VIDEO: Heinrich Demands Answers from Trump Administration Intelligence Officials on Dangerous and Illegal Handling of Highly Sensitive National Security Information on Signal Group Chat, Emphasizes Stark Contradiction of Trump Position on Canada as Major Driver of Fentanyl Crisis in U.S. Crisis in U.S.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe refuses to answer Heinrich’s question on who determined the classification of highly sensitive war plans in Yemen, and denies Signal chat containing information on weapons packages, targets, or timing — directly contradicting reporting from the Atlantic
WASHINGTON - During a U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on national security threats to the United States, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) demanded answers from senior Trump Administration intelligence officials, including Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on the reckless, dangerous, and illegal handling of highly sensitive war plans in Yemen, risking the lives of American troops.
Heinrich also questioned Gabbard on the Intelligence Community’s Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) omission of Canada as a source of illicit fentanyl, despite the Trump Administration characterizing its role in the United State’s fentanyl crisis as “massive,” and an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
On reckless, dangerous, and illegal handling of highly sensitive information about war plans in Signal group chat:
Heinrich began his questioning, “Director Ratcliffe, I want to start with you. Who determined that the content of this discussion on Signal was not classified?”
Director Ratcliffe responded to the Senator, dodging his question, “I guess I’m not, well... for example, I can speak to my personal knowledge that there was no classified agent— ...”
Heinrich doubled down on Ratcliffe’s non-answer, asking whether it was only Ratcliffe who personally declassified the highly sensitive information “There was an agent mentioned as part of this story. Normally that would be classified information. So, I guess what I'm asking actually, did you just determine it was not classified, or was there any declassification after the fact?”
Director Ratcliffe responded, once again dodging Heinrich’s question regarding the declassification of highly sensitive information on war plans in Yemen, “So to be clear, so everyone understands the process, as we talked about, Signal is a permissible use.”
Heinrich said, “I understand that.”
Director Ratcliffe “I understand the CIA has been approved by the White House for senior officials and recommended by high level officials who would be targeted by foreign adversaries to use an end-to-end encrypted apps whenever possible, like Signal. In this case, what the National Security Adviser did was to request through a Signal message that there be coordination...”
Heinrich pressed Director Ratcliffe on whether it occurred to him to move the conversation to the “high side,” which is the secure, classified network where sensitive information is handled, “Did it occur to you, that given the sensitive nature of this discussion, it could just move to the high side?”
Director Ratcliffe responded to Heinrich, once again deflecting his question, “... So, I think [this] clearly reflects [how] the National Security Advisor intended this to be, as it should have been, a mechanism for coordinating between senior level officials, but not a substitute for using high side or classified communications for anything that would be classified. And I think that that is exactly what did happen.”
On whether the Signal chat on war plans in Yemen contained information on weapons packages, targets, or timing:
Heinrich shifted the conversation to whether the Signal chat between top intelligence officials contained information that could endanger the lives of American troops, as the Atlantic reported, “So I’m curious, did this conversation at some point include information on weapons packages, targets, or timing?”
Director Ratcliffe answered Heinrich by denying the existence of this information in the Signal chat, in direct opposition to reporting by the Atlantic, “No that I’m aware of.”
Heinrich then asked the National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard, the same question.
Director Gabbard responded, deferring the question to the Department of Defense, “Same answer, and defer to the Department of Defense on that question.”
Heinrich followed up with Gabbard, doubling down on his question on whether the correspondence contained information on weapons packages, targets, or timing, “Well those are two different answers, but you’re saying that that was not part of the conversation?”
Gabbard responded, “To my knowledge.”
On Trump Administration omitting Canada in Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) on fentanyl crisis in the United States, despite President Donald Trump labeling Canada as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” in driving illicit fentanyl:
Heinrich questioned Director Gabbard, “I wanted to ask you something on a very different track here. I very much agree with the conclusion of the ATA that foreign illicit drug actors are a major threat in the United States, and many of you have spoken to this today. Is the Intelligence Community wrong in its omission of Canada as a source of illicit fentanyl in the ATA? I was surprised, given some of the [Trump Administration] rhetoric that there is no mention of Canada in the ATA.”
Director Gabbard responded to Heinrich, “Senator, the focus in my opening and the ATA was really to focus on the most extreme threats in that area. And our assessment is that the most extreme threat related to fentanyl, continues to come from and through Mexico.”
Heinrich emphasized the stark contradiction from the Administration on Canada’s role in the United States’ fentanyl crisis, which Trump used as justification for putting tariffs on Canada, “So the President has stated that the fentanyl coming through Canada is massive, and actually said it was “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” and that was the language that was used to justify putting tariffs on Canada. I'm just trying to reconcile those two issues. Is it an unusual and extraordinary threat? Or is it a minor threat that doesn't even merit mention in the Annual Threat Assessment?”
Director Gabbard deflected the Senator’s question, “Senator, I don’t have the numbers related to Canada in front of me at this time, I’d like to get back to you on the specifics of that answer.”
Heinrich remarked, “It’s less than 1% of fentanyl that we are able to interdict, but if you have different information, I would very much welcome that.”