March 25, 2025

ICYMI: Ranking Members Smith, Meeks, Himes, & Connolly Demand Answers for Signal National Security Leak

Ranking Members Smith, Connolly, Meeks, and Himes - all Members of the New Democrat Coalition - demanded answers in a letter sent to the President’s National Security team

ICYMI: Today, New Dem Reps. Adam Smith (WA-09), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee; Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11), Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Gregory W. Meeks (NY-05), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Jim Himes (CT-04), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; sent a letter to President Trump’s National Security team demanding answers to questions stemming from a report in The Atlantic that asserts the team texted sensitive and potentially classified information, including plans for the United States’ military action against Houthi targets on March 15th two hours before the operation, over an unclassified messaging app.

In the letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, the Ranking Members wrote: “We are deeply troubled by the report in The Atlantic that you and other Trump Administration officials conferred about highly sensitive national security matters, including ‘precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing’ concerning pending military actions against the Houthis, via the open-source Signal messaging service. We are especially concerned that the reported deliberations may have constituted a security breach… . These actions could have compromised the operational security of, and by implication the safety of the service members involved in, the related military activities.”

The Ranking Members called for answers to multiple questions, including whether the information from the March 15th action was disclosed as reported and, if so, by whom. The Members asked whether any information shared could have compromised the operational security or capabilities of the U.S. armed forces or those of a U.S. ally or partner. The Members further asked what measures have been taken to ensure any disclosures are preserved, in accordance with federal law, and what steps have been taken to ensure such a breach “will not occur again.”

The complete text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Messrs. Secretary, Mme. Director, and Mr. Waltz:

We are deeply troubled by the report in The Atlantic that you and other Trump Administration officials conferred about highly sensitive national security matters, including “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” concerning military actions against the Houthis, via the open-source Signal messaging service. We are especially concerned that the reported deliberations may have constituted a security breach, because they relied upon an electronic messaging application that is not approved as a secure method for communicating classified information and because they inadvertently included at least one non-governmental party. These actions could have compromised the operational security of, and by implication the safety of the service members involved in, the related military activities.

In the interest of congressional oversight, we request answers to the following questions:

  1. Was information regarding U.S. military activities against the Houthis on or about March 15, 2025 disclosed via the Signal messaging service by any National Security Council principal? If so, by whom and what specific information was disclosed?

  2. In how many instances has the National Security Council held discussions on national security matters involving Principals Committee members or any other relevant executive branch officials using the Signal messaging service or any other messaging service application that has not been approved for the transmission of classified information? In each instance, please describe the specific national security matter or matters that were discussed.

  3. Was classified information shared in the instance reported by The Atlantic or in any other instance described in reply to the previous question?

  4. Was unclassified but highly sensitive information shared in any such instance?

  5. Was information shared in any such instance that could have compromised the operational security of any military activities?

  6. Was information shared in any such instance that could have compromised the safety of members of the U.S. armed forces or those of a U.S. ally or partner?

  7. Was information shared in any such instance that could have compromised any of the capabilities of the U.S. armed forces or those of a U.S. ally or partner?

  8. What measures has the National Security Council, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community taken to ensure that the discourse of any such instance and any other discourse involving national security matters via an electronic messaging service are preserved in accordance with applicable federal record keeping law?

  9. If classified or any other sensitive information was disclosed via the Signal messaging service, what measures have been put into place by the National Security Council, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community to ensure that it will not occur again? 

We appreciate your attention to these questions and look forward to your prompt replies.

--->