Trump team deflects and lies as leaked plan is published

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump Team Deflects and Lies as Leaked Plan is Published"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
• Host: Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC
• Release Date: March 27, 2025
• Episode: Trump team deflects and lies as leaked plan is published
• Description: Lawrence O’Donnell leverages his extensive political experience to dissect the pivotal political narratives of the day, offering insightful analysis and discussions each weeknight.

---

Introduction

In this episode of "The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell," O'Donnell delves into a significant national security incident involving the Trump administration. The focus is on a leaked plan published by The Atlantic, which exposed sensitive military operational details shared within a group chat on the Signal app by top officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Background of the Incident

The controversy began when Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, released screenshots from a private Signal group chat inadvertently added to by top Trump officials. This chat contained detailed discussions about military operations, including specific timings, targets, and weaponry.

Key Highlights:

• Alarming Details: The leaked messages included timestamps and operational plans such as "[14:10] more F18s launch" and "[14:15] strike drones on target," indicating imminent military actions.
• Administration’s Claim: The Trump administration insisted that no classified information was shared, labeling the conversation as a "standard update to the National Security Cabinet."

Administration's Response and Deflection

Top officials within the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump and Chief of Staff Jen Psaki, engaged in deflecting responsibility and minimizing the severity of the breach.

Notable Quotes:

• Jen Psaki ([00:39]): "Their Zebiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink."
• Donald Trump ([06:33]): "You believe that your committee was classified."
• Trump ([08:44]): "Maybe we can't read unclear. I mean, they must believe that we are incapable of understanding."

Congressional Reactions

The leak prompted swift responses from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, demanding accountability and thorough investigations.

Key Figures and Statements:

• Senator Roger Wicker (Chairman, Armed Services Committee):
  • Quote ([06:11]): "We are signing a letter today asking the administration to expedite an IG report back to the committee."
• Congressman Don Bacon:
  • Quote ([06:35]): "The White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data. They should just own up to it and preserve credibility."
• Senator Adam Schiff:
  • Expressed strong criticism of the administration’s handling, emphasizing the potential risks to national security and the endangerment of military operations.

Expert Analysis and Insights

The episode features in-depth analysis from Ned Price, a former CIA analyst, and Mark Zaid, a national security attorney, who provide critical perspectives on the breach.

Key Points:

• Ned Price ([16:00]):
  • Criticizes the administration’s lack of adherence to secure communication protocols.
  • Quote: "They chose convenience over our national security."
• Mark Zaid ([22:47]):
  • Highlights that the leaked information clearly falls under classified material as defined by executive orders.
  • Quote: "This is pretty standard classified information given the people who were discussing it."

Historical Context: Comparison to Obama Administration

O'Donnell contrasts the current incident with the meticulous communication protocols during the Obama administration’s operation to kill Osama bin Laden, underscoring the stark differences in handling classified information.

Key Points:

• Secure Communications: Emphasis on in-person meetings in the Situation Room versus reliance on unsecured apps like Signal.
• Operational Security: Highlights the potential dangers posed by such breaches, including the risk of adversaries identifying and neutralizing sources.

Implications for National Security

The leak has far-reaching implications, raising concerns about the potential compromise of military operations and sources.

Critical Concerns:

• Compromised Operations: Detailed operational plans could allow adversaries to anticipate and counteract U.S. military actions.
• Endangerment of Personnel: Information could lead to targeted attacks on military personnel involved in these operations.
• Operational Integrity: The breach undermines the trust and reliability of national security communications within the administration.

Impact on Administration Officials

The fallout from the leak has severely impacted key figures within the Trump administration, particularly Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Key Issues:

• Background Scrutiny: Hegseth faced numerous allegations prior to his confirmation, including financial mismanagement and inappropriate behavior.
• Confirmation Controversy: Despite significant opposition, he was confirmed by a narrow margin, raising questions about his suitability for the role.
• Resignation Calls: Increased pressure from both Democrats and some Republicans for Hegseth to resign due to the mishandling of sensitive information.

Notable Quotes:

• Ned Price ([46:39]): "These were military operational details, including information with timing and targets, information that could have endangered the operation and the members of the military involved."
• Senator Adam Schiff ([32:58]): "This puts lives in danger."

Calls for Investigation and Accountability

Lawrence O'Donnell discusses the bipartisan demand for a comprehensive investigation into the breach, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability.

Key Points:

• Inspector General Report: Senator Wicker and others are pushing for an expedited Inspector General investigation to assess the full extent of the breach.
• Potential Hearings: Calls for congressional hearings to further investigate the magnitude of the leak and its repercussions on national security.
• Legislative Oversight: Emphasis on the role of Congress in overseeing and ensuring the integrity of national security operations.

Conclusion

The episode underscores a profound lapse in national security practices within the Trump administration, highlighting the dangers of mismanaging classified information. The breach not only compromises current and future military operations but also erodes public trust in the administration’s ability to safeguard sensitive information. The bipartisan outcry and demands for accountability reflect the severe implications of such a security lapse.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Ned Price ([16:00]): "These guys chose convenience over our national security."
• Mark Zaid ([22:47]): "This is pretty standard classified information given the people who were discussing it."
• Senator Roger Wicker ([06:11]): "We are signing a letter today asking the administration to expedite an IG report back to the committee."
• Congressman Don Bacon ([06:35]): "The White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data. They should just own up to it and preserve credibility."
• Senator Adam Schiff ([32:58]): "This puts lives in danger."
• Donald Trump ([08:35]): "Maybe we can't read unclear. I mean, they must believe that we are incapable of understanding."
• Pete Hegseth ([05:26]): "Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information. We have said all along no war plans were discussed."

---

This comprehensive summary captures the essence of the episode, detailing the incident, responses, expert analysis, and the broader implications for national security. For listeners who missed the episode, this summary provides a thorough understanding of the critical issues discussed.

Transcript

[Rachel Maddow]

Your old or broken phone can let you down. But at Verizon, trade in any old phone from our top Brands and get iPhone 16 Pro with Apple Intelligence with a new line on MyPlan and iPad and Apple Watch Series 10. After all, you don't want your old phone to die on you when you're lost. Perfect. Or for your broken phone to glitch at the worst possible time.

[Donald Trump]

Hey, can I get your number?

[Rachel Maddow]

Oh. Trade in your old phone for a brand new iPhone 16 Pro, iPad and Apple Watch. Visit verizon.com today. Additional terms apply. Service plan required for Apple Watch and iPad let's face it, after a night with drinks, even just a couple, it.

[Jen Psaki]

Can be hard to bounce back the.

[Rachel Maddow]

Next day to wake up feeling fresh.

[Jen Psaki]

Their Zebiotics pre alcohol probiotic drink.

[Rachel Maddow]

A probiotic invented by PhD scientists to.

[Jen Psaki]

Break down the toxic byproduct of alcohol.

[Rachel Maddow]

Just make ZBiotics your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Get 15% off your first order at zbiotics.com pod15 and and use pod15 at checkout. Now it's time for the Last Word where Jen Psaki is in for Lawrence tonight. Good evening, Jen. Hi, Rachel. I feel like all of your loyal Blue sky followers now are wondering what they can get for $1,000 for supernatural blessings. I guess this is a thing I learned about. I was looking up as I was watching your show just over the last hour. So thank you for teaching all of us. I feel like the like hard sell. If you send me a thousand dollars, I'll send you like a keepsake. And also I will make you live forever. I feel like that form of televangelism has been around as long as we have had the means by which televangelists communicate. But doing that while you have a White House job just feels like a new day. Just feels like a whole new idea. Feels like a new day. And all the 18 people on that signal chat who are also not raising their hands with concern. Just another day. Another day in the Trump administration. Rachel, we will let you. Yes. So thank you for sharing all of it with us. We'll let you go back, get some rest because we need you tomorrow. Thank you so much. Thanks, my friend. All right, we are waiting. Believe it or not, the night is not over because we are waiting for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to touch down in Guam as the Trump administration comes up with seemingly every excuse they can think of to desperately deflect from and defend its major national Security breach. Who knows what he'll say or if he'll say anything or if he'll continue to lie. We will see. And if he says anything, we will let you know. Now, today, after 48 hours of lies from many in Trump world about what was or wasn't in that infamous group chat, Atlantic editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg called the administration's bluff this morning and released the screenshots. Here's what they said. Here are the attack plans that Trump's advisors shared on Signal. I love his direct straightforwardness. I mean, it doesn't get really much more straightforward than describing it in that way. But from their responses today, seems pretty clear that the Trump administration thinks maybe we're all stupid, maybe we can't read unclear. I mean, they must believe that we are incapable of understanding. But we can literally read with our own eyes with very direct headlines like the one I just read for you that seem details like. And these are literally details that were in these texts. You can see them on the screen. 14:10, which is military time, more F18s launch and 14:15 strike drones on target with the added note in parentheses in all caps. This is when the first bombs will definitely drop, pending earlier trigger based targets. They thought maybe that none of us would read this as real time military operational details. You don't even have to work have worked in the military to read it in that way. Now, as I know you've all been following, Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic decided to release the full contents of that group chat after top Trump officials inadvertently added him to a group chat on the commercial messaging app signal and accidentally texted their war plans, or whatever you want to call them, operational details about military actions that were taking place. And after the administration insisted yesterday, no classified information was shared. So we can see and read everything Pete Hegseth sent to the group chat, minus the name of a CIA officer, which is because the Atlantic continues to redact that information. Now, in the chat, Pete Hegseth did not list specific targets, but he did list exact times as I just read you, some of the specific ones I just read you. And he also listed weapons that would be used, as I just noted. I mean the messages showed an extremely detailed play by play of classified plans about an upcoming attack. Again, this is information in advance of a US Military attack. But here's what the administration said today with all of the chat published that I just described. The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the President, National Security Advisor stated, no classified information was shared. There were no sources, methods, locations or war Plans that were shared. This was a standard update to the National Security Cabinet.

[Ned Price]

Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information. We have said all along no war plans were discussed. No classified material was sent.

[Rachel Maddow]

So all of those people you just saw and many others we didn't even have time to include in there, all knew the transcript of the details of what the Secretary of Defense had posted on the group chat was out there. They all knew because we all knew. We all could read it on the Atlantic website. And they still said to the American public, nothing to see here. No problem at all. But after he read the full published group chat, Republican Senator Roger Wicker, who's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, demanded an expedited inspector general investigation.

[Donald Trump]

We are signing a letter today asking the administration to expedite an IG report back to the committee. We've agreed to seek time relatively soon for my classified briefing to the Armed Services Committee in the skiff.

[Rachel Maddow]

You believe that your committee was classified.

[Donald Trump]

Or should have been classified?

[Rachel Maddow]

The.

[Donald Trump]

The. The information, as published recently, appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that based on my knowledge, I.

[Rachel Maddow]

Would have wanted it classical. Okay, Senator Wicker. Okay. Now, he wasn't the only Republican who kind of spoke out in a variety of ways today. Not a million of them did, but some did. Republican Congressman Don Bacon didn't buy it either. Here's what he said. The White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data. They should just own up to it and preserve credibility. Okay, and what does the Commander in Chief have to say after the full group chat was published for all of us to see?

[Ned Price]

Do you still believe nothing classified was shared?

[Donald Trump]

Well, that's what I've heard.

[Rachel Maddow]

I don't know. I'm not sure.

[Donald Trump]

You have to ask the various people involved. I really don't know.

[Rachel Maddow]

So that was Donald Trump in the oval office at 5pm today, which is many hours after this was published. He doesn't seem sure about material. All of us read again in the Atlantic around 8am this morning. But maybe Trump didn't read it at all.

[Donald Trump]

Mike Waltz, I guess he said he claimed responsibility, I would imagine had nothing to do with anyone else.

[Rachel Maddow]

It was Mike, I guess. I don't know.

[Donald Trump]

I always thought it was Mike.

[Rachel Maddow]

Mike did.

[Donald Trump]

He took responsibility for it. Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this.

[Ned Price]

Hegseth.

[Donald Trump]

How do you bring Hegseth into it?

[Rachel Maddow]

He had nothing to do. Hegseth had nothing to do with this. Hegseth had nothing to do with this. I mean, what. So what is Trump interested in investigating? Well, it's not. I don't think this is gonna surprise any of you. Why? 18 members of his senior team, including his top national security officials, were on a Signal chat discussing sensitive information about military operations. He's interested in investigating, of course, the Signal app.

[Donald Trump]

Wanna find if there's any mistake or if Signal doesn't work. It could be that Signal's not very good. You know, it's a company, and maybe.

[Rachel Maddow]

It'S not very good.

[Donald Trump]

I think we'd rather know about it now. I don't know that Signal works. I think Signal could be defective, to.

[Rachel Maddow]

Be honest with you.

[Donald Trump]

There may be a problem with the platform, and if there's a problem with the platform, nobody should use it. You know, they could have a basic problem.

[Rachel Maddow]

So what's that all about? I mean, the Trump administration, Donald Trump, sitting right there, wants all of you to think that the core question here is why and how Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic, got on the Signal chain that the platform is defective. I mean, and somehow he was added to the chat by a technical mistake of sorts. That's part of their argument. Now, just to set the record straight here, the only way he could have made his way, that's Jeffrey Goldberg, I mean, onto the Signal chat was for the organizer of it, Mike Waltz, to add him manually on Signal. Many of you may have it. I've had it. You have to add each and every single member of a new group yourself manually to send to the group. So no matter how many technical minds Elon Musk or anyone else can whip up, Wall seems to be. That's what he's looking for. That's what he's talking about. The answer's already knowable on that. This is not at all something that needs to be investigated. To state the obvious, the Trump administration also seems to want us to think that the real focus should be on that. Of course, it is crazy that the editor of the Atlantic ended up on a chain in any form with the national security team from the Trump administration. Even he thinks it's crazy. But the craziest thing about it is that we wouldn't have known about how irresponsible the means of communicating between the top national security officials in the country were without Jeffrey Goldberg, without him being added to this chain. The only person who was on that chain who has expressed any real concern about whether or not conversations about military operations should take place on Signal is Jeffrey Goldberg, who is also, by the way, the only person on the chain who isn't actually responsible for our national security. So it seems hard to fathom that the only signal chain between the national security officials of this kind was this one. I mean, that's the other thing I keep thinking about. I mean, was Houthi PC Small group really the first time this crew got together on signal to discuss sensitive national security information? It seems highly unlikely. So the most important question this is my point is definitely not why was Jeffrey Goldberg on there? One of them is how many other group chats were there and what was shared on those. The Trump administration also seems to want us to believe that they can just trick us into thinking that something has to be officially labeled an indelible ink at the top war plan in order to be classified. It's not how it works. There are such things as war plans. Oftentimes they're hundreds of pages. But more importantly, this is about information being out there or being on sensitive channels that has the potential to do damage to the United States. It has been almost, and I mean just almost painful to watch everyone from Pete Hegseth, who sent these military operational details to Caroline Levitt to Michael Waltz pretend like this is a name semantic game. These were military operational details, including information with timing and targets, information that could have endangered the operation and the members of the military involved. Jason Crow put it best when he said this. Director Gabbard, have the Houthis indicated an ability to shoot down American aircraft? Yes, they have in fact done so, haven't they? Yes. Including MQ9 reapers, haven't they? That's correct. And that was one of the systems used in the attack recently? That's the subject of this discussion, is it not? Correct. Gabbard also suggested that it wasn't really a big deal because our allies already knew about the plans. That, of course, leaves the very important group of our enemies and adversaries out. So here's what they're trying to do. Look over here at Jeffrey Goldberg. Let's focus on how he got into the chat. Or, hey, real time military operational details aren't technically a war plan. It's not a war plan the name of it. Oh, and some are even suggesting it's Joe Biden's fault, literally. Some of the explanations have included that which I'm not even going to validate with further explanation. And hey, I know you may be sitting on your couch feeling pretty skeptical this will matter. Maybe you think they've gotten away with a lot of this before and that's valid. They have. I mean, remember this? Not exactly a sign of respect for classified information. There are all those boxes in Mar A Lago, you know, by the kind of weird decorations around it. And Trump was indicted for it, of course. Remember all the reasons why Pete Hegseth was neither qualified nor suited for this job. The list of allegations against him is mind blowing. Mishandling funds of a nonprofit to the point of racking up over $400,000 in debt. Drinking on the job. A police report detailing an allegation of sexual assault, though he was never charged, and being called an abuser of women by his own mother. Remember that? He denies it all, but I mean, did you ever doubt that this guy, this guy right here, was capable of sending detailed military operational plans over an unsecure group chat? I didn't. PDX 7. The top Trump administration officials on this group chat endangered American lives. There are reason. There are many reasons. There are significant security protocols in place to prevent our enemies from gaining access to sensitive information. I mean, we've seen other presidential administrations get it right, some get it wrong, but most of them get it right. The operation to kill Osama bin Laden was an extraordinary moment in American history. Of course it was. On May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, convened in the situation. You can see them right there. To watch the military operation unfold that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. An operation, by the way, that very few people in the administration even knew was being planned. President Obama went and spoke at the White House correspondence center the night before, if you remember that. And certainly nobody was chatting about it on a signals group text called Bin Laden Small Group PC. These photographs released after the operation, they show all of the meticulous planning and tension among the highest ranking members of the US Government that day. You don't see any phones on that table, no texting, no group chats. Face to face communication about one of the most sensitive military operations. That's how it's supposed to work. Not the way Donald Trump wants us to believe. Leading us off tonight to discuss all of this is Ned Price, a former CIA analyst. He also served as special assistant to President Obama on the National Security Council and was a senior State Department official under Joe Biden. He's been around a lot of classified material and a lot of sensitive operations. I mean, obviously this is not how an operation is supposed to work. I mentioned the, the bin Laden raid, but I was also thinking today about how carefully information around military operations detained Americans is Obviously very sensitive as well. Intelligence reports, intelligence of other countries is handled. I mean, I may have just really scratched the surface there in what I just talked through, but what does the last few days made you think about?

[Ned Price]

Well, Jim, let me just start by saying it doesn't leave me with a great feeling that our senior most national security leaders are staking their personal reputations and in turn aren't national security on this seemingly subtle distinction between attack plans and war plans. Maybe that's just me, but Jen, you and I have been in countless Situation Room meetings. We have been in the Situation Room across both the Biden administration and the Obama administration. You and I actually have been together for countless hours in the Situation Room discussing issues as wide ranging as Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, and yes, Yemen and the Houthis. And to your point, there is a very good reason why all of these meetings almost by definition take place within the Situation Room. It is probably the most secure confines of the US Government. It's deep within the West Wing. It's a windowless bunker that is physically guarded by the US Secret Service. The technical countermeasures are designed by the CIA and the Department of Defense to prevent foreign intelligence services from being able to eavesdrop or intercept those conversations. It's routinely swept for bugs after every single discussion. And if you just happen to accidentally have your phone on you or your Apple Watch on you, you're not going to get a signal for all these and many more reasons. Now, of course, not everyone is always going to be in Washington for a meeting of the Principals Committee to have these discussions in person. It's perfectly natural, for example, that the Secretary of State might be traveling overseas. But when a cabinet secretary like that travels, a team goes ahead of him or her, builds essentially a top secret tent, usually in the person's hotel room, to allow that person to be beamed back by secure video teleconference into the White House Situation Room. I can recall maybe one or two locations I traveled with to Secretary Blinken where we weren't able to establish our own top secret network there for him to do that. So we didn't spend the night and we didn't go far from the airplane where he could do the same. Jen, I say all of that in the abstract. You know, one set of meetings really comes back to me as I, as I see you on screen and think back to our time together. And that's a series of Principals Committee meetings that we were a part of in December 2016 when we were deciding how to respond to Russia's attack against our democracy in the 2016 elections, precisely what economic sanctions to levy, what Russian intelligence officers to PNG from the country, and what additional measures we would take in response. Of course, we had those discussions in the Situation Room because that was a normal course of things. But to put it bluntly, we didn't want the Russians to know what we were going to do before we did it, so that they weren't able to blunt the effectiveness of our response. It's precisely the same dynamic with this military information vis a vis Yemen and the Houthis. I also raise this example, Jen, because of the timeframe. It took place in December of 2016. These series of Principals Committee meetings on Russia that you and I were part of. It was tremendously inconvenient, you may recall, for all of us to go to the Situation Room the day before Christmas, two days before Christmas, a day after Christmas. But that is the nature of these jobs. You are subjected to inconvenience. Your personal schedule gives way to to the demands of national security. Among the many things that are so frustrating and mind blowing about this episode is yes, these guys were careless, they were reckless, they were incompetent, but they were also just downright lazy. Rather than travel down the hallway to the Situation Room or beam in from a tent that had been set up by a team of experts, they chose to use their phones, maybe even their personal cell phones that were on their persons. You know, Jen, our national security and convenience often work at cross purposes. These guys chose convenience over our national security.

[Rachel Maddow]

No question. It is very easy. Any principal can say to a staffer, hey, I need to make a secure call. Let me ask you about something else I've been thinking about over the last two days. I can't believe it's only been two days. I mean, you and I have dealt with the semantics of bureaucratic talking points before. It's not a coup in Egypt because we were declining to call it a coup comes to mind. That's a long history. But this is not a war plan. Seems to be their argument, which is ludicrous. I mean, a war plan, there are such things as war plans. It was shorthanded in that manner. The point is these were attack plans, operational details, real time ones. I feel like the semantics of that. People need to understand why that's such an absurd argument. And we've made some absurd arguments.

[Ned Price]

Not as absurd as this one though, Jen. Again, it didn't instill confidence in me that this is their argument. And neither did it instill confidence in me. When this first came out, they tried pointing to, I think they called it the robust policy discussion that took place over signal as a testament to the care with which these individuals are handling our national security. Neither is a credible argument. But on the classification argument, look, classification can sometimes be more art than science. In this case, it's really not. It is clear cut. If you look at the classification guidelines that are put out by either the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or the Department of Defense, you will see a set of guidelines that pertain to military plans, oftentimes referred to as ttp Tactics, Techniques and Procedures pertaining to military operations. Now, if these are not military plans, and you showed the transcript where the Secretary of Defense is himself saying bombs will fall at this time, these munitions from these platforms, I don't know what military plans would be. There's almost no question, given the ODNI guidelines that this would be top secret information. Some might argue it's secret information. There is not a credible argument. This is unclassified. And you know who actually knows that, Jen? It's actually Pete Hegseth. And we know he knows that because if you recall his final message in that chat, it was something like, we're clean on opsec. Why do you need operational security if you're just having a candid, unclassified discussion with friends?

[Rachel Maddow]

Good question. They keep coming up. I want to bring in Mark Zaid, who's a national security attorney who deals with cases involving security clearances. He's also the co founder of Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal organization that helps public and private sector workers report and expose wrongdoing. I mean, Mark, let me just ask you the clear first question everybody's asking. You've seen it. Does it look like classified information to you?

[Mark Zaid]

The 35 years that I have litigated to declassify information from the US Government, this is, this is pretty standard classified information given the people who were discussing it. And you know, Ned was using the term military plans. I mean, look, that's right there in the executive order that you guys probably helped work for President Obama 13526 in 2009. It says right there in section 1.4, military plans, weapons systems or operations. I mean, you couldn't have be clearer.

[Rachel Maddow]

I love that you know the number there, Mark. It means we know we have the right guy to talk to about this. I mean, one of the things I talked to Jeffrey Goldberg two nights ago on the day this was released, and they purposely didn't put out the specifics of the details of what Pete Hegseth had put into this chat then today their hand was kind of forced, or that's their argument, to put these details out. Is there any risk, I'm sure they had to consider this within the Atlantic. Did they take a risk in publishing this full group chat even if the Trump administration says it's not classified?

[Mark Zaid]

Technically, yes. Cause actually the Espionage act refers to national defense information, not classified information. It's a centuries old act, hasn't been amended since the Korean conflict. So sure, the administration could make an argument that this is still national defense rather than classified. It would sort of looked pretty silly. I think I would have much rather preferred if Jeffrey Goldberg had given the text messages to the House and Senate Intelligence committees, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, in advance of the hearing this morning or maybe even yesterday, and let them run with it because you know, they would have run with it and it would have come out, maybe it would have been a day later, but it wouldn't have been him. He's as you said in your opening, he, he's a sideshow distraction. He's the white noise deflection by this administration. It doesn't matter. It was an accident. They put him in. They screwed up, own it, move on. We've all sent emails to the wrong person and maybe text messages over the years. It happens. It's a, it's a big blunder, but it happens. What is the real story? Using an unsecure app, commercially available on possibly as Ned mentioned, personal cell phones, but having conversations that are work related on whether personal or work cell phones with these apps and then setting the messages to delete in violation of the federal records law. And you mentioned it earlier as well. I want to know what other conversations they've had in the last few weeks they've been in office and how many of those messages have been deleted. And that's what I hope either the inspector general or the Republicans who you had showed video of might also be interested in to see what's happening and.

[Rachel Maddow]

Hopefully that information still exists. I mean, but yes, I think that is one of the big questions. Let me ask you Ned, before I let you go. Does there Chairman Wicker called, wants an IG investigation. What would you want to learn? What would be your one big question you'd want that to answer?

[Ned Price]

It's really the question you and Mark have just been discussing. We know what we know, what don't we know? What are the other signal chats that exist, as you said, is there a Russia PC small group, an Iran PC small group, a nuclear weapons PC small group. Was this a common practice on the part of Mike Waltz? And if so, what has become of that data? Have the logs been destroyed? And what is the damage assessment? There needs to be an assessment of what could be extraordinary damage to our national security, not only in this case, but from the other chats that may be out there that the public has a right to know and certainly congressional overseers need to know about as well.

[Rachel Maddow]

And what you're referencing there is who else could be put at risk and what sources could be put at risk. And I think that's really important to know, too. And information from our allies and partners. Ned Price, Mark Zaid, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time tonight.

[Mark Zaid]

Thank you.

[Rachel Maddow]

And coming up, our next guest, Senator Adam Schiff has some harsh words. He had some harsh words today and a long list of questions for the Trump aides on this leaked signal chat. And I promise we'll hear him talk like you've never heard him talk before. Or at least I haven't. That's next. Auto insurance can all seem the same until it comes time to use it. So don't get stuck paying more for less coverage. Switch to USA auto insurance and you could start saving money in no time. Get a quote today, restrictions apply.

[Ned Price]

Usaa I've never felt like this before. It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you.

[Rachel Maddow]

Does that sound crazy?

[Ned Price]

And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous. Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere.

[Rachel Maddow]

Find a shoe for every you from brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas.

[Ned Price]

And more at your DSW store or dsw.commsnbc presents.

[Rachel Maddow]

Main justice. Each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice. The administration doesn't necessarily want to be.

[Jen Psaki]

Questioned on any of its policy.

[Ned Price]

I think what we are seeing is Project 2025 in action. This is it coming to fruition.

[Rachel Maddow]

Main Justice. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple podcasts for ad free listening and bonus content. Here's something you definitely don't hear a senator say every day.

[Donald Trump]

So tonight I want to talk about Signalgate and what a colossal up this is in terms of our national security.

[Rachel Maddow]

Yeah, we bleeped it. But he said it. I'm pretty sure you know what he said out there. I mean, remember as a congressman, Adam Schiff was the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He was the lead impeachment manager during Donald Trump's first impeachment hearing. And in all that time, and I could be wrong here, check me if I'm wrong. I don't think I have heard him use the F word in public to describe how colossal of a screw up something was. But he knows all too well how our nation's most sensitive communications should be handled and how they shouldn't.

[Donald Trump]

I used to serve as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when I traveled overseas. First of all, I didn't bring my personal electronics with me. I brought a burner phone. And even then I was told, don't email, don't text anything of national security importance or significance. Certainly never text anything anywhere that's classified.

[Rachel Maddow]

Now, that specific point he just made was seemingly aimed at Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard and Stephen Witkoff, who is Trump's decades long friend turned special envoy. Senator Schiff sent a three page letter to Gabbard and Witkoff today expressing grave concern that both took part in the security breach while they were, quote, traveling in high threat environments that pose significant counterintelligence risk to U.S. personnel and devices. Now, in particular, Schiff noted this. Director Gabbard was on a multination tour, including visits to Japan, Thailand and India during the timeframe at issue. And Mr. Witkoff was in Russia when National Security Adviser Walt established the messaging group. Mr. Witkoff reportedly arrived in Russia on March 13 at noon local time and was added to this group chat around 12 hours later. Reporting indicates that Mr. Wykoff met with Russian President Putin until 1:30am local time and left Moscow after the meeting. This means that Mr. Wykoff appeared to be receiving sensitive national intelligence information while in Moscow, and based on this timeline, may have been in direct meetings with the Kremlin when some of the messages were exchanged. That's all from Schiff's letter. Now, Wyckoff says he didn't have his personal phone with him, just quote, a secure phone provided by the government for special circumstances. Now, was that a burner phone? Was his phone with signal left on the plane? And again, what other signal chains were there between high level national security officials? Those are some of my questions. But more importantly, Senator Schiff has some questions too, and he's demanding answers to 12 detailed questions from both Gabbard and Witkoff by Monday. It isn't also just Democrats who are worried. The New York Times notes that Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania plans to send an inquiry to Gabbard's office. Plus Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, quote, definitely we'll be looking into this. At least four other Republican senators have voiced their concerns, too, including three members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mike Rounds, Jerry Moran, and Texas Senator John Cornyn, who had this to say, quote, sounds like a huge screw up. I mean, is there any other way to describe it? I don't think you should use signal for classified information. True. Now, Republican senators had to accept a lot to help Hegseth squeak through quant formation, which is important to remember in this moment because after. And now Today, after just 60 days on the job, Hegseth is facing a massive scandal that's only getting worse the more the Trump team deflects, distracts, and seems to be lying about what happened, all while a growing number of Democrats are openly calling for his resignation. Joining me now is California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former member of the House Intelligence Committee who used the word we bleeped for good reason. Senator, we spoke about this Signal group chat two nights ago, and at that time, none of us had seen, the public had not seen, nor you, nor I had seen what was exactly in the thread of information that Secretary Hed Seth had provided. Now, it was published in the Atlantic this morning. I thought it was pretty stunning. What did you think when you read that level of detail?

[Donald Trump]

Well, first of all, as for my use of an obscenity, I'm running out of adjectives and expletives over the last couple months. But what really leapt out at me when I looked at the transcript of this was the specificity with regards to one of the targets. And that was someone described as their top missile guy, but he was apparently struck while in his girlfriend's building. Now, the problem with this being disclosed, the problem with discussing this kind of thing on an unsecured device on a commercial app, is that what the Houthis are going to do now is they're going to essentially try to reverse engineer, they're going to try to figure out how did they know where he was, was his electronics communicated? Was his girlfriend's electronics compromised? Was there a personal source? Was the girlfriend the source? Was a friend of the girlfriends the source? They're going to try to identify our sources and methods. And this is why this is not only classified, but would be considered top secret classified because it could reveal sources and methods, which means not only did they put potentially pilots at risk, as you've outlined not only did they put the success of the mission at risk, but they also potentially compromised future missions. Because if the Houthis can now identify, was this a human source, was this a technical source, they can switch their tradecraft, they can kill a human source, they can do away with an electronic source. So it has far reaching implications. And what was so notable to me also about this is just the complete deflection of responsibility from the very top down. You've got Donald Trump saying, oh, you know it wasn't me. I don't know anything about this. Why should I know anything about this? I'm only the Commander in Chief. Why are you bringing Hegsus into this? And Hegseth is saying, I didn't. There were no war plans. And you've got Tulsi Gabbard saying, was I on this text chat? And then later, I have no idea where I was during these conversations. I could have been in any country. You've got Radcliffe, the head of the CIA saying, I didn't transmit classified information. No, somebody else did. I'm only the CIA director. What responsibility do I have over classified information? So it's, well, it's what happens when you put people who are completely unqualified disqualified in these positions. You're going to get colossal F ups.

[Rachel Maddow]

Like this one, no doubt. I mean, none of the. We could have seen a lot of this coming. You called a lot of versions of this could be coming. So you sent, I referenced in the introduction here, you sent this list of questions over specifically, it sounds like, to Tulsi Gabbard and Steven Witkoff. What question do you most want answered from them?

[Donald Trump]

Well, I think it's really the question that you asked, which is this is not the first time that they've been using a commercial app for completely inappropriate discussions. Just can't be. There is an acceptance by everybody on that chat of the normalcy of what they're doing. And I can't imagine that this was because it was the first time that they're invited to this Houthi private chat. So this has been done before. And to me, more important than the records keeping issue, the legality of that, which is important, is what else may have been compromised now because our adversaries, particularly the more sophisticated ones like China and Russia and others, they know who has what device, they know where those devices are, if those devices were ever left unattended. And you know, Witkoff says, I didn't have it with me, so it was left somewhere. If they get access to that advice they now have access to that chat. And so what else has been compromised? And frankly, anything they discussed on these devices now has to be presumed to have been compromised. So not only should the Congress find out, but the intelligence community is going to have a need to know if they're doing their jobs. What else were they talking about? We have to assume it's compromised. We have to assume that these sources may have been burned. We have to take measures to protect any human sources. Now this is the kind of now back work that will be done in the ic if they're doing it at all. But you know, the deflection of responsibility suggests also to us they're not going to do all this work. There's an arrogance here mixed in with the incompetence, which is dangerous.

[Rachel Maddow]

I mean, it's also impossible, just to echo what you just said, to do a damage assessment of who's at risk and what operations are at risk and what sources are at risk without knowing what other signal chains there were and what the topics were discussed. Senator Adam Schiff, I always enjoy talking to you. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you making the time tonight.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you.

[Rachel Maddow]

And coming up with any other president, accountability would matter. I mean, but this is the Trump White House and Trump fought and pressured Republicans to get Pete Hegseth, a former Fox Weekend host confirmed to be the secretary of defense. So what happens now? Former Navy helicopter pilot Congresswoman Mickey Sherrill will join us next. This season, let your shoes do the talking. Designer shoe warehouse is packed with fresh styles that speak to your whole vibe without saying a word from cool sneakers that look good with everything. The easy sandals you'll want to wear on repeat.

[Ned Price]

DSW has you covered.

[Rachel Maddow]

Find a shoe for every hue from.

[Ned Price]

The brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas, New Balance and more heavier DSW.

[Rachel Maddow]

Store or visit DSW.com today. Businesses that are selling through the roof like Untuck it make selling and for shoppers buying simple with Shopify home of.

[Donald Trump]

The number one checkout on the planet.

[Rachel Maddow]

And with shop pay you can boost.

[Ned Price]

Conversions up to 50%.

[Rachel Maddow]

Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout untucket uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com podcastfree all lowercase go to shopify.com podcastfree to upgrade your selling. Today, MSNBC presents Main Justice. Each week on their podcast, veteran lawyers Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord break down the latest developments inside the Trump administration's Department of Justice. The administration doesn't necessarily want to be.

[Jen Psaki]

Questioned on any of its policy.

[Ned Price]

I think what we are seeing is Project 2025 in action. This is it coming to fruition.

[Donald Trump]

Main justice subscribe to MSNBC Premium on.

[Rachel Maddow]

Apple Podcasts for ad free listening and bonus content. It's worth remembering. And if you don't remember, I'm going to remind you that before Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth texted detailed military attack plans on a commercial messaging app, Pete Hexath almost didn't get confirmed. I mean, and for good reason. Now, just as a point of comparison, group chat participant Marco Rubio, otherwise known as Mar in signal circles, got 99 votes for his confirmation. 99 CIA director and another group chat participant, John Radcliffe, got 74 votes. As for Pete Hegseth, well, he had 50 senators vote against him, including Mitch McConnell. It should have been far more given all we know. But that hearing, his hearing is a reminder of why it isn't that surprising that this guy sent detailed attack plans over group chat.

[Ned Price]

One of your colleagues said that you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted kill all Muslims. Another colleague, not anonymous we have this, said that you took coworkers to a strip club, you were drunk, you tried to dance with strippers, you had to be held off the stage, and one of your employees in that event filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. Now, I know you denied these things, but isn't that the kind of behavior that, if true, would be disqualifying for somebody to be Secretary of Defense Senator Anonymous false charges. They're not anonymous.

[Rachel Maddow]

Now Pete Hegseth overcame those allegations to become the 29th US defense secretary after Republican Senator Thom Tillis announced he was a yes minutes before he voted and Hegseth was confirmed, with JD Vance providing the tiebreaker. That's how close it was. That was after Donald Trump made clear that Tillis could get a primary challenger in 2026 if he opposed Hexath. So we know what the motivator was. Today, the Charlotte Observers editorial board asked Tillis and North Carolina's Junior Republic Senator Ted Budd a question I would characterize as tough, but definitely fair. Here's what it is. Quote, how can they look, the hundreds of thousands of active duty service members and veterans who live in North Carolina in the eye and tell them that this country and their lives are safe in Hegseth's hands. Our next guest, Congresswoman Mikey Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot, is demanding an investigation into Defense Secretary Hegseth.

[Jen Psaki]

Somebody's got a clean House at the White House. And it's obviously not going to be the president who is now up to his old trick. So I'm declassifying it. Well, too late, buddy.

[Ned Price]

Right.

[Jen Psaki]

Like this was classified information. This put lives in danger. An investigation needs to take place.

[Rachel Maddow]

Too late, buddy. Congresswoman Mikey Sherrill will have a lot more to say right after this break. We'll be right back.

[Jen Psaki]

As we've all heard for years, loose lips sink ships. And now we have at the top echelons of our government people who don't seem to understand the need for any national security.

[Rachel Maddow]

Joining me now is Congressman Mikey Sherrill of New Jersey, who you just saw there in that video. She's a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former helicopter pilot in the US Navy. It's great to see you. I mean, as you said very clearly, this puts lives in danger. And I think that's so important for people to understand because you hear the Trump administration saying, no one was hurt here. It happened, it was successful. You would know what that means. It puts lives in danger. What should everybody know? And what are you watching for now?

[Jen Psaki]

Well, I think what I'm watching for now is when are we going to have the investigation? What more has been compromised on these signal chats? This was obviously a known use of conversation for classified information, even though that was a totally inappropriate platform for this discussion. And, you know, I would like to understand how it might have been compromised. We see some people are in Saudi Arabia, the reporting says, some in Moscow. What do we think has been compromised and what do we need to go? Where do we need to go from here? I just, at this point, it's so breathtaking to me, the lack of accountability, the lack of responsibility from people who, quite frankly, have served and should know better.

[Rachel Maddow]

No question about that. I mean, just an absolute disregard for men and women serving in the military. You know, when asked by Politico if there should be any hearings, the chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers, said that he is, quote, still trying to find out what happened. Now, we haven't heard hearings. They haven't been scheduled. We haven't heard that many Republicans in the House say many things publicly. Are people saying things privately? I mean, is there anything that's encouraging to you in terms of private hall conversations about wanting to hold a hearing with Pete Hegseth and learn more?

[Jen Psaki]

Well, I think I'm a little more encouraged by what the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said, and I don't usually say that about the Senate as a member of the House. But the fact that he understands that they need to investigate this gives me some hope. I'm really disappointed that the House has not followed suit at this time. I was pleased to see that Hakeem Jeffries weighed in saying, you know, Pete Hegseth has got to step down. He was, I thought, not competent and not somebody that should have been appointed to this position in the first place. And we certainly see now that he cannot handle the job and has actually, you know, engaged in conduct that would have gotten a junior enlisted person or junior officer really probably kicked out of the military on an other than honorable discharge or a dishonorable discharge and possibly even serving time. So this is not something that is appropriate and certainly not setting an example for the men and women in uniform and also for those of us who care about our troops. Really a huge concern I have is that the person in charge of our military does not seem to have the concern for the safety of our troops or an understanding of operational security or even an understanding of how these missions should be conducted that I would like to see from the Secretary of Defense.

[Rachel Maddow]

No question. Congressman Maggie Sherrill, thank you so much for joining me and really helping explain to viewers what they need to be focused on. Really appreciate it. We'll be right back.

[Jen Psaki]

Well, thanks so much.

[Rachel Maddow]

That is tonight's last word at Designer Shoe Warehouse. We believe that shoes are an important.

[Ned Price]

Part of, well, everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time personal bests, from building pillow.

[Rachel Maddow]

Forts to building a life for all.

[Ned Price]

The big and small moments that make.

[Rachel Maddow]

Make up your whole world.

[Ned Price]

DSW is there and we've got just the shoes.

[Rachel Maddow]

Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices.

[Ned Price]

At your DSW store or dsw.com.