WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified before both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Their appearances follow the news of a Signal chat used by top Trump administration officials to discuss classified information, including Yemen attack plans, that became public when National Security Advisor Michael Waltz inadvertently added a journalist to the conversation.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe’s testimonies revealed numerous contradictions, evasions, and misstatements on this serious breach of protocol by top national security officials. The administration’s callous handling of national security and refusal to be transparent and accountable threaten the safety and security of the American people.
See key false and misleading statements made during these hearings below:
Senate Intelligence Committee Testimony
- Contradictory Positions: CIA Director Ratcliffe acknowledged “pre-decisional strike deliberations should be conducted through classified channels,” yet insisted these Signal communications were “entirely permissible and lawful” and not a serious error.
- Convenient Memory Lapses: Both officials claimed they could not recall discussing specific weapons, targets, or timing in the Signal chat – details that would constitute classified information.
- Security Protocol Evasions: Gabbard refused to disclose whether she used a government or personal device during these discussions and admitted being overseas but could not recall which country.
- Implausible Ignorance: When confronted with Department of Defense (DOD) policies prohibiting even “controlled unclassified information” on unsecured devices, both officials claimed to be unaware of such basic security protocols.
- Classification Denials: Despite evidence to the contrary, they repeatedly insisted the Signal communications contained no classified information.
House Intelligence Committee Testimony
- Stunning Reversals: Gabbard backtracked on her Senate testimony, claiming she “was not directly involved with that portion of the Signal chat” and that released screenshots were “a refresher on what happened.”
- Contradictory Admissions: Gabbard suddenly conceded that advance warning of U.S. attack preparations should be classified – contradicting her previous day’s testimony.
- Deny, Deny, Deny: Despite screenshots revealing detailed operational planning, Ratcliffe claimed there were “no” war plans in the Signal chat.
- Counterintelligence Risk: In a damaging admission, Ratcliffe acknowledged that such discussions would be “of obvious interest to foreign intelligence services” – effectively confirming the national security risk posed.