During a tense House Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard acknowledged that a journalist was mistakenly added to a highly sensitive Signal chat discussing U.S. military actions against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The chat group, which included top intelligence and defense officials such as the CIA Director and National Intelligence Agency (NIA) head, became a focal point of scrutiny after details regarding potential airstrikes were leaked.Tulsi Gabbard, during her deposition before the Senate, said that there were no classified or intelligence equities included in the chat group at any given point in time.
Gabbard, testifying before both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, insisted that at no point did the chat contain classified material or sensitive intelligence equities. However, she confirmed that the National Security Council (NSC) had launched an “in-depth review” alongside technical experts to determine how and why a journalist gained access to discussions of strategic military policy. The Trump administration, under which Gabbard serves as the nation’s top intelligence official, has maintained that while the leak was a mistake, no national security secrets were compromised.
The revelation has raised concerns over the security of internal communications within the highest levels of U.S. intelligence. Lawmakers grilled Gabbard on the potential implications of the leak, questioning whether adversaries could exploit similar vulnerabilities. Some committee members suggested a broader overhaul of digital communication protocols within the intelligence community to prevent further breaches.
Meanwhile, critics argue that even if the leaked conversations did not contain classified data, the mere exposure of strategic military discussions could undermine U.S. operations abroad. With tensions in the Middle East escalating, particularly in Yemen where U.S. and allied forces have engaged in targeted strikes against Houthi militants, any breach of information—intentional or otherwise—carries significant geopolitical consequences.
As investigations continue, the intelligence community faces growing pressure to tighten security measures and ensure that sensitive discussions remain protected from potential leaks, whether through human error or technical oversight.