Lawfare Daily: Shane Harris Talks ‘Houthi PC Small Group’

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast: Detailed Summary of "Lawfare Daily: Shane Harris Talks ‘Houthi PC Small Group’"

Episode Information

• Title: Lawfare Daily: Shane Harris Talks ‘Houthi PC Small Group’
• Release Date: March 26, 2025
• Host: The Lawfare Institute (Benjamin Wittes)
• Guest: Shane Harris, National Security Correspondent for The Atlantic

---

1. Introduction to the Houthi PC Small Group

In this episode, Benjamin Wittes engages in an in-depth conversation with Shane Harris regarding the controversial "Houthi PC Small Group," a Signal messaging thread used by high-level U.S. national security officials for coordinating military actions in Yemen against the Houthi forces. This discussion stems from a blockbuster story by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, which exposed the use of an unsecured messaging platform for sensitive military operations.

Key Points:

• Background: The Houthi PC Small Group was created by Michael Waltz, the National Security Advisor, for coordinating military actions in Yemen.
• Purpose: The group included top officials such as the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, CIA Director, DNI, and Treasury Secretary, facilitating real-time discussions on military strategies and strike orders.

2. Security Concerns with Using Signal for Classified Communications

Shane Harris elaborates on the inherent security risks associated with using Signal, a secure messaging application, for transmitting classified or sensitive government information.

Notable Quotes:

• Harris (02:16): "The information that I saw, based in my experience of having seen classified information… this information, in my estimation, would be presumptively classified."
• Wittes (05:10): "Most of us, when we are planning something with a group of people, we set up a Facebook messenger group or a WhatsApp group or an iMessage group… what's wrong with the intelligence and kinetic military leadership of the United States doing exactly that?"

Key Concerns Highlighted:

1. Unauthorized Access: Signal is not officially approved for classified communications, making it vulnerable to unauthorized additions. Harris notes, "it is trivially easy to add the wrong person to your group… which of course is what happened in this case" (06:15).
2. Device Security: Even with end-to-end encryption, the security of the devices themselves is a concern. Compromised devices can lead to leaks, as Harris explains, "the device itself is not secure" (08:02).
3. Portability Issues: Using Signal on mobile devices increases the risk of exposure, especially when devices are taken abroad or used in unsecured environments. Harris states, "everything is less secure when you're in an unsecured environment" (08:15).

3. The Origin of the Story and Harris' Involvement

Shane Harris recounts how he became involved in uncovering the details of the Houthi PC Small Group after Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic was added to the Signal thread. Initially suspecting a hoax, Harris and Wittes collaborated to investigate the authenticity and implications of the messages exchanged within the group.

Notable Quotes:

• Harris (12:18): "Jeff came to me not long after he had been initially contacted by Mike Waltz… what do you make of this?"
• Harris (15:26): "At no point did anyone say, you can't publish this… We did make clear in some instances that we were withholding to the relevant people certain information."

Key Points:

• Initial Skepticism: Both Harris and Goldberg initially doubted the authenticity of the Signal group, considering the possibility of an elaborate hoax.
• Confirmation of Authenticity: As military strikes commenced, the group’s legitimacy became evident, prompting further investigation into the security lapses.
• Journalistic Responsibility: Harris and Goldberg decided to report the story responsibly, withholding certain sensitive details to prevent further security breaches.

4. Administration's Reaction and Denials

Following the publication of the story, high-ranking officials within the U.S. administration, including the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, DNI Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and spokesperson Caroline Levitt, publicly denied the presence of classified information within the Signal thread.

Notable Quotes:

• Harris (17:19): "The information that I saw… this information, in my estimation, would be presumptively classified."
• Harris (19:55): "If I had gathered it by reporting… I would have… go to the relevant agency and say, look, here's what I have."

Key Points:

• Denial of Classified Information: Officials categorically stated that no classified material was shared within the group, contradicting Harris’ assessment.
• Inconsistent Testimonies: While some officials admitted to using Signal, they downplayed its appropriateness for sensitive communications. Harris challenges the veracity of these statements, asserting, "This information clearly maps onto those descriptions [of classified info]" (19:43).
• Implications of Denials: Harris suggests that these denials may be attempts to deflect accountability and avoid scrutiny over the security breach.

5. Potential FBI Involvement and Investigation

The discussion moves towards the likelihood of an FBI investigation into the leak of sensitive national security information and the administration's apparent reluctance to pursue accountability.

Notable Quotes:

• Harris (39:06): "If this were any ordinary situation… the FBI would presume that it would investigate what happened here."
• Harris (41:53): "One possibility might be because they know there's not going to be any accountability for it… they have no expectation that they'll be scrutinized for it."

Key Points:

• Standard Protocols Ignored: Typically, leaks of classified information trigger FBI investigations, but there appears to be a lack of response in this case.
• Administration's Stance: The National Security Council mentioned investigating how a journalist was added to the thread, but did not address the broader implications of the leak.
• Future Implications: Harris anticipates that releasing the thread could provide undeniable evidence of the misuse of Signal for classified communications, potentially leading to legal repercussions for involved officials.

6. Future Reporting and Ethical Considerations

Harris emphasizes the ethical responsibility of journalists to handle sensitive information judiciously and the potential impact of publishing the Signal thread.

Notable Quotes:

• Harris (28:13): "We have a responsibility, an obligation ethically, to be responsible with this information and how we handle it."
• Wittes (35:01): "Either you guys are fraudsters or they're lying… there is an objective answer to this question that is available."

Key Points:

• Ethical Reporting: The importance of balancing the public's right to know with national security concerns is underscored.
• Potential Consequences: Harris warns that publishing the thread could expose classified or sensitive information, risking lives and national security.
• Administrative Accountability: The administration's conflicting statements heighten the stakes, suggesting that further investigation and transparency are necessary.

7. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The episode concludes with an acknowledgment of the unprecedented nature of the situation and the challenges it poses for journalistic integrity and national security.

Notable Quotes:

• Harris (44:35): "There are some real national security equities that these officials ought to be taking more seriously."
• Wittes (44:35): "Jeff referred to this person using female pronouns. So I will do the same. In his Bulwark interview…"

Key Points:

• Unprecedented Leak: Both Wittes and Harris express astonishment at the extent of the leak and the administration's response.
• Ongoing Investigation: The potential for further disclosures and official investigations remains, with implications for national security protocols.
• Future Episodes: The podcast hints at continued coverage and analysis as the situation develops.

---

Notable Insights and Conclusions:

• Security Protocol Lapses: The use of unsecured messaging platforms like Signal for classified communications represents a significant security vulnerability.
• Administrative Accountability: The administration's inconsistent and dismissive responses may hinder accountability and necessary reforms.
• Journalistic Responsibility: Reporters like Harris and Wittes navigate the delicate balance between exposing wrongdoing and safeguarding national security interests.
• Implications for National Security: Such breaches undermine trust in communication protocols and could have tangible consequences for military operations and international relations.

This episode of The Lawfare Podcast provides a comprehensive examination of the Houthi PC Small Group incident, highlighting critical security lapses, administrative responses, and the ethical challenges faced by journalists in reporting on sensitive national security issues.

Transcript

[Benjamin Wittes]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com lawfair also check out lawfare's other podcast offerings, rational security chatter, lawfare, no bull and the aftermath.

[Shane Harris]

G'day America. It's Tony and Ryan from the Tony and Ryan Podcast from Down Under. This episode is sponsored by Boost Mobile, the newest 5G network in the country. These guys are no longer the prepaid wireless company you might remember. They've invested billions into building their own 5G towers across America, transforming the carrier into America's 4 4th major network alongside the other big dogs. Yep, they're challenging the competitors by working harder and smarter, like this amazing new network they've literally built. They have blazing fast 5G and plans for all the latest devices. Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store or.

[Tony]

Find them [e-mail] BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Shane Harris]

It is trivially easy to add the wrong person to your group or someone who's not supposed to be in the group, which of course is what happened in this case. So there are a number of reasons why Signal is not approved for war planning, kinetic operations. This is merely one of them. But in this case it was a.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Pretty big it's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Benjamin Wittes here with Shane Harris of the Atlantic.

[Shane Harris]

The information that I saw, based in my experience of having seen classified information, including information that is overtly marked as classified, this information, in my estimation, would be presumptively classified.

[Benjamin Wittes]

We're talking Houthi PC Small group today. Yes, it's the Atlantic's blockbuster story from yesterday by Jeffrey Goldberg. Shane is not on the byline, but he was a key figure behind the story and we're talking about it and the senior intelligence officials testimony about it today. All right, so Shane, you and I have both been in this business a long time and you put out on Blue sky the other day that in 25 years of national security reporting, you've never seen anything like this. I got to say I've been at it a little longer than you have and I've never seen anything like this. So just to get us up to speed, what is Houthi PC Small Group?

[Shane Harris]

I mean, isn't that the name of all of our text chains?

[Benjamin Wittes]

Now I'm thinking of naming a puppy PC Small Group, but what is it?

[Shane Harris]

What is it? So Houthi PC Small Group is a signal group thread or chain that was created by the National Security Advisor to the President, Michael Waltz, for the purpose, as he put it, of coordinating with other principals. PC stands for Principals Committee regarding military actions in Yemen against the Houthis, which did occur on March 15. The principles committee would normally include National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the CIA Director, the dni, maybe the Treasury Secretary. All those people and others were included in this chain. Principals Committees usually get together to discuss things like military action. And that is what happened in this signal group. In the days leading up to the strike in Yemen. They were discussing the relative wisdom of taking the strike, the policy pros and cons. And then when the strike itself occurred, there was real time or near real time updates on military action against the Houthis. PC Small Group was essentially the place where these folks could stay in touch. Particularly it seems, considering it was a weekend and presumably people were not at their place of work, the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, etc.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so most of us, when we are planning something with a group of people, we set up a, you know, a Facebook messenger group or a WhatsApp group or an imessage group, and if we want to be secure, we use a signal group. So what's wrong with the intelligence and kinetic military leadership of the United States doing exactly that? You got your, you're planning your strike on Yemen, you get the people who are involved in the planning. You get and you do, you put together a signal group, which is the secure message app, right?

[Shane Harris]

So the problem with it is, and you're quite right to say signal is it's pretty secure, that provides good end to end encryption. The problem with it is, number one, signal is not approved for the transmission of classified government information. That is not to say that U.S. officials don't use signal, they do. But based on my reporting and based on even some comments that the CIA director made today in testimony, it's not a place where you would conduct classified information about military operations. Now, there appears to be some gray area that the CIA director and the DNI were testing this morning when they were trying to portray this as totally normal. But people I've spoken to in the past several days have said you would never and should never put sensitive or classified or kinetic information into Signal. It's simply not approved for that. And the government has other kinds of communications devices and networks that are approved for that. And we could talk about the reasons why Signal is not a smart way to do it, but in this case the most obvious one should be that because as anyone who's used Signal or any other kind of messaging app knows, it is trivially easy to add the wrong person to your group or someone who's not supposed to be in the group, which of course is what happened in this case. So there are a number of reasons why Signal is not approved for war planning, kinetic operations. This is merely one of them. But in this case it was a pretty big one.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so there's three big reasons, right? One is you can accidentally include Jeff Goldberg if you're the national security advisor. That's number one, it's not hermetically sealed from the non classified world. So anybody in your who's on Signal, you know, if you know how to reach out to them and get them, you can add them in. The second is because the device itself is not secure.

[Shane Harris]

That's right.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And people think, okay, the Signal Signal app is very secure, but if it's running on a compromised machine, it's only as secure as the machine is.

[Shane Harris]

That's right.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And then the third is it's portable. You can say take it to Russia as one member of this group did, or take it abroad like the DNI did, and everything is less secure when you're in an unsecured environment. Is that the basic gist of it?

[Shane Harris]

Yeah, that's right. And you know, I guess to just kind of, to amplify maybe points two and three, because I think we all understand how point one is sort of at the center of this store, they added the wrong person, namely my boss. To point two, we know that the electronic devices, I think we would presume that the personal or work mobile devices of the senior leadership of the United States government are primary or certainly high level targets for foreign intelligence services. We know from recent breaches like the Salt typhoon event, where it appears that Chinese actors deeply penetrated the telecommunications system, that our hardware itself is not maybe as secure as we thought it was. We know there are such things, and I know this because I've reported on it as malware exploits that can be loaded onto a phone, sometimes without even the person having to take any action, so called zero click or no click zero days. And that all of these people's devices in this chain should be considered to be primary targets for intelligence agencies. So if there is somebody sitting on the phone at the MSS in Beijing, reading all the text messages that are coming in and out on signal, the encryption does you no good. In the same way, and this goes to point number three, that if you lost the phone, if you dropped it at the grocery store, right, if somebody was on the train looking over your shoulder and could see the messages that you're typing, then you have no protection there either. And it's worth just kind of noting that these kinds of conversations usually occur inside skiffs, right? Sensitive facilities for discussing sensitive information.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And just for those of you who've never been in a sciff, a SCIF is a sealed environment that has both protections against transmissions out. So if you have a radio and a phone is a radio, it will not transmit outside of the scif. The walls will physically block it. But it also has all kinds of protections directed inward to notice things like cell phones. So if you bring a phone into the CIA, there are these guys walking around who are going to figure out that you've got a cell phone.

[Shane Harris]

Totally. So, and what that strongly suggests in the case of the Houthi PC small group is that at least some, if not most, or maybe all of the people who were communicating were doing so outside of a scif. I mean, unless somebody was on, conceivably, a physical computer that was allowed to be inside a SCIF that had signal running on it. But I think that our presumption is that all these people were essentially mobile when they were talking, which, again, just only increases the potential that the messages themselves could be compromised, the phones could be lost, stolen, et cetera.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so let's talk about your role in this weird story. I'm going to assume that people have a basic understanding. Jeff Goldberg gets added to this signal group by the National Security Advisor, apparently thinks it's a fake, turns out not to be a fake, and he gets, according to him, the advance war plans in targeting information and some intelligence data involving the Houthi strike in Yemen, both hours before it takes place and then minutes before it takes place. So how did you get involved?

[Shane Harris]

So I got involved because. So Jeff came to me not long after he had been initially contacted by Mike Waltz. And I'm putting that in air quotes because at the time, he's not sure that it is the Michael Waltz, the National Security Advisor, and gets added to this group and says to me, because I cover national security and intelligence for the Atlantic, what do you make of this? And My initial reaction was, this seems like it could be a hoax.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Which was his reaction as well. Right.

[Shane Harris]

It was his reaction, too. And I'll say we both thought to ourselves, this sure would be an elaborate hoax, because there are multiple entities, individuals, people, apparently in this room. They're identifying themselves for the most part by name, and they're also nominating people to be their point of contact. And those names are people who we've heard of. They're not household names, but they're staff. And so I'm thinking, well, this is really an elaborate hoax if it is a hoax. At the same time, I kind of am leaning towards hoax at this point, because I'm thinking, why would all of these people think that this was a good idea? Because, remember, when he's added to the group, it's not necessarily clear that they're about to attack Yemen. But you can tell from the conversation the name of the group and the statements that they're saying when Michael Walls is sort of table setting things, that there appears to be a military operation that's being considered. And then as the conversation continues, that becomes even more clear. So I was basically brought in by Jeff to say, you know, what do you make of this? And then over the weekend, as it became clearer that this seemed authentic, and then I think we all kind of really believed it was authentic on Saturday afternoon, Washington time, when the bombs started falling on the Houthi targets in Yemen. And Jeff had been apprised of that, that that was coming two hours before it actually occurred, because Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, had shared these highly specific operational details about the strike that was coming. So at that point, not long after that, Jeff removed himself from the group and then began our reporting exercise, our meaning, mine and his, and then some of our other colleagues, but primarily Jeff and I reporting out, okay, what happened here? How may this have occurred? Is this normal, and we've just never heard of it, that people plan these kinds of things in signal? What are the legal implications that anyone break the law? What are the security implications? Who else could have been added without. Are we sure everyone in here is who they said they were? All of these questions that we wanted to answer, and then also trying to determine what information we felt was so sensitive that it didn't either need to be published or perhaps shouldn't be published? And I was a part of making, you know, those decisions as well, and working with Jeff on that.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right. And full disclosure along the way in your reporting. You called me. I'm one of the Legal people that you refer to as a group in the. In the thing. Although, honestly, nothing about our conversation quite prepared me for the story, which is way worse than the hypothetical that you gave me. All right, I want to skip ahead to the reaction by the administration to this story, which I'm going to summarize briefly and then ask you a few questions about. So Pete Hegseth said, I believe last night or early this morning that Jeff Goldberg was a deceitful hoaxer and that there were no war plans shared. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today, the dni, Tulsi Gabbard, and the CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, who were both part of the thread, seemed to deny that there was any classified information shared, although then they later kind of had and said, well, there were no intelligence equities shared. We can't speak for the Defense Department, but they seem to also deny categorically that there were. There was classified material shared. And then the White House, in the person of Caroline Levitt, said there was no classified information on the thread. So my first question is, you've seen the thread. Are they lying?

[Shane Harris]

The information that I saw, based in my experience of having seen classified information, including information that is overtly marked as classified, this information, in my estimation, would be presumptively classified. You can look at the definitions for what constitutes, for instance, secret or top secret information in DoD regulation. Right. Which is publicly available. And this information, I think, clearly maps onto those descriptions. When the CIA director and the DNI were asked specifically by one of the Democratic senators, I can't remember which, did you see anything? I believe he asked them about weapons packages. Just say the kinds of weapons were going to be used here. Their answer was very interesting. I think Dr. Latcliffe said something like, not that I'm aware of, or not that I recall, but they weren't saying, no, right. Now, that's interesting, because there are passages in the text from Pete Hegseth that precisely describe that kind of information. So maybe they don't really remember, or maybe they thought it was perhaps more accurate for them to say, I can't recall, but it was in the texts and they were in the texts. They would have had to have looked over and not seen that part of the chain. Possible, I suppose. But to say it's not classified raises up another question. Who made that determination according to whom, is it not classified? Because I think any reasonable person would assume, hey, we're bombing the Houthis in this location at this time with these airplanes. You're getting these individuals referring Back to conversations that you've had with the President of the United States about taking lethal military action, referring to plans for how you're going to attempt to send the bill to the Europeans. Internal policy deliberations, including officials up to the rank of vice president, who is coming in and giving his view on what they should do. If that's not classified, I'm not sure what classified means.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Right. But I assume it's not marked classified. It's not marked classified arguments. It's a text.

[Shane Harris]

It's text. It's conversation. Right. And you know, I have. I mean, Ben, you've been doing this a long time too. Have we ever heard of a principles committee meeting that was considered unclassified?

[Benjamin Wittes]

I've never heard of a operational meeting involving military action that is not classified at, you know, at least the secret level. Totally level.

[Shane Harris]

I mean, this is information that if I had gathered it by reporting, let's say, talking to sources who said, you know, there's about to be a strike in Yemen, or somebody had passed me a document, I mean, I would have, as I always do, with information that I consider sensitive and potentially classified, go to the relevant agency and say, look, here's what I have, and I would.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Try to talk you out of it.

[Shane Harris]

And they would absolutely have tried to talk us out of it. In this instance, I have zero doubt about that.

[Ryan]

Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the United States with thousands of different plants and more than 2 million happy customers. They have all the plants your yard needs, like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered. Find the perfect fit for your climate and space. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard. Order online and get plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. Their alive and thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus get support from trained plant experts on call to help you plan your garden. I've been redoing my cabin in the woods recently and gutting a house is pretty expensive. Instead of paying thousands more for expensive landscaping, I have a honey crisp apple tree. Coming from fast growing trees to plant, I couldn't be more excited about the shade and frankly, the apples and the.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Cost savings is really hard to beat.

[Ryan]

You don't have to drive around to nurseries and big garden centers and choose plants from a limited assortment. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to order online and your plants are delivered to your door in just a few days. Whether you're looking to add privacy, shade or natural beauty or apples to your yard. Fast Growing Trees has in house experts ready to help you make the right selection. With plant experts on call to offer growing and care advice, you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required. This spring they have the best deals for your yard, up to half off on selected plants and other deals. And listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code Lawfare at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fast growingtrees.com using the code lawfare at checkout fast growing trees.com code lawfair now's the perfect time to plant. Use Lawfare to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.

[Tony]

They say opposites attract. That's why the Sleep Number Smart bed is the best bed for couples. You can each choose what's right for you whenever you like. You like a bed that feels firm but they want soft. Sleep Number does that. You want to sleep cooler while they like to feel warm. Sleep Number does that too. Why choose a Sleep Number Smart bed so you can choose your ideal comfort on either side. Sleep Number Smart beds start at $999. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusively at a Sleep Number store near you. See store or sleepnumber.com for details. What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95, including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com Bombas makes the most comfortable socks, underwear and T shirts. Bombas are so absurdly comfortable you may throw out all your other clothes. Sorry, do we legally have to say that? No, this is just how I talk. And I really love my Bombas. They do feel that good. And they do good too. One item purchased equals one item donated. To feel good and do good, go to bombas.comacast and use code acast for 20 off your first purchase. That's B O M bas.comacast and use code ACAST at checkout.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Okay, so let me ask you you went to them or Jeff went to them yesterday and said we're going to publish this stuff. Did they try to talk you out of it?

[Shane Harris]

No, they did not. We went to all of the, you know, the relevant people who were the ones really engaged in the full conversation. And fairly quickly after, we went to the spokesperson for the national security advisor, he gave us an on the record statement saying, this appears to be an authentic conversation. So a few other things, too, about the operation and the security of it. That is the same statement that they gave to other journalists throughout the day who then follow up with their own reporting. At no point did anyone say, you can't publish this. You can't write about it. You can't include screenshots of texts, which we did. We did make clear in some instances that we were withholding to the relevant people certain information. And we spell that out in the story when we say what we're withholding. So if we felt something was too sensitive because it could be classified or it's operationally sensitive, we told the reader that. And in those cases, that was information that, honestly, the reader doesn't need to know to understand what's happening here and why it's significant. Right. It's just a level of detail you don't have to go into. And I think that is a perfectly. Not only is that a defensible position for journalists to take, it's one we routinely take.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Right. And I think it's. It's a perfectly reasonable thing for you and Jeff to have said we're treating this material as sensitive because it obviously is. Yeah. And we're not giving out more of it than we need to to tell our story. But. Okay, so there's an intervening event since you published the story, which is that the DNI and the CIA director are both under oath and both say there's no classified material in here. And then maybe they hedge, but maybe they don't, depending on how you read it. And the Defense Department, in the person of the Secretary, says there's no discussion of war plans, which is a flat contradiction of the story. And the President, through his spokesman, says there's no classified information. So I have never seen a situation before in which the entire intelligence apparatus says, nothing to see here. It's not sensitive. It's fine for us to be discussing it with a journalist, even if by accident, and the journalist takes the position, whoa, we got some sensitive material here. There are some real national security equities that these before buffoons over here ought to be taking more seriously. And so my, my read is you guys have the administration's permission at this point to publish the entire set of text exchanges, or at least their clear statement that there's nothing classified in them and no war plans. So what are you going to do? Are you going to make them public?

[Shane Harris]

Well, I'm not going to get ahead of the reporting then. I do think I share, you know, your sort of bewilderment.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Maybe I have never seen this situation.

[Shane Harris]

No, I haven't either. Where essentially, you know, it appears to me that what the administration is trying to do, particularly Secretary Hegseth in disparaging my colleague, is trying to make it look like we are portraying this as something more serious than it is, that we're out there saying, oh, it's classified, it's really sensitive. We have to withhold it from you. And they appear to be saying, oh, that's not true at all. Now, of course, they're, I believe, saying that because they want to absolve themselves of any, you know, accusations that they behaved inappropriately or potentially any, you know, legal vulnerabilities. I mean, you know, if this was. And if this is actually national defense information, then there are Espionage act implications of it. Now, I'm not saying I think that anyone's going to get prosecuted under the Espionage act, and certainly not in this administration. I'm not going to prosecute any of their colleagues. But it is notable that they've come out and said this as a way to try and I think deflect from the actual use of the app in the first place. And Director Ratcliffe really went out of his way this morning in testimony and fairly heated exchange with Senator Warner, the Vice Chair of the Senate Intel Committee, to talk about. No, no, no. Signal's fine. I mean, we're allowed to use it at senior levels. I had it installed on my computer, he said, after he became CIA director. Which side note do you mean? It's on your actual computer in your office at Langley. And if that's the case, do you also have Signal running on a phone? Because anyone who uses Signal generally knows that you need to not have it running in two places at once. Not a great best practice. Really dangerous, actually. So it just created all these questions. But the upshot of it was that Director Ratcliffe, it seemed to me, was trying to say, this is not an issue. We do this, we're allowed. There was nothing too sensitive on here. There was nothing classified. Director Gabbard was a little more measured and at first didn't even admit that she was in the room, which was very odd to me because Director Ratcliffe was happy to admit he was in the room. I mean, they're sitting right next to each other at the table. It was a very strange optic, I must say, but it is just a very weird position right where they're now saying this. And look, I think that we continue to have a responsibility, an obligation ethically, to be responsible with this information and how we handle it. And I think we are looking very closely at what these officials had to say today and. And moving forward with our reporting, Jeff.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Was on the Bulwark podcast this morning and made clear that you guys were thinking about what to do next. But he also said, and I think this is a quote, when, you know, when asked, hey, they say there's nothing classified, nothing sensitive here. He said, you know, they're wrong. And I'm curious. I totally understand the sensitivity of you're all seeing this before the operation happened, but how much of that sensitivity survives the operation itself? Now, the bombs have landed. They've taken out whatever targets they're taken out. Obviously, the airmen aren't in. In hostile airspace now. So what is the residual sensitivity, realistically, of some of this. Of the most sensitive of this material?

[Shane Harris]

I think if you were sort of going on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most sensitive and 1 being the least, when the information about the raid that was about to occur was coming across in the signal group, I would consider that, like, a level 10 sensitivity. You know, an unscrupulous person could have taken that information and tweeted it, you know, while planes were in the air, and the Houthis could have taken more defensive measures. I mean, you absolutely, conceivably are risking people's lives if you push that information out. As soon as the operation's over, I think the sensitivity of that information drops considerably. You know, is it a 6? Is it a 5? It's kind of somewhere in the neighborhood, because the operation's over. And in point of fact, I would note that the National Security Advisor spokesperson, Ryan Hughes, talked about, like, the fact that, like, no one has. We haven't lost any people. I forget the exact words that he said. In fact, let me pull it up, because I think this bears on the subject. He said the threat is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. And this is the part the ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security. So he is himself, I mean, it seems to me kind of aware of that possibility and is addressing it, although maybe from a bit of a different angle. So, yeah, I think the sensitivity has dropped. Look, there is a name in that thread that the director of the CIA shared that refers to an active intelligence officer. He said today in his testimony that this person's not undercover and actually kind of took a jab at us for implying that he had done something wrong by sharing it. I will just say that based on my reporting experience, specifically on this question, that is not a name that CIA officials want known publicly. And the Director is now trying to make it sound like it's really not a big problem. I suppose it's not a problem if you're only sharing that in a room with other people in the national security circle. If you said that room out loud in the Situation Room, it's not a problem. If you're in a government, it's not a problem. When you're in a room where there's a journalist outside, it's potentially a problem. It's not good practice.

[Benjamin Wittes]

If you went to. So Jeff referred to this person using female pronouns. So I will do the same. In his Bulwark interview. If you referred to this person by name in an Atlantic article and called the CIA press office and said, hey, we're going to name her, you have a problem with that? They wouldn't say, no, no problem. I mean, they would.

[Shane Harris]

Not today. But they would ask you not. They would ask us not to publish that name.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And would they take the position that the name is classified or just that it's a protected. I mean, there's a specific statute, the Intelligence Agents or Officers Identification act, that protects this stuff. Right?

[Shane Harris]

I mean, I think they would take the position. I don't know whether they would say it's quote, unquote classified. I think they would take the position that it's sensitive and we don't want the identity known. And there are real practical reasons for this too, by the way. I mean, and I'm not saying they apply directly in every way to this individual, but generally speaking, the intelligence community likes to keep these identities out of the public eye so that these people can be more effective clandestine operatives. I think it's also just worth noting as we're having this discussion, when people say classified, they often mean sensitive. It's kind of a word that gets used as a catch all, but it has a legal meaning, as does national defense information, which is actually what's in the Espionage Act.

[Benjamin Wittes]

They're different meanings from one another.

[Shane Harris]

And they're different meanings. What I'm saying and what we're saying is that this information that was in These threads. It's unquestionably sensitive. There is just. There is just. No, it's operationally sensitive. It's talking about kinetic military operations. And it seems to me that when people get into this discussion, as they were today in testimony, while it wasn't classified, like, you're really getting into a very Jesuitical kind of argument that is. Is really veering from the point here.

[Benjamin Wittes]

No, actually, I want to insist on this, that first of all, the category of sensitive stuff is much broader than the category of classified stuff. There's even. There's stuff that's even designated sensitive but unclassified. Right. Which broadly speaking, means stuff that's not classified. But we don't want to get out there. But, you know, the prototypical. There's kind of two prototypes of highly classified information, defined as information that the original classifying authority believes would, if released, do damage at one level or another to the. To the foreign policy or interests of the United States States. One is intelligence sources and methods. Right. That maybe doesn't apply here. The other one is active military operations. Right. And plans projected targets. Right. These are. This is the definition of classified material. And for. For senior intelligence officers to be sitting up there in front of the committee and pretending that there's some doubt about this, much less that it's obvious that there was not. I mean, it strikes me as completely shocking. And the senator who really brought this out was John Ossoff, who really grilled Mr. Ratcliffe about this. You know, are you talking. You're talking about, you know, the payloads of. Of delivery of. Of munitions before an operation. Right? That's like. This is the textbook definition of classified stuff in the defense sector. All right, so let's talk about Kash Patel, who once again, got away without, like, a lot of pressure. But he was asked, are you investigating this? And he said, I don't know, basically because.

[Shane Harris]

Yeah, no updates. I just got briefed.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah, just got briefed last night. How do you understand the FBI's posture in this right now?

[Shane Harris]

If this were any ordinary situation or any ordinary administration, I would imagine that the FBI would presume that it would investigate what happened here. There has been a spillage of national security information. Ndi. Classified information, sensitive information, however you want to characterize it. There's been a spillage, and one of the jobs, the FBI, I presume, would be to say, let's look at the information and find out what it actually was and how it was classified. That's just. I mean, like, we wrote this in the story. This is A very strange leak, but it's a leak. I mean, they released information to a journalist. They didn't know they were doing it, but they did do it. And that is historically something the FBI investigates. If you know the relevant agencies whose information was exposed, makes what's called a crimes report to over to the bureau to say, hey, look into it. I mean, I suppose if none of these agencies make a crimes report, maybe there's an expectation the FBI doesn't investigate it. I will say the NSC has said, the ys too, that they're looking into what happened here, looking into how a journalist was added to the thread. Now, mind you, they're not saying we're looking, not looking into why there was a threat in the first place, but, like why a journalist was added to it, which I kind of read from this and I read from Director Ratcliffe's comments that they're not admitting that there was anything inappropriate about using the signal thread for this event, which in and of itself is astounding. Astounding, if that is true, that they are affirmatively saying there's nothing wrong with this, especially because.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And I, you know, I want to pull back the curtain a little bit. They know that you guys have the actual thread, and they know that you can release it any time. And they know if and when that happens, or if and when, short of that, you release it to the Intelligence Committee, they will have to answer for what's in the thread. And the questions that we're talking about here have objective answers. And you've been gracious about how you've said this, so I'm going to be blunt. Either you guys are fraudsters or they're lying. And there's an objective answer to this question that is available. And if it doesn't become public, it will certainly become available to the Senate Intelligence Committee. And so I'm not sure I quite understand why there is no remote, even.

[Shane Harris]

Tactical retreat here by the administration.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah, I.

[Shane Harris]

One possibility might be because they know there's not going to be any accountability for it, that they have no expectation that the FBI will investigate this. They have no expectation that they'll be scrutinized for it. Again, to hear Director Ratcliffe say it, I mean, he really was, I mean, making it sound like, no, no, no, this is just totally. This is totally fine. Like, this is okay to do this.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Right. But that's the kind of thing you can only say before the information's out. Right? Well, imagine that tomorrow you guys publish the thread or turn it over to the bipartisan leadership of the committees or whatever. And it turns out that what's in the thread is what you guys say it is, which they're denying. And it is, in fact war plans. And it is in fact material that is either classified or should be classified at the highest of levels. I don't know that the. Oh, there's they're just hoaxers over there at the Atlantic is going to survive that moment, do you?

[Shane Harris]

I don't think it would survive. No, I certainly don't think it would survive because the messages are going to show it's precisely what we said it is. And it's going to show that Secretary Hegseth is not being accurate when he denies that there was war plans. And let's not get into like war plans and air quotes. Oh, it's a battle plan. It's attack plan. This is like common sense will prevail when people see this stuff, if they see this stuff. But again, I think that the posture of the administration so far in the past, you know, 24 hours or so that this story has been out there has been to say there's nothing inappropriate about this. There's nothing here. Although they're acknowledging they made mistakes, which is interesting. Like the president said, Mike Waltz is a good man who made a mistake. CIA director is making it sound like no mistake, but essentially they are not conceding at all that there was anything really inappropriate about here that demands accountability, resignation, firing, investigation, criminal indictment. And they're turning it back on the press. They're turning it back on the reporters. And that doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Benjamin Wittes]

We're going to leave it there. But Shane, I got one more question. You say you don't want to get ahead of the reporting. What's left to report on this story?

[Shane Harris]

I don't want to get ahead of the process. Let's say that.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right. Shane Harris. Not on the byline, but a key figure behind the Houthi PC Small group, which has got to be the name of somebody's next album.

[Shane Harris]

Totally.

[Benjamin Wittes]

We will see you soon. Thanks for joining us.

[Shane Harris]

Thanks, Ben.

[Ryan]

The Lawfare Podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter through our website, lawfairmedia.org/support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. And look out for our other podcast offerings, including Rational Security Allies and Escalation our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series on the war in Ukraine. Check out our written [e-mail] the podcast is edited by Jen Patia and your audio engineer. This episode was me. I Did it Myself. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.

[Tony]

This tax season at Boost Mobile when you.

[Shane Harris]

Buy six months on our Best Unlimited plans, we will give you the next six months for free plus enter to win up to $10,000 and double your tax refund. Your refund your rules requires upfront payment, taxes and fees. Extra terms and exclusions apply. Visit boost mobile.com for full offer terms and sweeps details.