On March 25, 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the newly confirmed U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI), found herself at the center of a Capitol Hill firestorm during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
The focus? "Signalgate"—a scandal sparked by a leaked Signal messaging app group chat that inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, alongside senior Trump administration officials. The chat, intended to coordinate policy on U.S. military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, became a national security embarrassment when its contents surfaced earlier in March 2025.
Gabbard, who assumed her DNI role in February, faced relentless questioning from lawmakers. Senators demanded clarity on her involvement in the chat, which reportedly included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. The accidental inclusion of Goldberg exposed sensitive discussions, raising alarms about the administration’s handling of classified information.
Gabbard maintained a firm stance: “No classified material was shared in that chat,” she testified, aligning with White House and Ratcliffe statements. Yet, her refusal to disclose specifics—such as whether she used a personal device or the exact nature of the conversation—frustrated senators, particularly Democrats.
Senator Mark Warner led the charge, pressing Gabbard on accountability. “This isn’t just a slip-up; it’s a pattern of sloppiness,” he argued, questioning the competence of Trump’s national security team.
Gabbard countered that the chat was a legitimate policy discussion, not a breach, and noted an ongoing National Security Council review limited her responses. Her cool-headed defense blunted some criticism but couldn’t silence the political uproar.
As DNI, Gabbard oversees America’s intelligence apparatus, making "Signalgate" a bruising test of her leadership. While the incident hasn’t derailed her tenure, it has spotlighted the challenges of managing sensitive information in a high-stakes administration—leaving her, and Trump’s team, under a microscope as the review unfolds.