The Trump admin's chaotic Signal response was on full display today

President Donald Trump’s spy chiefs struggled to justify their leaked Signal group chat to senators on Tuesday, at times appearing uncertain of what to disclose and changing their answers under repeated questioning.

The incident — in which top Trump officials discussed plans to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen in an unsecured group chat that accidentally included a journalist — overtook an annual Senate hearing focused on worldwide threats to the U.S. and global stability.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were the focus of sharp questioning by the panel’s Democrats on their handling of sensitive conversations and whether the discussion contained any classified information.

The administration’s chaotic strategy to try to contain the fallout was on full display as Gabbard and Ratcliffe took different approaches when questioned by lawmakers. The back-and-forth showed that while Trump and his Cabinet want to downplay the security issues around the group chat, they’re having trouble finding a solid argument for their case.

Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner (D-Va.) summed up the general impression among Democrats as he closed out the hearing. “What you're saying didn’t make sense,” he said.

On Tuesday, the White House dismissed the uproar caused by the revelations published in The Atlantic, dismissing it as a “coordinated effort” by Democrats and the media to distract from the administration’s strikes on the Houthis that were intended ‘to make America’s enemies pay and keep Americans safe.’

Gabbard, a former member of Congress, chose evasion. She refused to say outright that she participated in the chat, but also didn’t deny her involvement.

“I’m not going to get into the specifics,” Gabbard said when asked if she was in the chat. Later in the hearing though, when pressed about whether anything sensitive was sent through the Signal chat, Gabbard testified that “there were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat at any time.”

She stuck to what sounded like a rehearsed talking point, repeatedly saying that the matter was under review by the National Security Council. She declined to answer questions as to whether she used her personal or private phone for the discussion.

Ratcliffe was more combative, at times talking over senators as he sought to defend his actions. He confirmed his participation in the chat, but argued that didn’t represent a breach of security protocol.

The director of the country’s premier foreign intelligence agency said Signal is used by the CIA for “permissible work use,” testifying that the app was “loaded on to my computer at the CIA” within days of his confirmation to the role.

Ratcliffe said this was something the Biden administration used as well, though experts said this week that Signal is not an app typically allowed on government-issued devices. A former intelligence and security official, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive government communications, said in an interview that while Signal is “increasingly used” by federal agencies, it is only for unclassified conversations.

Both Ratcliffe and Gabbard firmly stated throughout the hearing that they did not communicate anything that was classified in the Signal chat.

Pressed about the name of an intelligence officer Ratcliffe included in the chat, something that is usually kept under close wraps by the agency, the CIA Director said that the official in question was not operating under cover and routinely coordinates discussions between the CIA and the White House.

The answers were carefully given and seemed to swerve around allegations of misconduct, while both officials also tried to clear their names.

It’s a muddled narrative that has emerged across the administration, with multiple officials even dismissing the text that The Atlantic published or described in detail. Speaking to reporters on Monday evening, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth slammed The Atlantic report, asserting that “nobody was texting war plans.”

During the hearing, Hegseth quickly became the focus of questions on who was responsible for declassifying information — with the intelligence chiefs seemingly pushing the blame to him for allegedly discussing information in the Signal chat on specific times, places and targets of the attack on the Houthis in Yemen.

Generally speaking, officials who first classified a piece of information as the “original classification authorities” have the authority to declassify it where deemed necessary.

This would potentially make Hegseth the one responsible for some of the most sensitive information included in the chat, such as operational details about the planned strikes on the Houthis, including targeting information.

Ratcliffe testified that “strike packages or targeting information or things that related to DOD … the secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for determining whether something is classified or not.”

It’s unclear if Hegseth ever declassified any of the information posted in the Signal chat, and when pressed by Reed on this point, Ratcliffe indicated that he wasn’t sure.

FBI Director Kash Patel said little about the Signal chat, which he was not included in, but he also avoided addressing it. When pressed by two Democratic senators on whether the FBI would investigate the incident, Patel stated only that he was briefed on the matter on Monday night and did not have an update to share.

Republicans in the hearing largely didn’t participate in the grilling, but they didn’t help Gabbard or Ratcliffe either. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) noted that there were “some unanswered questions” remaining for him on the situation, while Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he planned to bring up the incident during the classified portion of the hearing.

Democrats reminded the officials that there were receipts — and they planned to get them. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) warned Gabbard and Ratcliffe that “we will get the full transcript of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.”

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), in one of the most heated moments of the hearing, raised his voice at the witnesses: “You need to do better.”

The same intelligence chiefs will have a chance to potentially hone their message and get on the same page on Wednesday, when they face the House Intelligence Committee during its parallel version of the worldwide threats hearing.