Fallout from Leaked Signal Chat Intensifies
57:42 Share

Thank you.

Treat yourself. Learn more about SFO restaurants and shops at flysfo.com. With reliable connectivity, enhanced cybersecurity, and advanced fiber solutions, Comcast Business is powering the engine of modern business. Switch today and ask how to get a $500 prepaid card on a qualifying gig speed package. Offer ends 4-21-25. New customers only with a two-year agreement. Other restrictions apply. From KQED.

From KQED in San Francisco, I'm Mina Kim. Coming up on Forum, more Republican senators are calling for investigations and Democrats are intensifying calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he posted U.S. attack plans in an unsecured text chat that had accidentally included a journalist among its members.

This hour, we look at the growing fallout from the Signal scandal, its implications for national security, and we get a better understanding of the U.S.'s military campaign against Houthi rebels. Listeners, what do you want to better understand about how and why the Signal leak happened? Join us.

Welcome to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're taking a closer look this hour at the impact of what national security experts are calling shocking negligence, among other things. They're referring to the sharing of U.S. military attack plans, their timing and weapons, in an unsecured group text chat and the inadvertent addition of a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.

Yesterday, Goldberg shared nearly the full text exchange he saw after the Trump administration downplayed the blunder and claimed no war plans or classified information were included. Joining me to better understand the national security implications and other impacts of what happened, our New York Times national security correspondent, Eric Schmidt. Welcome, Eric. Thank you.

Thank you very much for having me. Glad to have you. And Garrett Graff is with us, a journalist and historian whose column Doomsday Scenario covers national security and geopolitics as well. Garrett, glad to have you on as well. Always a pleasure to be with you. So Eric, I have to ask, as a longtime national security reporter with a particular focus on military affairs, what went through your mind when you read Jeffrey Goldberg's two reports?

Well, I was kind of like Jeffrey in that it took me a while to believe this actually happened. It was kind of a reporter's dream to have something like this drop into his lap, and I think he handled it very well. But it was obviously quite shocking to have this kind of detailed discussion about attack planning being held among some of the most senior national security aides for President Trump over a commercial unsecured app. And in particular...

What was striking was after Goldberg released additional text yesterday, kind of the full text, was this very detailed account, the timing from Secretary Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, on the timing of strikes, the actual weapons systems that were to be used, F-18 fighter jets, etc.

MQ-9 drones, cruise missiles, and all of this is quite shocking because it's some of the most sensitive military information available that you can basically have any kind of detailed information ahead of a strike that could have fallen into enemy hands, in this case the Houthi hands, that they could have used against the American pilots who eventually conducted these attacks. Successfully, thankfully,

In the end, this didn't turn out in a bad way for the American mission, but it could have. And that was certainly one of the most shocking things. The other thing, Garrett, that's shocking is that there is a normal sort of secure channel that should be used for this kind of communication, right? Yes.

Absolutely. Part of what is, I think, so shocking to people who cover or work in this world is that this is a team of people who have a team of people follow them around everywhere that they go with secure communications to allow them to engage in classified conversations effectively anywhere they are, anywhere in the world.

And these are people who have secure facilities set up in their own homes, people who travel on military aircraft, people who have temporary secure facilities set up in the hotel rooms when they travel domestically or internationally. And so there's plenty of opportunity for them to have these types of conversations

And what makes the fact that this is unfolding on Signal so troubling is not just the fact that they're using a commercial messaging app, but also that all of those normal secure systems are vulnerable.

part of the government's networks that would preserve conversations like this as part of the Federal Records Act, which legally requires the preservation of conversations just like the one that they were having on Signal.

Whereas we see in the full release of the chats that Jeffrey Goldberg and the Atlantic released yesterday is that national security advisor, Mike Walls actually changed the default settings on signal to

to have these messages disappear after a four-week time span, which appears to be a way to attempt to evade the legal preservation requirements of federal records like this. So potentially a violation of the Public Records Act. What other laws, Garrett, could have been broken here? Well, I think part of the reason that this has been so shocking is that it is

several different scandals wrapped into one. And I think it's worth spending a minute just unpacking that because I think it's,

This is something that sort of feels inherently scandalous, but there are, in fact, different ways in which it is scandalous. One is, and Eric was just talking about this, the leak of incredibly sensitive information. The idea of the leak of operational plans of an unfolding military operation is one of the most

basic levels of classified information that exists in the federal government. Separately is this scandal around what appears to be an attempt by Trump officials to evade the Federal Records Act. There's a third scandal, which I was just talking about, which is the fact that this is taking place

on Signal, which raises questions about how these conversations are taking place on these officials, perhaps personal phones, or whether they're taking place on using a commercial application that's been installed

against normal government practice on government devices. And so this is, you know, a bunch of different problems all wrapped into one. Eric, I understand that signal is used for communication among government officials, right?

Well, yes, it has been, but for very routine things like setting up a meeting, going over some very elemental details of scheduling, things like that. But in no case do we anticipate that senior officials like this, as Garrett has said, who have very secure government communications at their disposal, start talking about these kind of highly sensitive operational plans for an imminent military strike.

So yes, they do have them, and the government's gone back and forth on whether they should be allowed to be used, but many government officials, busy as they are, use them for routine matters, but certainly not for something as sensitive as this. And Eric Garrett was mentioning some laws that could potentially work.

be broken here. Does that mean the Department of Justice would get involved? Would they typically get involved into something like this? And are you seeing any indications from Attorney General Pam Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel that they would?

Well, in fact, the Attorney General, Pam Bonney, just earlier today announced that this was not classified information. Therefore, there really doesn't need to be an investigation. It's kind of like move on, nothing to see here. So don't expect to see anything from the, at least from the Justice Department, from the FBI or Department of Justice in terms of investigating. Now, there are perhaps some

some congressional investigations that might unfold. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, along with Jack Reed, who is the senior Democrat, have talked about having some kind of review or inquiry. It's unclear exactly how in-depth that might be, but that may end up being the only

kind of scrutiny, official scrutiny from the government that's placed on this, because every other arm of the government has basically said, you know, maybe they've apologized for this. I think Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it a mistake. But then they have all collectively said, we need to move on from this. What qualifies as classified information, Garrett?

So there are three levels of technically classified information. This is getting pretty deep into the weeds on this. So at a high level, yeah. I would say Eric and I could probably debate.

This at long length with lawyers for an entire afternoon and not quite come to an exact agreement on it but in at the simplest level there are three levels of classified information within the federal government confidential secret and top secret the the attack plans that were shared in this chat by Pete Hegseth are

Would appear to be under the Pentagon's normal classification guidelines classified at least at the top secret Sorry at the secret level The director of national intelligence guidance would actually classify them at at the top secret level in the intelligence community, but the military would classify the medicine the slightly lower secret level and

Where it gets even more complicated than this is the legal –

protections around what we would call classified information actually predate the modern classification system. And so it actually refers to something that's called national defense information. And so the criminal charge and the criminal test would be whether you are grossly negligent

around sharing national defense information with someone who is not supposed to have it. Now, I would argue that adding the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic to your group chat would qualify as grossly negligent. It probably would be slightly more grossly negligent to add Vladimir Putin himself, but by

By that point, you're just talking about a matter of degrees. But as Eric just said, there appears to be no move from the Justice Department or the FBI to begin a criminal investigation of this. And I think part of what outrages so many people inside the military, so many people inside the intelligence community past, present, is the

that if this had happened to anyone else in the military, in federal law enforcement, in the intelligence community,

They would be fired or dishonorably discharged as a matter of routine. And a criminal investigation would be opened, you know, all but automatically. You know, this doing something like this is, you know, a one way ticket to federal court for anyone who appears to not be a Trump cabinet member.

We're talking with journalist and historian Garrett Graff and also national security correspondent for The New York Times, Eric Schmidt. And we're talking with you, our listeners. What do you want to better understand about how and why the Signal tech scandal happened? Were you or is someone you know in the military? What's your reaction to this incident? What effect do you think?

This leak will have on national security or the fallout from it will have. The email address is forum at kqed.org. You can find us on our social channels, Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. We're at KQED Forum. You can give us a call at 866-733-6786. That's 866-733-6786. More after the break. You're listening to Forum. I'm Nina Kim.

Support for KQED podcasts come from San Francisco International Airport. At SFO, you can shop, dine, and unwind before your flight.

Go ahead, treat yourself. Learn more about SFO restaurants and shops at FlySFO.com. With reliable connectivity, enhanced cybersecurity, and advanced fiber solutions, Comcast Business is powering the engine of modern business. Switch today and ask how to get a $500 prepaid card on a qualifying gig speed package. Offer ends 4-21-25. New customers only with a two-year agreement. Other restrictions apply. You're listening to Forum. I'm Nina Kim.

Senior Trump administration officials bypassed secure government systems when they decided to share plans for an upcoming attack in Yemen on Signal. That's according to my guests, Eric Schmidt of The New York Times, national security correspondent there, and Garrett Graff. His column is Doomsday Scenario, where he covers national security, geopolitics, and history. And you, our listeners, are joining the conversation with your thoughts and reactions and questions, which we welcome.

This listener writes, Casey on Discord, that they are lying about it now is just egregious. I work with sensitive criminal justice data at the California Department of Justice. The training I receive is all clear and simple. Don't share information through unauthorized channels. There's no excuse, just willful incompetence.

Another listener writes,

So, Eric, can you just remind us how the Trump administration has been responding to this, what their line has been, essentially? Well, at first they tried to discredit Jeffrey Goldberg and the Atlantic's reporting. But obviously that didn't hold up very long because the National Security Council for the White House acknowledged that the chat was legitimate and accurate.

And so they've since moved on to basically say, well, this wasn't really classified information, as some people say it was. And it may have been a mistake, at worst, for these officials to be on signal discussing this. But it actually showed, you know, a robust policy discussion about a serious issue. That is, how do we thwart the Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been, you know, raining down missiles and bombs?

attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea for the last year and a half. So it's really been an issue of kind of saying, well, this isn't as serious as you may think it is. But I think it's the reader reaction and listener reaction that you've just noted. This has really pierced that kind of shield that the White House has tried to put up and say there's really nothing serious here going on. This is certainly Secretary Hegseth's line as he's been traveling in Asia,

Again, first trying to discredit Jeffrey Goldberg and then basically saying that really no sensitive or classified information was disclosed. The attack on the Houthis was successful. No one was hurt. So what's all the fuss about? That's kind of been the reaction here. I think we're watching now closely, though, to see how President Trump reacts to this, because that was clearly the line he was taking, too. But last night, he seemed to come off of a little bit. It wasn't quite as clear he was

You know, I was convinced this wasn't classified information. There wasn't something else going on here. And that's kind of where the blame game is now shifting here in Washington. We do have this comment from Carl who writes, yes, it was a screw up, but it actually helped security going forward. There was actually no risk from this chat.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a respected and experienced journalist who would never risk American security or his stellar career. He probably would have no trouble getting a security clearance if he doesn't already have one. As far as the security of the Signal app, Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, has publicly endorsed Signal, calling it his favorite secure chat app. He's even mentioned that he uses Signal daily. Garrett, do you have a reaction to that?

All of that is technically true. And also this is still a huge problem and glaring set of red flags for the Trump administration. Um, and I think to understand why, uh, again, you need to take a couple of steps back from the content and the context and look at the intent of what was going on here, where you had, uh, these officials, uh,

sharing what I think everyone reasonably imagines is classified details on a commercial messaging app. And that's where it gets into, yes, the messages are encrypted in between the devices. They are not encrypted online.

on the individual phones that these officials are using. And that's why some of the attention that you're seeing this week is being focused on the question of, was this on the officials' government devices or their personal devices?

either of which is troubling for different reasons. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, when she was appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, actually refused to answer that question because she knows that either answer is troubling to cybersecurity experts for different reasons.

And one of those reasons is that the US government and US telecom networks right now are struggling with a major intrusion by a Chinese group known as salt typhoon that has been Ongoing for several months now as six months or longer in fact and

Salt Typhoon attempted to exploit and access the phone of J.D. Vance when he was a candidate last fall. I don't think any U.S. government official should assume right now that their personal devices are clear of

a Chinese exploit from salt typhoon and so, you know in addition to Jeffrey Goldberg reading these conversations There is a non zero chance that at least China if not China and Russia were also able to be reading these conversations and if we now believe that Trump officials are using these signal chats as a routine manner and I think one of the things that really is striking is

in the conversation is the casualness with which everyone engages on Signal, e.g. no one is like, hey, is this an appropriate conversation for us to be having on Signal? You know, hey, we should not be saying these details on this app makes you think that there are probably these group chats taking place all across the high levels of government on a routine basis every day right now.

Well, the sister on Discord writes, there isn't a technological complexity here. Hegseth's loose texts sink security. It happened because unserious people in serious jobs preferred convenience over secure communications. This is what happens when the national security seats are filled with people selected for their ability to draw TV cameras and media engagement.

Eric, there are a couple of people whose names are definitely getting the attention. One, of course, is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The other is National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who initially said he takes full responsibility for what happened, but then has also suggested that

He doesn't know Jeff Goldberg and that he may have gotten sucked in by signal to this as well. I'm just wondering in terms of the people, if there is accountability, who might face it? Would it be Hegseth, Waltz? And I know you have also covered Hegseth quite a bit and he has not actually been making the president terribly happy with some of his moves. So tell me your thoughts on that.

Yeah. Defense Secretary Hexeth, who, of course, came under great scrutiny during the Senate confirmation hearing as a former National Guard soldier and a Fox News host with very little experience other than that.

has come under a lot of scrutiny in the last couple of months, his first couple of months, for a number of stumbles, including one just last week that we reported on in the New York Times, where he set up a classified briefing on the China war plan for Elon Musk. And when we reported on it, suddenly this was news to President Trump that this was happening, and they had to pull that down.

That said, Pete Hexeth is a favorite of the president's. The president considered appointing him to a cabinet position in the last administration.

I think it was the Veterans Affairs Committee. So the real focus now has shifted to Michael Walsh, who is not an insider with the Trump crowd. Trump does not have a previous relationship with Walsh, who's a former special forces officer and a congressman from Florida. And as you said, he initially took full responsibility of that. And that seemed to be the direction that the president has been now leaning to, that this is kind of in Mike Walsh's court. And so, yeah,

I think all eyes are on him as this scandal continues throughout the week now. This wasn't just a one or two day thing now, it's continuing. And if there's one thing President Trump hates, it's these negative headlines and negative publicity. And I think the knives may be out in MAGA world for somebody, and that may well be Michael Waltz in the next few days. We'll have to see. Well, Christian writes, why was Stephen Miller, a domestic immigration aide, on a string about a military action?

So, Garrett, you mentioned that these messages offer a glimpse into the Trump administration's power structure and operations. And you find...

troubling. How so? Yeah, Stephen Miller's presence here is really fascinating for what it says about how power and decisions flow within the White House. One of the things that comes out in this chat is that there actually appears to be some real ambiguity about what the president wants in terms of military action.

And we see from the full signal chats that Jeffrey Goldberg posted yesterday that as that ambiguity is raised in the group chat, Stephen Miller is added to it. And after he is added, he says, as I heard it, basically, the president gives the green light. And that to me is a really troubling turn of phrase because it seems to indicate that

No one actually really knows exactly what Donald Trump said in terms of launching this military action. And it's notable that that interpretation is coming from Stephen Miller and not Mike Walls, the national security advisor, presumably whose portfolio this would normally be. And one of the things that you also see in this is J.D. Vance, the vice president, expressing in this closed chat his position

disagreement, his private disagreement with the president's public policy position, which is something that, you know, as a journalist and historian is something you basically never see. I mean, you never see vice presidents disagree with their principal presidents on policy. And

And so, to me, one of the things that's really fascinating is with any other administration that we have seen in the 21st century, any other modern presidential administration,

Had the national security advisor aired accidentally the dirty laundry of the vice president to a journalist, the vice president would have undoubtedly forced the resignation of that national security advisor. And the fact that.

that J.D. Vance has not done that yet, to me actually is an interesting indication of how little power J.D. Vance has in the constellation within the White House's top ranks. Well, Paul writes, I'm having a hard time imagining the level of Republican outrage had the security scandal happened on Biden's watch. Let me go to caller Ron in Oakland. Hi, Ron, you're on.

Hey, good morning. Yeah, I was a captain in the Army. I did almost five years with the 101st Airborne Division and some overseas tours. And I know that if I had done something like that, I would have been arrested and convicted and dishonorably discharged, as well as doing some time probably down at Leavenworth. So I don't know how the Secretary of Defense can handle

can have a breach of that magnitude and have a straight face where they minimize it and say it was insignificant because they hold other people to a much, much higher standard, the people that are allegiance to them because of the military structure. And I don't know how they're going to hold them accountable when they themselves have taken this so lackadaisical.

Ron, thanks for sharing your observations and experience. You know, Eric, you spoke with people in the military community, and we sort of touched on this, but can you tell me about what you heard from them? And also, you know, why there are such strong rules around sharing attack plans?

the dangers it presents for military members. Yeah. Sure. I think that almost the uniform reaction that we've spoken to, and my colleague Helene Cooper and I will have a story in this in the New York Times later today, is just anger and dismay about

by current and former military officials who, I think as Garrett said, have always been held to incredibly high standards when it comes to this kind of sensitive information. And again, the most sensitive information you have is about an upcoming operation, whether it's a land operation, attack, or in this case, an airstrike. And the reason is because if that information falls into enemy hands, it gives the enemy time to prepare for

at the very least to possibly escape or defend themselves, but more troubling in this case, it would give the Houthis in Yemen the ability a couple of hours at least to marshal their formidable surface-to-air missiles, their other air defenses,

against aircraft, manned, piloted aircraft that would be coming from a general direction that they would know. And once they knew that the time, and again, this text from Secretary Hexeth is absolutely precise on the launch time,

as well as the expected time they would be delivered, they would have a general sense of where this attack would be coming from and would be able to put that aviator in much greater risk. And that was the concern we heard from many, many pilots, that this is just beyond the pale.

Eric Schmidt is national security correspondent for The New York Times. Garrett Graff is a journalist and historian. His column is Doomsday Scenario. Listeners, you're sharing with us, if you're a member of the military or know someone who is and how you're reacting to this incident, what do you want to better understand about how and why the signal leak happened?

happened? What effect do you think it will have or this fallout from the league will have potentially on national security? What actions would you like to see the Trump administration or Congress take? 866-733-6786, the number, email address, forum at kqed.org. Find us on our social channels, Blue Sky, Facebook, Instagram, and others.

The other piece of this, as we talk about what was in that thread, Garrett, was, of course, the disparaging of Europe there. And I'm wondering what kind of effect you think that has. And for listeners who want some more details, essentially, the vice president, J.D. Vance, claimed that we were bailing out Europe by attacking the Houthis and that Hegseth called it freeloading and pathetic. What are your thoughts, Garrett?

I think there are two levels that those that this leak has affected Europe and what we would call our traditional allies You know with the Trump administration's rhetoric in the last couple of months. It's a little bit complicated to Understand who are who exactly our current allies are but

Trump's rhetoric against Europe, the administration's rhetoric about Europe and the war in Ukraine have been up until this moment. I think there's been the European allies have been able to be like, oh, well, maybe there's just public posturing and this is all politics.

But this is a closed chat where we're seeing the exact same rhetoric, the exact same insults fly around. And I think that that has been very startling to Europe because they're like, oh, this is what this administration actually believes. You know, Pete Hegseth actually believes this. J.D. Vance actually believes this. These aren't just public talking points that they're using for strength in negotiations.

And that's alarming to Europe. The second level of this that is alarming is, again, this is an administration that does not have a great track record in protecting vital information and

when you look at intelligence alliances that we have, like the Five Eyes, which is our incredibly important and long running intelligence sharing alliance and agreements with the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. You know, if you are a European ally looking at

how casually this administration and these leaders appear to be treating what, as Eric said, is some of the most sensitive information that can exist in a military operation, you really have to be sitting there saying,

Do we really want to share information that might put our sources and methods, our operatives' lives at risk with the United States if this is how Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe are using that information in a group chat? Yes, and then our nation's security is compromised as well if we don't have that kind of robust information and intelligence sharing as well. We're talking about the impact of the signal data

Tech Scandal with Eric Schmidt and Garrett Graff, and you are listeners. You're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. It's tax season, and we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year. Now here's a good number. $100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

You're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim. We're talking this hour about the fallout from what national security experts are calling an extraordinary intelligence lapse after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted U.S. attack plans in an unsecured text chat that had accidentally included a journalist.

We're going over it with Garrett Graff. His column is Doomsday Scenario. He's a journalist and historian and covers national security and geopolitics. Eric Schmidt is national security correspondent for The New York Times. And you, our listeners, are sharing your thoughts and questions about how and why the signal leak happened and your observations on

From being in the military, Marvin writes, in my career and through my military service, I've had four different security clearances. Each time I read a page which told me how fast I could go to jail if I let any security information out to the public. David writes, I was in the Navy 40 years. I could not tell my family if I could visit for Christmas and other holidays or if I would be out at sea. The rules were clear. No discussing the ship's movements. All these years later, I still don't talk much about those experiences.

Another listener writes, is the United States even legally allowed to bomb Yemen if we're not at war with the country? The people killed by the strike shouldn't be lost in this discussion.

So, Eric, I want to turn to you for this, you know, just for some context as to why they were saying, oh, you know, we're giving Europe a bailout and so on by attacking the Houthi rebels in Yemen and so on. So can you can you talk about the military operations that we are conducting there? What is generally the rationale for them?

Right. So since the invasion, since the attack on, since the October 7th attacks and the subsequent Israeli invasion into Gaza, the Houthis, this militant group in Yemen, have basically been attacking shipping coming through the Red Sea, basically as a demonstration of support for the Palestinians.

This started soon after those attacks, and so it's been going on now for over a year and a half. The Biden administration attempted to carry out some major attacks initially to try and degrade that capability, to try and restore deterrence in the Red Sea, but that largely failed.

What happened was international shipping basically diverted through the Red Sea and ended up going all the way around the southern tip of Africa, adding days and many, many dollars, extra dollars of costs to this shipping. The Trump administration has come in saying, you know, we inherited this problem and we are going to fix it with a much more aggressive campaign to take down this threat and reopen these shipping lanes.

that are used that are actually more important, it turns out, for European countries than the United States. But nonetheless, it's been a major impediment to international shipping. So on March 15th, this all comes back to this strike again, the Trump administration started a renewed bombing campaign. And the president was basically saying, we're going to do it right this time, in kind of his words. These are

These are militants that need to be defeated. And not only that, but he sent a very strong warning to Iran, which has been supporting the Houthis all this time with weapons and intelligence and basically saying, we're going to hold you accountable for this as well.

So since March 15th, the Trump administration has continued airstrikes against a wide range of targets, underground weapons caches, radars, and other things that are used by the Houthis to attack shipping. But the Pentagon, other than one briefing two days after these strikes started, really has not provided any more information about what's happening there.

on the Twitter accounts of the Central Command, the military's command, carrying out this exercise. They post videos and photographs, but they've been very stingy with any details about what's going on, about the leaders they claim to have killed. And so it's hard to

understand how long, you know, how successful this campaign will be. Yes, because the president and others have been really using the rationale that these attacks have been unbelievably successful. And that particular attack was as well. And that was why this is not a problem. But are we killing civilians in the process?

Well, that's the reporting on the ground now. Of course, this is from the Yemeni health ministry. There have been dozens of people, they say, who have been killed. Again, the American military hasn't really commented on this other than the first briefing, which they said at least the initial strikes, they knew of no civilian casualties, but

But right now they're targeting in areas right around the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. And so it's hard to imagine there haven't been some civilian casualties. It's, of course, a very dangerous area. There aren't any kind of Western reporters on the ground who can report independently there. So it's really hard to tell what's happening during this campaign other than to know from the reports that we're getting from sources there that it is continuing day after day, although the intensity and the focus is still unclear.

Let me go to caller Satish in San Francisco. Hi, Satish, you're on. Hello. Just a comment. Imagine the outrage if this whole leak involved Biden or anybody else, right? It's pure hypocrisy to downplay this. I mean, Trump was sold to us as the candidate of competency, efficiency, law and order. Well, that's a joke, right? Just too much in and every single one of those

things is already crumbling. So why the endless lies and secrecy from his team if their path to making America great is so clear, so cut and dry? Why hide it?

Why have it go wrong in all these ways? Maybe it's time for us to tell our MAGA family members that you were right, you were wrong about everything that matters. Period, right? Shut up. Satish, thanks for sharing how you're feeling about all of this. I mean, Garrett, do you think that this is an issue, an incident that will potentially have staying power or the power of

to break through. I ask this because Steve on blue sky writes, this debacle is rightfully consuming a lot of media bandwidth, but would it be consistent with the president's modus operandi to do something like this, to distract from an even more controversial and far reaching action? I mean, I'm not sure that that is the case, but I guess what I'm just saying is, you know, do you think essentially that the seriousness of this incident is resonating with the public and could potentially have consequences? Yeah.

Absolutely. And I think that that is one of the reasons that this scandal, among the many scandalous things that have been happening in the Trump administration in the last two months, has really broken through to the public. In some ways, this is the most...

understandable scandal that we have experienced. You know, all of us have had that moment where we have accidentally added someone that we didn't mean to to a group chat or have accidentally CC'd the person that we were trying to complain about at work in an email. You know, this is like, you know,

modern life to have an IT fail like this. The problem is that this is something that is happening to a whole bunch of people who are supposed to be more sober and more careful and who hold in their hands the lives of American servicemen and women, the lives of intelligence officers, the lives of people around the world.

I think that you know, we should not also lose sight of how the Trump administration has responded to this I mean we're talking about this a little bit earlier in the in the hour where Tulsi Gabbard the director of national intelligence and John Ratcliffe the CIA director were both testifying before Congress earlier in the week about this during a previously scheduled hearing and

And it seems pretty clear that they at least danced right up to the line of perjuring themselves before Congress under oath, if not well over it, um, that they repeatedly denied in different questions and different statements that any of this information was classified. Um,

And I think one of the reasons that this might have some staying power is the way that the Trump administration has stonewalled and lied about it ever since Monday, where you could imagine a different world, a world that, as that caller just pointed out, the world that we would have lived in at basically any point between 1945 and the start of this administration,

Where had this happened to any other national security advisor, he or she would have instantly offered a resignation on Monday afternoon as a point of personal honor.

And again, the fact that the Trump administration's response is to stonewall and to lie and deny that this matters when everyone can basically see that it matters, I think should be a very worrisome sign for us as a democracy because, you know,

People in these jobs to have a functional democracy, we need them to be able to be accountable and to be capable of shame and embarrassment. And so far this week, at least, we have seen none of that come from this administration.

We're talking about the fallout from the Signal scandal. And what worries you, listeners? Gail writes,

Joan writes, one of the things I hear little to no discussion about is the ability to recruit people to serve in our all-volunteer military. Who's going to want to serve if the so-called leaders compromise the safety of troops? We will have to go back to a draft just to have a well-staffed military. Let me go to Liz in San Francisco. Hi, Liz, you're on. Hey there. Can you hear me? I can. Go right ahead.

So my question is, the fact that they used an application for this debacle that can scrub any kind of information they're talking about, and we only know about it because of this reporter, begs the question of whether they will use it in the future, and also how that applies to any kind of application.

record-keeping. Right. Yes, Garrett, you were... And I'll take my question off the air. Thanks, Liz. Garrett, you were, of course, talking about this. But yes, I mean, the importance of record-keeping is historical, but also accountability, right? And what do you think of Liz's concern about how and where else this is happening, the disappearance? Yeah. And again, we have to put this in the context of all of the other things that are happening in the Trump administration right now. So, for instance...

The fact that this conversation was taking place on Signal with this group of individuals, including Stephen Miller, certainly makes me very curious. Is there a similar Signal group chat that is attempting to evade Federal Records Act?

that was about Stephen Miller's role and the decision by the Trump White House to evade the judicial restraining order and deport those plane loads of Venezuelans to that forced labor maximum security camp in El Salvador.

You know, that's a matter that is being that is unfolding in the courts right now. And I think that there would be every reason to believe that there is a similar signal group chat, if not many or multiple group chats taking place outside of the Federal Records Act that are discussing that controversy within the administration. And so.

I think the caller is absolutely right to be zeroing in on this as a major concern that these signal group chats is effectively standard operating procedure inside the Trump cabinet. Let me remind our callers and listeners that you're listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim.

Well, Cole writes, the administration's hypocrisy is nauseating. Would you please spend a moment comparing the situation to Secretary Clinton's use of a private server for which Trump spent an entire campaign saying, lock her up? You want to take that, Eric?

You know, I'll let Garrett take that. He's probably more familiar. But I want to come back to another point just before we go off. Sure. And that is, you know, there have been Republicans now and just this morning, the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is basically making the argument that this is

The administration is perpetuating this scandal by just not coming clean and say, look, we made a mistake. This shouldn't have happened. Fortunately, the mission was accomplished. No one was hurt. It won't happen again. Maybe there'll even be someone held accountable, perhaps Michael Waltz, and then move on. But that's not happening because if there's anything this president does not want to do, it's apologize. Remember, his motto is fight, fight, fight. And they're just going to try and bowl their way through this.

Claire, can I ask you the question that we've kind of asked our listeners to ask questions about, which is why you think this incident happened? Is it like what some of our listeners have pointed to, which is a lack of experience, a lack of competence of people in the roles that they are in? You know, is it sort of a disregard or maybe disdain for certain government systems that are onerous? I'm just curious if you've thought about that and what...

I think it's yes, yes, and yes. It's all of the above. I mean, I think this is an inexperienced team that I think, and to one of Garrett's earlier points, that has kind of grown up, obviously operating in the last few years, has signaled he's become more important and thinking this is a secure application. I can do not only my personal business, but we can conduct the most sensitive work business on this and we'll be okay.

And without anybody really stepping in to say, this is not okay, this is not secure, and you shouldn't be keeping. That's why we have these secure systems here. So I think there's this kind of, again, this cavalier attitude toward this kind of information that just nobody was calling each other out on.

Tom writes, if Hegseth stays on as Secretary of Defense, will he maintain the respect of the military that he supposedly commands? Going back to you, Garrett, on Cole's question about the comparisons to Hillary Clinton, did that come to mind right away? Yeah, it has been a big week for all of the but-her-emails crowd, in part because I think this is—

A scandal that just on its surface is far far far worse than the years of controversy that the Republicans in Congress and the media took on in the Hillary Clinton with her Blackberry And I think as Eric was just saying to me one of the things that really stands out for this every single one of these people in these roles are

is the most unqualified person to ever hold these roles. You know, Pete Hegseth is the least qualified Secretary of Defense in history.

Tulsi Gabbard is the least qualified director of national intelligence in history. John Ratcliffe is arguably the least qualified CIA director in history. And you have this team of amateurs just not able to operate smoothly in the way that we would expect and hope as a country that these people are able to do so.

Noelle on Discord writes, what irks me is that Trump refuses to fire anyone and everyone under him continues to downplay the seriousness of this situation. Richard writes, it's obvious that several crimes are committed. It's important that we not forget about them so that if the Democrats should regain the presidency, Walton Hexus can then be prosecuted. I'm hearing that Congress member Jackie Speier has called in, former Congress member. Thank you so much for calling. Unfortunately, we have just one minute, Congresswoman Speier, but please go right ahead with your thought.

So the one point that I think hasn't quite been met, and I wanted to underscore it, you know, we get so much of our intelligence from the big five, what's called, you know, the five countries that we share information. They're not going to share any intelligence with us anymore because they...

see us as more of an adversary now. And some of the comments that were made on those texts suggest that there's, you know, real disregard for our allies who have been with us. The Five Eyes have been with us forever. And that's what we're going to lose in the course of this. Well, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Congressman Spears, now Supervisor Spears, California, Bay Area Congressman Jackie Spears.

That's your worry, right, Garrett? Absolutely. I think that this is a leak that will reverberate for a long time overseas and potentially have bigger effects overseas than it does here at home. Well, thank you to you and Eric Schmidt for helping us wrap our minds around what the potential effects are and what to watch for in terms of moving forward. Garrett Graff of Doomsday Scenario, thank you.

My pleasure. Eric Schmidt, National Security Correspondent for The New York Times, I really appreciate you as well. Thank you very much. And my thanks to Mark Nieto for producing today's segment. And as always, to listeners for sharing your questions and reactions to all of this. You've been listening to Forum. I'm Mina Kim.

Support for KQED's podcasts come from San Francisco International Airport. Did you know that SFO has a world-class museum? Get ready to be wowed by art, history, science, and cultural exhibitions throughout the terminals.

Learn more at flysfo.com slash museum. With reliable connectivity, enhanced cybersecurity, and advanced fiber solutions, Comcast Business is powering the engine of modern business. Switch today and ask how to get a $500 prepaid card on a qualifying gig speed package. Offer ends 4-21-25. New customers only with a two-year agreement. Other restrictions apply.

This episode is brought to you by Universal Pictures. From Universal Pictures and Blumhouse come a storm of terror from the director of The Shallows, The Woman in the Yard. Don't let in. Where does she come from? What does she want? When will she leave? Today's the day. The Woman in the Yard. Only in theaters March 28th.