Trump Defends Security Chat, Claims No Classified Information Involved.
President Trump claims no classified information was involved in a group chat breach concerning military actions against Houthi forces in Yemen. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is not expected to be held accountable despite the chat’s exposure on the Signal platform. Officials affirm that the information exchanged was not classified, highlighting ongoing tensions about government transparency and media narratives.
US President Donald Trump asserted that a recent security breach involving top officials’ communications on social media did not contain classified information. He defended National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, suggesting he will not face repercussions for initiating the group chat that was leaked.
An article from The Atlantic reported that discussions were held on the messaging platform Signal regarding planned military actions against Houthi forces in Yemen. This chat inadvertently included the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, exposing details about deployment targets and weaponry.
On Tuesday, Trump stated, “There was no classified information, as I understand it” regarding the exchange. He praised Waltz, asserting he is an excellent leader. Subsequently, Waltz mentioned that experts would investigate how the editor became part of the group chat, claiming he had no prior communication with him.
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard reported the chat included general target discussions in Yemen but confirmed that no classified information was released. CIA Director John Ratcliffe added that Signal is suitable for work-related communication, and emphasized that the Secretary of Defense, as the classification authority, confirmed the information was unclassified.
Democratic lawmakers have insisted that the information should be disclosed at the hearing due to its unclassified nature and are expected to continue pressing the Trump administration. In response, the White House condemned the situation and defended its military strategies, stating it was a media-driven distraction from successful operations against US adversaries.
Overall, the incident raises important questions about information security and the implications of using public messaging services for government communication. The response from officials indicates a strong push for transparency, while also reflecting ongoing tensions between political parties.
The situation surrounding the security breach highlights the complexities of communication within government agencies. Trump and officials defend the use of Signal for operational discussions while denying the existence of classified information. As investigations proceed, the discourse emphasizes transparency and accountability amidst political scrutiny, reflecting the ongoing clash between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers.
Original Source: www3.nhk.or.jp
