CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the Signal chat texts published by The Atlantic Wednesday revealing the so-called ‘attack plans’ targeting Yemen’s Houthi rebels prove he ‘did not transmit classified information.’ 

Ratcliffe, speaking during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, told lawmakers ‘With regard to that article, I also would appreciate the opportunity to relay the fact that yesterday I spent four hours answering questions from senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because there were hidden messages.’ 

‘Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information, and that the reporter who I don’t know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that,’ Ratcliffe continued. ‘That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat. In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff who was not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.’ 

‘I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn’t transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here, because that’s what did happen, not what possibly could have happened,’ he also said. 

In messages published Wednesday, The Atlantic quoted Hegseth as saying in the Signal group text chat ‘TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch. 1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package). 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s),’ Hegseth apparently wrote in a screenshot of a text message released Wednesday by The Atlantic.  

 ‘1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package). 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets). 1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched,’ Hegseth reportedly continued, before adding ‘we are currently clean on OPSEC [operational security]’ and ‘Godspeed to our Warriors.’ 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard vowed during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday that there was ‘no classified material’ in the messages. 

‘My answer yesterday was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof on the details that were posted there. What was shared today reflects the fact that I was not directly involved with that part of the signal chat and replied at the end, reflecting the effects, the very brief effects that the national security advisor had shared,’ Gabbard said Wednesday when asked about the matter. 

‘So it’s your testimony that less than two weeks ago, you were on a Signal chat that had all of this information about F-18s and MQ-9 Reapers and targets on strike. And you, in that two-week period, simply forgot that that was there. That’s your testimony?’ Ranking Member Jim Himes, D-Conn., asked her. 

‘My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there,’ Gabbard said. 

‘That was not your testimony,’ Himes responded. ‘Your testimony was that you were not aware of anything related to weapons, packages, targets and timing.’ 

‘As the testimony yesterday continued on, there were further questions, related to that, where I acknowledged that there was conversation about weapons,’ Gabbard said. ‘And, I don’t remember the exact wording that I used, but I did not recall the specific details that were included.’ 

At one point in Wednesday’s Senate hearing, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said there were ‘operational details’ in the Signal messages. 

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., also joined other Congressional Democrats calling for the resignation of Secretary of State Pete Hegseth over the leak. 

‘There can be no fixes. There can be no corrections until there is accountability. And I’m calling on the administration to move forward with accountability,’ Crow said.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., huddled privately with House Judiciary Committee members on Tuesday afternoon for what was described as a ‘brainstorming’ session on how to take on ‘activist judges’ blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The House is scheduled to vote next week on a bill to limit U.S. district judges in ordering nationwide injunctions. But the consensus among Republicans on the committee is that the bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is a good start, but more reform would be needed.

‘He came to offer his thoughts to the committee and [Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio], about… what’s available to us related to the judges,’ Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital. ‘So it was more like a brainstorming kind of thing. No decisions were made.’

He said there was also ‘general’ discussion about court funding – as senior Republicans publicly float the idea of using Congress’ appropriations powers to rein in activist judges.

‘The purse strings related to the courts – how does that work, what do we have available to us, what don’t we, if we want to have that impact,’ Fitzgerald said. ‘But I mean, nobody spelled out ‘Here’s what we’re going to do when it comes to funding.”

The Wisconsin Republican said the idea of legislating in a fast-tracked appeals process was also floated during the meeting.

It’s an idea also backed by his fellow Judiciary member Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., who declined to share details of the meeting with Fox News Digital but said ‘there’s other solutions’ beyond next week’s vote.

‘I think that it’s worth exploring some sort of expedited appeals process, right? So you can fast-track an appeal if there’s an injunction issue, to the D.C. circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court,’ Kiley said. ‘I think that’d be another way to approach the problem.’ 

‘But yeah, it’s an unfortunate state of affairs when you have someone, whose decisions are very much subject to appeal and reversal, who can keep administration policy in stasis.’

A source briefed on the discussion told Fox News Digital that Johnson also signaled to House Judiciary Republicans that he was in close contact with the White House on the GOP judiciary strategy.

The source described part of the conversation as a bid to rally Republicans behind the No Rogue Rulings Act, which is expected to get a House-wide vote either Tuesday or Wednesday next week, as of now.

Led by Issa, the legislation would force most district court judges to narrow most orders to the most relevant scope, therefore blocking them from pausing Trump’s policies across the U.S.

Fitzgerald said part of the discussion with Johnson also focused on legislation to limit the ability of progressive plaintiffs to so-called ‘judge-shop.’

It’s a similar idea to an amendment by Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., a first-term Republican on the committee, that is already attached to Issa’s bill.

‘On the forum shopping issue, the amendment I’ve got on the Issa bill addresses that, and makes it more difficult to engage in judge shopping because it requires that any request for a nationwide injunction is properly brought,’ Schmidt told Fox News Digital. ‘It would go to a three-judge panel that’s randomly selected.’

The Kansas Republican suggested House Judiciary members were interested in looking at what could be long-lasting reform.

‘I do think there are other opportunities. And one of the things I think is very important is that – not just on this issue, but more generally – we think…about how we can make long-term, lasting change that will outlast any of us who are serving in office right now and leave the system better than we found it,’ he said.

Fox News Digital reached out to the speaker’s office and the Judiciary Committee for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Jordan is expected to hold a hearing on April 1 examining judicial activism.

Elon Musk is helping lead the investigation into the Signal chat leak involving top national security leaders and the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, the White House press secretary said Wednesday. 

‘The National Security Council, the White House Counsel’s Office, and also, yes, Elon Musk’s team’ will be leading the investigation into the Signal leak, press secretary Karonline Leavitt said during Wednesday’s White House press conference. 

‘Elon Musk has offered to put his technical experts on this, to figure out how this number was inadvertently added to the chat – again, to take responsibility and ensure this can never happen again,’ she continued. 

The Trump administration is facing backlash from Democrats and other critics after the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed in an article published Monday that he was added to a Signal group chat with top national security leaders, including national security advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. 

Signal is an encrypted messaging app that operates similarly to texting or making phone calls, but with additional security measures that help ensure communications are kept private to those included in the correspondence. 

The Atlantic’s initial report characterized the Trump administration as texting ‘war plans’ to one another. The Trump administration has maintained that no classified material was transmitted in the chat, with President Donald Trump defending Waltz amid the fallout. 

Trump revealed Tuesday that a member of Waltz’s office invited Goldberg to the chat, but did not provide additional information. 

Waltz joined Fox News’ ‘Ingraham Angle’ Tuesday, where he took responsibility for the inadvertent addition of Goldberg to the chat, arguing he believed the account belonged to someone else. 

‘I built the group. My job is to make sure everything’s coordinated,’ Waltz said. 

‘Of course I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else,’ Waltz added. ‘The person I thought was on there was never on there.’

Waltz also said during the interview that he had just spoken to Musk about the matter and that the ‘best technical minds’ would look into it. 

Musk is helping lead the Department of Government Efficiency, which has been poring through federal agencies in search of government overspending, fraud and mismanagement. 

‘If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well,’ Leavitt continued. ‘And there’s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and pushing hoaxes more than Jeffrey Goldberg.’

Following Monday’s report in the Atlantic concerning the Signal chat, Goldberg published a Wednesday follow-up story that included messages directly from the chat. The article notably did not characterize the correspondence as ‘war plans,’ instead opting to refer to them as ‘attack plans’ in the headline. 

The Trump administration responded that the follow-up story proved that there were ‘no war plans’ in the correspondence, taking a victory lap that the story was exposed to be a ‘hoax.’ 

‘The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,” Leavitt posted to X Wednesday morning. ‘This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.’

Waltz posted to X Wednesday, ‘No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.’ 

A spokesperson for the Atlantic defended that the outlet did expose a ‘war plan’ in its Wednesday report, pointing Fox News Digital to a screenshot included in the piece of Hegseth’s messages related to F-18s and drone strikes that were accompanied by timestamps for the operation. 

‘If this information – particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen – had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face,’ the report stated. 

Leavitt said during the press conference that Signal is an ‘approved app’ for government employees, citing that the ‘CIA has it loaded onto government phones because it is the most secure and efficient way to communicate.’

Republicans on Capitol Hill are fuming that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) general counsel who shut down President Donald Trump’s request to supersede California’s aggressive gas emissions laws once managed diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives for the agency. 

Republicans have dismissed the decision penned by GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez, because she once served as the agency’s ‘Managing Director of Opportunity and Inclusiveness (O&I).’ According to the GAO’s official website, the O&I office includes advising senior staff on equal employment opportunities and promoting a ‘work environment that is fair, unbiased and inclusive.’

‘A far-left radical whose main job is pushing DEI nonsense is trying to undermine American prosperity. What a surprise. These bad actors should be removed from government swiftly,’ Sen. Jim Banks, R-Indiana., told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

While some Republicans discredit Emmanuelli Perez’s decision as ‘DEI nonsense,’ other Republicans denied the ‘democratic legitimacy’ of banning California’s gas vehicles without a vote. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., told Fox News Digital the House will move forward with a Congressional Review Act resolution regardless of the GAO decision. 

‘The GAO’s conclusion that California can ban 95 percent of the state’s cars, without a vote of the Legislature and with no recourse from Congress, defies basic notions of democratic legitimacy and common sense. We will be moving forward with our Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse this insane ban and restore choice for California consumers,’ Kiley said in a statement. 

Emmanuelli Perez shut down any insinuation from Republicans that she ruled independently on the case, telling Fox News Digital in a statement that the GAO’s decisions are ‘institutional, not individually authored, products.’

‘In response to a Congressional request, we summarized relevant, established case law related to the Congressional Review Act and waivers under the Clean Air Act. We stand behind our work, as all GAO products go through our extensive quality assurance process,’ Emmanuelli Perez said.

The GAO released its decision earlier this month in response to a request from Congress on whether EPA waivers that grant California permission to enforce its 2035 gas car ban are subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). 

The GAO determined that California’s EPA waiver is not subject to the CRA, so Congress cannot use the CRA to overturn California’s aggressive zero-emission goals. Kiley, however, has committed to moving forward with the CRA despite the GAO’s ruling. 

Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the creation of a National Energy Dominance Council, in which the EPA will send President Joe Biden-era EPA rules to Congress for review. Those Biden-era EPA waivers included ‘allowing California to preempt federal car and truck standards promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.’

The Trump administration announced the EPA waiver transmitted to Congress included ‘California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Omnibus NOx rules,’ arguing the waivers on trucks increased the cost of vehicles, goods, and therefore, the cost of living for Americans.  

‘The Biden Administration failed to send rules on California’s waivers to Congress, preventing Members of Congress from deciding on extremely consequential actions that have massive impacts and costs across the entire United States. The Trump EPA is transparently correcting this wrong and rightly following the rule of law,’ Zeldin said alongside the president in the Oval Office. 

Following Zeldin and Trump’s announcement, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., requested a legal decision from the GAO on whether the EPA’s decision to grant California waivers under the Clean Air Act could be overturned using the CRA. 

The Democratic senators championed the GAO’s ruling and slammed the Trump administration for trying to eliminate the ‘California emission standards [that] have protected generations of Americans against fossil fuel emissions.’

‘By ignoring decades of precedent and the plain text of the Congressional Review Act, the Trump EPA is attempting to sell out our nation’s public health and environmental protections to the same polluting industries that bankrolled much of Trump’s campaign,’ the senators said following the GAO’s decision. 

However, Trump campaigned on eliminating such regulations, and on his first day back in the White House, the president signed an executive order ‘unleashing American energy.’ The executive order eliminated the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ to promote consumer choice. While the litigation is tied up in the congressional branch, with the stroke of a pen on day one, Trump moved to terminate ‘state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.’        

Trump also campaigned on a day-one commitment to eliminating DEI in the federal government. On his Inauguration Day, Trump signed an executive order ‘ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and referencing,’ which rolled back Biden-era DEI policies and initiatives in the federal government. 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced it had terminated 113 contracts valued at $4.7 billion Tuesday, including a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) consulting contract for Peru’s climate change activities.

‘[Tuesday] agencies terminated 113 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $4.7B and savings of $3.3B, including a $145K USDA consulting contract for ‘Peru climate change activities,” the department posted on X.

DOGE also announced the Department of Labor had canceled $577 million in ‘America Last’ grants, totaling $237 million in savings.

The funding that was canceled included $10 million for ‘gender equity in the Mexican workplace,’ $12.2 million for ‘worker empowerment in South America’ and $6.25 million for ‘improving respect for workers’ rights in agricultural supply chains’ in the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Also eliminated was $5 million to elevate women’s participation in the workplace in West Africa, $4.3 million to assist foreign migrant workers in Malaysia, $3 million to enhance Social Security access and worker protection for internal migrant workers in Bangladesh and $3 million for safe and inclusive work environments in the southern African country of Lesotho.

DOGE, led by Elon Musk, is a temporary organization within the White House created via executive order earlier this year.

President Donald Trump tasked the organization with optimizing the federal government, streamlining operations and slashing spending and gave the agency 18 months to do it.

The department has canceled numerous diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at federal agencies, consulting contracts, leases for underused federal buildings and duplicate agencies and programs.

As of March 26, DOGE claims on its site it has saved Americans $130 billion, or $807.45 per taxpayer.

DOGE critics contend the organization has too much access to federal systems and should not be permitted to cancel federal contracts or make cuts to various agencies.

Fox News Digital’s Eric Revell and Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Tesla made an appearance on Capitol Hill Wednesday where the company was held up as one of several key American manufacturers during a bipartisan event on U.S.-made robotics.

Two Tesla humanoid robots were at the event, with onlookers crowding the machines as they struck various poses. 

They waved their arms at times, and held up hands with two fingers aloft on each in a Richard Nixon-like pose. At one point, a robot’s arm swung out and hit the rope dividing it from the crowd, briefly sending a security guard scrambling to fix it.

Outside of Washington, however, Tesla car dealerships have been targeted by progressive activists across the country. The automaker and tech company is getting singled out for acts of vandalism over its founder, Elon Musk, and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts in the Trump administration.

House select committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar, R-Mich., suggested Tesla’s appearance at the bipartisan event showed Congress rising above partisanship.

‘The competition is with China, and we are united in winning that competition,’ Moolenaar told Fox News Digital at the event. 

He called Telsa ‘innovative,’ adding, ‘All the companies here have shown tremendous ingenuity, and we were pleased to highlight all of their efforts.’

The event featured bots from other events, including so-called ‘robot dogs,’ officially known as ‘Spot the Agile Mobile Robot’ by Boston Dynamics, and a similar machine by Ghost Robotics.

Moolenaar said Spot stood out to him in particular, as well as Tesla’s two robot humanoids that were present at the event.

‘It’s amazing technology, and what struck me was a lot of the same technology that’s in a vehicle is used in these humanoid robots,’ he said.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., another member of the committee, said the Tesla robots could have ‘unbelievable applications.’

‘Maybe in agriculture — a lot of our farmers are going out of business, can’t compete labor-wise, right? You get a couple of robots that can actually do very detailed farm work and drive the labor costs down, we’ll save the American farmer,’ Gimenez said.

He also accused Democrats outside the event of having their ‘hair on fire’ over Musk and criticized Tesla critics who have been vandalizing its car dealerships.

‘Some people have taken things to an extreme,’ Gimenez said. 

‘There is no need for putting down something that is advancing American technology and is going to be beneficial for America.’

The Trump administration has recently made moves to crack down on those vandals, with President Donald Trump himself threatening to jail protesters. The FBI, meanwhile, has commissioned a task force to look into the matter.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe blasted a California Democrat Wednesday for asking him ‘whether Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information’ in a Signal chat group, calling his words an ‘offensive line of questioning.’ 

Rep. Jimmy Gomez sparked the testy exchange during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, where Ratcliffe appeared alongside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other top Trump administration officials. 

‘The main person who was involved in this thread that a lot of people want to talk to is, Secretary of Defense Hegseth. And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his drinking habits in his confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?’ Gomez asked Gabbard, to which she responded, ‘I don’t have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.’ 

When Gomez then asked Ratcliffe the same question, telling him it was either a ‘yes or no’ answer, Ratcliffe fired back, saying ‘You know, no. I’m going to answer that. I think that’s an offensive line of questioning.’ 

‘The answer is no. I find it interesting…’ Ratcliffe continued before Gomez began shouting ‘Hey, I yield back, this is my time, director! Director!’ 

‘You asked me a question, do you want an answer?’ Ratcliffe said. ‘You don’t want to focus on the good work that the CIA is doing, that the intelligence community…’ 

‘Director, I reclaim my time. Director, I reclaim my time,’ Gomez then said. ‘I have huge respect for the CIA, huge respect for men and women in uniform. But this was a question that’s on the top of the minds of every American, right?’ 

‘He stood in front of a podium in Europe holding a drink,’ Gomez then claimed. 

‘Was his performance compromised because of a successful strike?… you think he should accept responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer?’ Ratcliffe started saying as Gomez again interrupted him in an attempt to get the situation under control. 

Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., followed Gomez’s questioning and allowed Ratcliffe to speak without interruption. 

‘I appreciate that, Congressman. I guess, you know, just a general reflection here again, that, for the last two days, members of the intelligence community have been asking questions about a Signal messaging group and not asking questions — from Democrats either in the Senate or the House — on China, Russia, Iran and the real threats, that are going on the United States,’ the CIA director said.  

‘No one’s asked me about my second day on the job here, where I lit the fuse that led to a foreign government participating with us to capture one of the senior planners of the Abbey gate bombing that killed 13 Americans,’ he added, ‘But instead, we’re getting questions about whether or not someone has drinking habits.’ 

A federal judge denied President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from joining the military, which was set to go into effect Friday.

The Department of Justice has since filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.

Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, on Wednesday, denied the government’s motion to dissolve her order that prevents the military from denying transgender people the ability to enlist in the military.

Reyes presided over a hearing on March 21, when she requested the Department of Defense (DOD) delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy.

On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. The filing argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead ‘turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.’

The Trump administration further requested that, if the motion to dissolve is denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that it expected to enact the policy if not for the ongoing litigation. The guidance clarified that ‘the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria’’ solely applies to ”individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.”

Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect.

On Wednesday, Reyes acknowledged that Military Department Identification Guidance (MIDI Guidance) is new, but the argument presented by the defense is not.

‘Defendants re-emphasize their ‘consistent position that the [Hegseth] Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition,’’ the judge wrote. ‘Regulating gender dysphoria is no different than regulating bipolar disorder, eating disorders, or suicidality. The Military Ban regulates a medical condition, they insist, not people. And therein lies the problem.

‘Gender dysphoria is not like other medical conditions, something Defendants well know,’ Reyes continued. ‘It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.’

She later noted that the opinion has generated a heated public debate, and, as the court predicted, the Trump administration will appeal.

‘This is all to the good,’ Reyes said. ‘But let’s recall that our service members make the debate and appeals possible. Their sacrifices breathe life into the phrase, ‘one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ The Court, again, thanks them all.’

The legal challenge comes as the Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights. 

The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.