Legal Angle Emerges in Signal Controversy

The White House is digging in on the Signal breach controversy, insisting that the information discussed in a text group wasn't as sensitive as critics allege. For proof, press chief Karoline Leavitt noted that a new Atlantic headline refers to "attack plans" instead of "war plans" and called the whole controversy a "hoax." President Trump himself on Wednesday used the phrase "witch hunt" to describe it.

• Hegseth doubles down: "No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted on Wednesday in dismissing the idea that "war plans" were discussed. "We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes."
• The distinction: Axios notes that "'war plans' are typically more comprehensive, strategic frameworks that account for multiple scenarios, while 'attack plans' usually pertain to a specific tactical operation." Leavitt and Hegseth thus might be technically correct, but the piece notes that the rationale "fell flat" within the national security community, and it finds that the "'never back down' mentality" of the White House might be facing one of its biggest challenges yet.

• The risk: An analysis in the New York Times suggests Hegseth's defense is silly semantics. The details discussed about a pending attack were so detailed and sensitive that they could have endangered US troops, writes David E. Sanger. "Had this information leaked out, the Houthi fighters and missile experts the United States was targeting in Yemen might have had time to escape, and American pilots and other service members could have been put at risk."
• Intriguing angle: A Politico Playbook post asserts that a gaffe of this nature by any other government in the world would surely result in somebody getting fired, but that the jobs of Hegseth and national security adviser Mike Waltz seem safe for now. More interesting might be an emerging legal angle: A watchdog group has sued, calling the use of the Signal platform for such a discussion illegal, and none other than Judge James Boasberg, a figure reviled in Trump world because of his rulings on the Venezuelan deportations, has been assigned the case.
• Butt of jokes: Late-night hosts continued to feast on the mistake, with Jimmy Kimmel countering Hegseth thusly: "Let's see. 'F-18s launch.' 'Target terrorist.' 'Strike drones launch.' 'More F-18s launch!' 'First bombs will definitely drop.' 'First sea-based Tomahawks launched.' Now, I'm not an expert on war—these don't seem like peace plans to me." And Stephen Colbert: "This is an unprecedented failure of national security protocols and a grotesque disregard of the safety for American service members. Or, as Donald Trump would say: 'No it isn't.'"

(More Signal breach stories.)