A tense exchange between Rep. Jimmy Gomez and intelligence officials unfolds during a congressional hearing over Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's controversial Signal group chat incident.
According to NewsNation, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) defended his decision to question whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was under the influence of alcohol when he shared sensitive military attack plans in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included a journalist.
The incident has raised serious concerns about national security protocols and information handling within the Trump administration. The classified details about U.S. military operations against Houthi forces in Yemen were accidentally shared with Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, through a Signal group chat created by national security adviser Mike Waltz.
During Wednesday's House Intelligence Committee's annual worldwide threats assessment hearing, Gomez directly questioned Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about Hegseth's potential alcohol consumption before the leak. The inquiry prompted a swift rebuke from Ratcliffe, who called it "offensive," while Gabbard stated she had no knowledge of Hegseth's personal habits.
The Democratic representative explained that his constituents' concerns and Hegseth's past scrutiny regarding drinking habits during his confirmation process influenced his line of questioning. Gomez emphasized that the incident's peculiar nature demanded a thorough investigation.
The leak's timing, occurring just hours before a military operation, has amplified concerns about operational security and decision-making processes within top-level national security circles. Security experts have noted the potential risks of using Signal for sensitive communications.
Gomez pointed to what he perceives as inconsistencies in the administration's handling of the incident. The congressman shared his observations during a CNN interview with John Berman, highlighting the shifting narrative from initial denial to subsequent acknowledgment.
The representative elaborated on his concerns about the administration's explanations. He noted:
It was a question that I wanted to ask because what's going on — what happened — doesn't make sense, at any level. The decision for him to put war plans on a Signal chat that's not secure, hours before the operation, risked lives.
Gomez outlined several possible scenarios explaining Hegseth's actions, suggesting either ignorance of security protocols, disregard for potential foreign surveillance, or compromised decision-making abilities.
The incident has prompted discussions about communication protocols among high-ranking officials. Security experts are particularly concerned about the use of Signal for sharing classified military operations details.
Gomez expressed frustration with what he views as attempts to downplay the severity of the leak. He specifically addressed the administration's evolving response to the incident, from denial to acknowledgment of the leaked screenshots.
The congressman remained firm in his stance that the administration's explanations were insufficient. He accused officials of attempting to protect Hegseth rather than addressing the security breach's implications.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's sharing of classified military attack plans in a Signal group chat has resulted in heightened scrutiny of information handling protocols within the Trump administration. The incident, which exposed sensitive details about U.S. operations against Houthi forces in Yemen to The Atlantic's Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, continues to raise questions about security measures and accountability at the highest levels of government. As investigations proceed, lawmakers and security officials are reviewing communication practices while demanding clearer explanations about the circumstances surrounding the leak.
