberg didn't release a lot of the sensitive classified information in his original article because he didn't want to undermine U.S. national security so- called sources and methods. So, he was doing what he thought was the right thing and protecting U.S. military and intelligence personnel. Was that his decision in refusing to release that information in the original article?

HARRIS: It was, and I fully supported it, because I worked on that story with Jeff and that was the reasons that we withheld it.

BLITZER: Yes, he did the right thing. It was a patriotic decision that he made to hold back on that sensitive information so that no U.S. military personnel would specifically be targeted as a result. Shane Harris, I want you to stand by. We're going to continue this conversation. In the meantime, thanks very, very much. And we're going to continue to follow all the breaking news, new information coming out even as we speak. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BLITZER: We're continuing to monitor this hearing up on Capitol Hill. The House Intelligence Committee. Yesterday was the Senate Intelligence Committee. Today, the House Intelligence Committee continuing questioning top U.S. intelligence officials about this conversation that was on a commercial Signal chat site that potentially could have been jammed, could have been monitored by Russia or China or Iran or others. And we're getting more information even as we speak.

You know, it's interesting, you know, Evan, you're our top Justice Department correspondent that formally we have not been told that the FBI and Kash Patel, the new director of the FBI, has formally launched an investigation into what happened to see if there was criminal activity in breaking various intelligence rules?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think you hear today from the FBI director, he still seems to claim that he doesn't know much about what has happened. He obviously wasn't on the chat and he's also downplaying, obviously, any chance that the FBI is going to investigate because the president himself has said he doesn't think the FBI should investigate.

And I should point out that, you know, this is the same administration, Kristi Noem, the head of the Homeland Security Department, they made a big deal about an ICE operation that was discussed ahead of time that they say changed the security of that. And so, they launched an investigation of that, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas is asking questions. I want to quickly listen in.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX): -- agency intercepted something like this from Russia or China or some other country, would you consider this classified information?

GEN. TIMOTHY HAUGH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Representative, we would be classifying based off of our sources and methods. So, those would be the things that in terms of how we process, how we would be able to obtain the information and how we'd report it.

CASTRO: Sure.

HAUGH: We would classify based off of our source and methods.

CASTRO: So, if you knew that the secretary of defense and the national security adviser of Russia or China and the head of the foreign ministry and all of the folks who were associated with that Signal chain, if you intercepted that information, General, would you consider it classified?

HAUGH: So, it would be classified based off of our collection.

CASTRO: So, the NSA would classify it? Would --

HAUGH: Based off of --

CASTRO: Determine it as classified?

HAUGH: -- the protection of our own source and method, not necessarily based off the content, but how we collected that information.

CASTRO: But it would be classified?

HAUGH: Well, we certainly wouldn't be collecting on a U.S. person conversation.

CASTRO: No, I understand. I'm saying if we -- but if you did your job and collected it from the Russian foreign ministry and the national security adviser and the secretary of defense and the president's chief adviser, there is no way, having sat on this committee for nine years, that somebody would come in with that information and give us something that says, unclassified. You can walk out of this room with this information and give it to whomever you want.

You know, with all respect, you and I worked on the committee at the same time. Tulsi, you and I came in together. We've -- I've never had an issue or beef with you. John, you and I are both from Texas. You all know that's a lie. It's a lie to the country.

I want to ask about the Alien Enemies Act really quick while I have time. The president has used the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority last used to detain German and Japanese nationals during World War II to summarily deport people accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

To invoke this law, the president must demonstrate that the United States is under invasion by a foreign nation or a government. They have alleged that we are under invasion by the Venezuelan government. The idea that we are at war with Venezuela would come as a surprise to most Americans.

The unclassified version of the annual threat assessment the Intelligence Community just released makes no mention of any invasion or war that we are fighting with the nation of Venezuela. You would think our nation being at war would merit at least a small reference in this threat assessment.

And, Director Ratcliffe, does the Intelligence Community assess that we are currently at war or being invaded by the nation of Venezuela?

RATCLIFFE: We have no assessment that says that.

CASTRO: Thank you.

[11:00:00]