CNN
—
Current and former US officials have told CNN they believe two texts sent by national security adviser Mike Waltz and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in the now-infamous group chat involving senior US officials discussing battle plans to strike Houthi targets in Yemen, may have done long-term damage to the US’s ability to gather intelligence on the Iran-backed group going forward.
Although messages from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth detailing the sequencing, timing and weapons to be used in a March attack on the Houthis have drawn the most scrutiny because they could have endangered US servicemembers if revealed, the messages from Waltz and Ratcliffe, in the chat Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was added to, contained equally sensitive information, these sources said.
In one of the messages, Ratcliffe told other Cabinet members who were discussing whether to delay the strikes that the CIA was in the act of mobilizing assets to collect intelligence on the group, but that a delay might offer them the opportunity to “identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership.”
That text, according to the current and former officials, exposed the mere fact that the US is gathering intelligence on them — bad in and of itself — but also hinted at how the agency is doing it. The language about “starting points,” these people said, suggests clearly that the CIA is using technical means like overhead surveillance to spy on their leadership. That could allow the Houthis to change their practices to better protect themselves.
Then, in a later message, Waltz offered an extremely specific after-action report of the strikes, telling the thread that the military had “positive ID” of a particular senior Houthi leader “walking into his girlfriend’s building” — offering the Houthis a clear opportunity to see who the US was surveilling and potentially figure out how, thus enabling them to avoid that surveillance in the future, the sources said.
The Houthis have “always been difficult to track,” said a former intelligence official. “Now you just highlight for them that they’re in the crosshairs.”
Trump administration officials, including both Waltz and Ratcliffe, have repeatedly insisted that no classified information was shared in the text. Ratcliffe, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, specifically referenced his text about “starting points.”
But current and former officials have disagreed vehemently with that assessment: The kinds of information in not just Hegseth’s texts, but Ratcliffe’s and Waltz’s, included very clear references to sources and methods. Even if it wasn’t an explicit or technical description, these people say, it is information that the US government would typically withhold because it might allow an adversary to make an educated interference about US sources and methods.
Ratcliffe’s use of the Signal app in this way is raising eyebrows inside Langley, current and former officials said.
“I think he is going to be viewed skeptically for using the app for that purpose,” one US official told CNN.
“(Ratcliffe) was basically talking as if he was in a SCIF,” said another former intelligence official, referring to a secure room hardened against electronic surveillance that is designed for discussions of classified material.
“He’s the director,” said the first former official, calling Ratcliffe’s text “irresponsible.” “He should know better.”
A CIA spokesperson told CNN, “Director Ratcliffe takes his responsibility to safeguard America’s ability to gather intelligence extremely seriously.”
“Nothing he conveyed in the chat posed any risk to any sources or methods,” the spokesperson said. “The only lasting damage is to the Houthi terrorists who have been eliminated.”
CNN has reached out to the National Security Council for comment.
The use of Signal — an unclassified, nongovernment platform that officials say is potentially vulnerable to foreign hackers — for this kind of sensitive conversation was so alarming to career CIA officials that they provided a gentle “reminder” to people on Ratcliffe’s staff on Wednesday, two officials familiar with the matter told CNN.
CIA regulations permit the use of Signal on both work phones, and, under a rule change during the Biden administration last year, on desktop computers as well, according to US officials. It’s not only approved, but encouraged, to communicate basic logistical movements, like who is available to come into the office or what time to hold a meeting.
Both Ratcliffe and Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill this week that Signal was pre-loaded on their computer when they arrived for their first day on the job.
And the app is widely-used across government, seen as a more secure way of communicating because it is end-to-end encrypted.
“Everyone is on Signal, all day and night,” one official told CNN, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations in the West Wing.
Biden administration officials also routinely used it to discuss logistical planning for meetings and at times to communicate with foreign counterparts.
Trust in the security of Signal is bolstered by the fact that the app is open source, meaning its code is available for independent experts to scrutinize for vulnerabilities. But like any messaging app with high-value targets, state-backed hackers have tried to find a way into Signal chats – leaving open the possibility that it may be vulnerable to prying eyes.
A report last month from Google-owned security firm Mandiant found that Russian-linked spies had tried to break into the Signal accounts of Ukrainian military personnel by posing as trusted Signal contacts.
At least at the CIA, it’s prohibited to discuss operational matters on Signal. And other national security agencies have reportedly also issued warnings that it is not foolproof, and it is certainly not a replacement for classified networks.
“It’s the most secure (commercial messaging app) but not sanctioned for classified information,” said one US official. “And be careful of sensitive information that is not classified.”
“There are ways to effectively use Signal for alignment, but you just can’t cross that line of classified data for obvious reasons,” said another US official.
Yet, even in the wake of what both current and former officials — and some members of Congress — say was a catastrophic mistake, as of now, there seem to be little official reaction to the breach, as would be expected under past administrations. The CIA has not been tasked with conducting a damage assessment to determine whether any sources and methods were exposed by the breach — and what the risk would be if they were — and as of right now, the Defense Department is not expected to make any changes to its security protocols because, according to one senior military official, “that would be construed as admitting wrongdoing.”
The National Security Council, led by Waltz, has undertaken a review of how The Atlantic editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was accidentally added to the chain.
During an interview with Fox News earlier this week, Waltz said he takes “take full responsibility” for the incident because he “built the group” but in the next breath disparaged The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg while offering conflicting and garbled explanations for how his number came to be in his phone.
And President Donald Trump has suggested publicly that Signal might be “defective,” but it’s not clear whether there will be any review of the regulations or policies surrounding official use of the app.
At the same time, Trump and his top officials who participated in the chat continue to publicly downplay the sensitivity of the information itself and the inherent risks associated with disseminating it through unclassified channels in attempt to weather the ongoing political firestorm.
But it was Ratcliffe who testified earlier this week that “pre-decisional strike deliberation should be conducted through classified channels,” a rare, but tacit acknowledgment of what current and former officials insist is obvious: some of the information should have never been shared in a Signal group chat.
CNN’s Jim Sciutto contributed to this report.
