The Benny Show - Kash and Tulsi LIVE Right Now as BOMBS found at Tesla Dealer, New Lib Hoax DEBUNKED as DC in PANIC, with Guest Alina Habba

Episode Date: March 25, 2025

 Directors of CIA, FBI , NSA, DIA and National Intelligence testify on Worldwide Threats before Senate,Multiple bombs found inside Tesla showroom in Texas as threats against Elon Musk continue, and Alina Habba  joins the show Check Out Our Partners: American Financing: Save with https://www.americanfinancing.net/benny NMLS: 182334, http://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org Bamboo HR: Check out the Free Demo: https://www.bamboohr.com/freedemo Fast Growing Trees: Get 15% off with Code: BENNY: https://www.fastgrowingtrees.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Grocer $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Today is March 25th, 2025, and this is the glorious year of our Lord. We've already previewed what we're going to cover today live when they take the dais at an inside of the Senate.

And ladies and gentlemen, lots of news from the White House. Alina Haba will be joining us to detail all of it. Newly appointed district attorney for the state of New Jersey. So what's that about? We're going to ask her. A lot of crimes in New Jersey. Boy, oh boy. A lot of operations in New Jersey that Alina Haba could dig into. So we're going to get into all of it today on the program. It's going to be a rowdy show, probably going to be a longer show.

So settle into the chat and let's freaking go here. My name is Benny Johnson and this is The Benny Show. You probably are someone who has seen the abject and total devastation of the Biden economy. It hasn't been pleasant. We're seeing the demons exercised out of that economy right now. American financing can help you with your little exorcism here. You know, it's bad when my wife, when Kate, my wife's nurse, Kate, you know, it's bad when Kate comes home when Kate, my wife's nurse Kate, you know what's bad when Kate comes home and like slaps the grocery bill at the end of the counter. And is like, you wanna know what it costs me?

Go to Publix, Publix is the big grocery store around here in Florida. I don't know if you know Publix. Do you like Publix? I love Publix. I love Publix. Publix is awesome. But she like slaps it down.

I'm like, the price of eggs are what? Now? This was a couple of weeks ago. But throughout the last couple of years, that's been my wife. It's probably been your wife too. It's been a tough ride. A lot of people in debt. A lot of people getting into debt. It's time for you to get out of debt. Life did get more expensive. The most extreme acceleration in inflation in American history. So make sure that you're getting out of any debt that may have accrued and doing it right now. Call American Financing today and start feeling the relief at 888-528-1219. American Financing can help you unlock the equity in your home. You can save up to $800

every single month. A simple no-obligation call can change everything. That's AmericanFinancing.net slash Benny. Call today. All right, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have various members of the committee getting set right now. I want to detail what may be coming out of this Senate Intel Committee for us before we listen to the first hour and then we have a big show to do. But we thought, you know what? Why not? Why not cover the first hour here with our friend Cash and give him as much as... Oh, and there they are walking in. Hey, let's have a look. Let's have a look at that one. Okay. And there they are. It looks like we got... And that's definitely a Tulsi, all right? Tulsi wearing her FU Hillary Clinton white suit.

This is the white suit that Tulsi always wears when she's sending a message, the FU to the Clintons. There's no audio yet. There's nobody that's been seated. So this Tulsi's team, there's Cash. See Cash rolling up. The photographer's clicking,

and then you have John Ratcliffe there with the CIA. He can't be too popular of a man inside of that building with the release of the JFK documents and hopefully COVID documents and hopefully Epstein documents. A lot of questions, I'm sure. Got a little audio? Okay. Room tone and click clacking from the photographers. Here we go. So we got the big boys seated there.

You're going to have some military brass that flank them. With the NSC. Gabbling in. It's going to be a friend of the show, Tom Cotton. In charge. This is going to be fun and should be very rowdy. We like Tom Cotton. in charge this is going to be fun and should be very rowdy we like tom cotton tom cotton debunked the latest hoax welcome to the senate intelligence committee

annual worldwide threats hearing i'd like to begin by welcoming our esteemed panel of witnesses the director of national intelligence tulsi gabbard the the CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, the FBI Director, Kash Patel, the Director of the National Security Agency and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, General Tim Hawk, and the Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse. Thank you all for your appearance. Thank you for your leadership. I also want to recognize the hard work and dedication of the thousands of men and women

in our intelligence community whom you are here to represent today. Their successes are seldom celebrated. Their accomplishments are often unseen. But our nation is grateful to each one for the vital work they do to keep our nation safe, prosperous, and free. Our annual Worldwide Threats Hearing allows for the American people to receive an unvarnished and unbiased account of the real and present dangers that our nation faces. As we will hear from our witnesses, many of the threats we face are truly existential. Communist China is actively working to replace the United States as the world's dominant superpower. China uses coercive military, economic, and influence

operations short of war to shape a world favorable to its interests and hostile to ours. These methods include the biggest peacetime military buildup in history, rapidly expanding its nuclear forces, providing critical assistance to help Russia withstand U.S. sanctions, obscuring its role in accelerating the spread of COVID-19 beyond Wuhan, turning a blind eye to Chinese companies that enable the production of fentanyl flooding into the United States and putting space weapons on orbit, among other tactics. Iran, despite setbacks inflicted on its so-called access of resistance by Israel over the last year, still aims to destroy what it calls the Little Satan, the State of Israel, and what it calls the Great Satan, the United States. It continues to arm Yemeni rebels to attack global shipping, though these outlaws have

suffered terrible losses over the last two weeks thanks to decisive action by President Trump and our brave troops. I commend the President, Mike Walz, Pete Hexeth, and his entire national security team for these actions. Iran also continues its decades-long effort to develop surrogate networks inside the United States to threaten U.S. citizens. Furthermore, Iran's nuclear program continues apace. It's actively developing multiple space launch vehicles, which are little more than flimsy cover for an intercontinental ballistic

missile program that could hit the United States in a matter of years. But all this will soon come to an end. The Supreme Leader of Iran now faces a stark choice, thanks to President Trump. The Supreme Leader can fully dismantle his nuclear program, or he can have it dismantled for him. Finally, today's report also acknowledges that illicit drug production endangers the health and safety of millions of Americans. For the first time, the annual threat assessment lists foreign illicit drug actors as the very first threat to our country.

As the report highlights, Mexican-based cartels using precursors produced in China continue to smuggle fentanyl and synthetic opioids into the United States. Last year alone, these deadly drugs tragically killed more than 52,000 Americans, more than the number killed in attacks by foreign terrorists or foreign nations. Given these threats, we have to ask, are our intelligence agencies well-postured against these threats? I'm afraid the answer is no, at least not yet.

As the world became more dangerous in recent years, our intelligence agencies got more politicized, more bureaucratic, and more focused on promulgating opinions rather than gathering facts. As a result of these misplaced priorities, we've been caught off guard and left in the dark too often. I know that all of you agree that the core mission of the intelligence community is to steal our adversaries' secrets and convey them to policymakers to protect the United States. At the same time, it's not the role of intelligence agencies to make policy to justify presidential action or to operate like other federal agencies.

After years of drift, the intelligence community must recommit to its core mission of collecting clandestine intelligence from adversaries whose main objective is to destroy our nation and our way of life. The reason is not that our intelligence community lacks dedicated patriots who show up to work every day to protect the American people. On the contrary, it has an abundance of them. The reasons are a misuse of resources, bureaucratic bloat, a default to play it safe, and a past administration that prioritized social engineering over espionage. Coupled with recent failures, the finding in today's Worldwide Threat Report should be a

wake-up call to all of us to get our house in order. The status quo is proving inadequate to provide the President and Congress with the intelligence needed to protect the American people. As more storms gather, America's intelligence capabilities require urgent reform and revitalization. As the chairman of this committee, I look forward to working with each of you to strengthen America's intelligence edge and refocus our intelligence community on its core mission, stealing secrets. The American people deserve nothing less. We've assembled an impressive team to get this done, and I look forward to hearing your comments. Now, I recognize the Vice Chairman for opening remarks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, everybody. I want to thank

all the witnesses for being here. I got to say, I've been on the committee now for 14 years, and this year's assessment is clearly one of the most complicated and challenging in my tenure on the committee. I want to get into that in a moment, but I want to first of all address the recent story that is broken in the news. Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members of this administration, and according to reports, two of our witnesses here today were members of a group chat that discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly even included weapons packages, targets, and timing, and included the name of an active CIA agent. Putting aside for a moment that classified information should never be discussed over an unclassified system. It's also just mind-boggling to me that all these senior folks were on this line

and nobody bothered to even check. Security Hygiene 101, who are all the names? Who are they? Well, it apparently included a journalist. And no matter how much the Secretary of Defense or others want to disparage him, this journalist had at least the ethics to not report, I think, everything he heard. Question I raise is like, you know, everyone on this committee gets briefed on security protocols. They're told you don't make calls outside of SCIS of this kind of classified nature.

We don't know what I'm going to ask obviously. Director Gabbard is the executive in charge of all keeping our secrets safe. Were these government devices? Were they personal devices? Had the devices been collected to make sure there's no malware? There's plenty of declassified information that shows that our adversaries, China and Russia, are trying to break in to encrypted systems like Signal. was the case of a military officer or an intelligence officer, and they had this kind of behavior, they would be fired. I think this is one more example of the kind of sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information, that this is not a one-off or a first-time error. Let me take a couple of minutes and review some of the other reckless choices that this administration has made regarding our national security.

We all recall it seems like it wasn't that long ago, but less than two months ago. In the first two weeks, the administration canceled all U.S. foreign assistance. Now, some may say, how bad can that be? It's foreign assistance. Well, U.S. foreign assistance paid for the units in Ukraine that provide air defense to civilian cities being attacked by Russia. Foreign assistance paid for guarding camps in Syria where ISIS fighters are detained. Foreign assistance paid for programs abroad that ensure that diseases like Ebola don't come home. And until recently, it paid for the construction of a railway in Africa that would have helped given the United States much-needed access to critical minerals in Congo.

Now that project, China's going to try to finance it. As well, in the first two weeks, Director Patel, the administration fired several of our most experienced FBI agents, including the head of the Criminal Investigative Division, the head of the Intelligence Division, the head of the Counterterrorism Division, the heads of the New York, Washington, and Miami field office, all individuals who were distinctly and directly responsible for helping to keep America safe. The irony in a little bit was the currently or the recently dismissed head of the counterterrorism division was involved in disrupting the ISIS attacks plan for Oklahoma City and Philadelphia and helped lead the effort to bring to justice

the key planner of the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan. It killed 13 U.S. servicemen and 150 civilians. That very Abbey Gate effort was actually praised by the president in his State of the Union address. Yet the response, the administration's response to these agents, I believe good works and years of service, was to force these folks out. It's hard to imagine how that makes our country safer. Nor can I understand how Americans are made more secure by firing more than 300 staff at the National Nuclear Security Administration,

including those responsible for overseeing the security and safety of the nuclear stockpile. Or by ousting 130 employees at CISA, the agency directly responsible for trying to take on China's salt typhoon attack. Again, after salt typhoon, I would have thought folks on that group chat might have thought twice. Or how we made safer by sacking a thousand employees at the CDC and NIH, or actually directly working on trying to keep our country safe from disease by pushing out hundreds of intelligence officers. The amazing thing is our intelligence officers, they're not interchangeable like a Twitter coder. These intelligence officers, our country makes $20,000 to $40,000 of an investment just in getting a security clearance.

Literally goes into six figures when you take the training involved. Can anyone tell how firing probationary individuals without any consideration for merit or expertise is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars? And just to make clear that yesterday's story in the Atlantic was not this rookie one-off, it's a pattern. I want to acknowledge Director Ratcliffe was not here in his position when this took place. But again, earlier in the administration, when a non-classified network was used, thereby exposing literally hundreds of CIA officers' identities, those folks can't go into the field now. How does that make our government more efficient?

You know, again, this pattern of an amazing cavalier attitude towards classified information is reckless, sloppy, and silly. Perhaps what troubles me most is the way the administration has decided that we can take on all our problems by ourself without any needs for friends or allies. I agree that we've got to put America's priorities first, but America first cannot mean America alone. The intelligence we gather to keep Americans safe depends on a lot of allies around the world who have access to sources we don't have. That sharing of information saves lives, and it's not hypothetical. We all remember because it was declassified last year when Austria worked with our community

to make sure to expose a plot against Taylor Swift in Vienna. That could have killed literally hundreds of individuals. However, these relationships are not built in stone. They're not dictated by law. Things like the Five Eyes are based on trust, built on decades. But so often that trust is now breaking literally overnight. Yet suddenly, for no reason that I can understand, the United States is starting to act like our adversaries or our friends, voting in the UN with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea.

That's a rogues gallery if you ever heard of them. Treating our allies like adversaries, whether it's threats to take over Greenland or over the Panama Canal, destructive trade war with Canada, or literally threatening to kick Canada out of the Five Eyes. I feel our credibility is being enormously undermined with our allies, who I believe, and I think most of us on this committee, regardless of party beliefs, makes our country safer and stronger. But how can our allies ever trust us as the kind of partner we used to be when we, without consultation or notice, for example, stop sharing information to Ukraine in its war for survival against Russia? Or how can our allies not only not trust our government,

but potentially not our businesses with such arbitrary political decisions? Let me give you a few examples. You know, as a result of a lot of work from this committee and others in Congress, we made sure America's commercial space industry is second to none. From space to launch to commercial sensing and communications, the United States has taken a record lead. Yet overnight, this administration called into question the reliability of American commercial tech industry when Maxar and other commercial space companies were directed to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine. I gotta tell you, I'm a business guy, I can't say longer than being an elected

official, but pretty close. That shockwave across all of commercial space, and frankly not just commercial space, I've heard it from some of our hyperscalers in the tech community, has sent an enormous chill. Who's going to hire an American commercial space company, government or foreign business, with the ability to have that taken down so arbitrarily? And it's not just in the case of commercial space. We've seen that Canada, Germany, Portugal have all been saying they're rethinking buying F-35s. I've heard from Microsoft and Google directly and Amazon that they're having questions about whether they can still sell their services.

We've also seen foreign adversaries and friends take advantage of this riff in our national security areas and our scientists. Germany has already put out ads trying to attract some of our best scientists who've been riffed. And the Chinese intelligence agencies are posting on social media sites in the hopes of luring individuals with that national security clearance who've been pushed out, perhaps arbitrarily, to come into their service.

So no, the signal fiasco is not a one-off. It is unfortunately a pattern we're seeing too often repeated. I fear that we feel the erosion of trust from our workplace, from our companies, and from our allies and partners can't be put back in the bottle overnight. Make no mistake, these actions make America less safe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I turn to the witnesses' hearing, I want to welcome everyone in our large audience today. I also want to note that we will not tolerate any disruptions of the witnesses' testimony or senators' questions and the witnesses' answers. You'll note that we have a large contingent of capital police in the room any disruptions either opposed or in favor to the witnesses or result in prompt removal from the hearing room and my encouragement to the u.s attorney to throw the book at the person disrupting the hearing no offense but we all came to hear the witnesses, no one else in the room.

Director Gabbard, I understand you'll make a statement for the panel of witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity for us to be here to present you the Intelligence Community's 2025 Annual Threat Assessment. I'm joined here this morning by my colleagues from the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA. Our testimony offers the collective assessment of the 18 U.S. intelligence elements making up the U.S. intel community and draws on intelligence collection and information available to the IC from open source and private sector, and the expertise

of our analysts. This report evaluates what the IC assesses most threatens our people and our nation's ability to live in a peaceful, free, secure, and prosperous society. As you know, we face an increasingly complex threat environment that is threatening us here at home and our interests abroad. I'll begin by focusing on what most immediately and directly threatens the United States and the well-being of the American people, non-state criminal groups and terrorists putting American lives and livelihood at risk. Then I'll focus on the key nation states who have the capability to threaten the interests of the United States. In this complex

environment, non-state and state actors are able to exploit or take advantage of the effects of each other's activities. Conventional and asymmetrical capabilities, even the traditionally weakest of actors, are able to acquire from available advanced technologies creates an even more complex and serious threat landscape. First I'll highlight the threats presented by several non-state actors. Cartels, gangs, and other transnational criminal organizations in our part of the world are engaging in a wide array of illicit activity, from narcotics trafficking to money laundering to smuggling of illegal immigrants and human trafficking, which endanger the health, welfare, and safety of everyday Americans.

Based on the latest reporting available for a year-long period ending October 2024, cartels were largely responsible for the deaths of more than 54,000 U.S. citizens from synthetic opioids. Mexico-based transnational criminal organizations, or TCOs, are the main suppliers of illicit fentanyl to the U.S. market and are adapting to enforcement and regulatory pressures by using multiple sources and methods to procure precursor chemicals and equipment, primarily from China and India, many of which are dual-use chemicals used in legitimate industries. Independent fentanyl producers are also increasingly fragmenting the drug trade in Mexico.

The availability of precursor chemicals and ease of making illicit fentanyl have enabled independent actors to increase illicit fentanyl production and smuggling operations in Mexico. Cartels are profiting from human trafficking and have likely facilitated more than 2 million illegal immigrants encountered by law enforcement at the U.S. southwest border in 2024 alone, straining our vital resources and putting the American people at risk. Criminal groups drive much of the unrest and lawlessness in the Western Hemisphere. They also engage in extortion, weapons and human smuggling, and other illicit and dangerous revenue seeking operations, including kidnappings for ransom, forced labor, and sex trafficking. These and other human traffickers exploit vulnerable individuals and groups by promising

well-paying jobs while confiscating their identification documents. They operate in the shadows, exploiting lawlessness in various areas and using coercion and intimidation to control their victims. While these key drivers of migrants are expected to persist, heightened U.S. border security enforcement and deportations under the Trump administration are proving to serve as a deterrent for migrants seeking to illegally cross U.S. borders. U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwest border in January 2025 dropped 85 percent from the same period in 2024. Transnational Islamist extremists such as ISIS and al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadi groups continue to pursue, enable, or inspire

attacks against the United States and our citizens abroad and within the homeland to advance their ultimate objective of establishing a global Islamist caliphate. This includes heightened efforts to spread their ideology to recruit and radicalize individuals in the U.S. and the West. While the New Year's Day attacker in New Orleans had no known direct contact with ISIS terrorists, he was influenced and radicalized by ISIS ideological propaganda, as one example. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to call for attacks against the United States as they conduct attacks overseas. These jihadist groups have shown their ability to adapt and evolve, including

using new technologies and tactics to spread their ideology and recruit new followers. A range of non-state cyber criminals are also targeting our economic interests, critical infrastructure, and advanced commercial capability for extortion, other coercive pursuits, and financial gain. These actors use a variety of tactics, including phishing, ransomware, and denial-of-service attacks to disrupt our systems and steal sensitive and lucrative information using available technologies and U.S. cyber vulnerabilities. Ransomware actors last year, for example, attacked the largest payment processor for U.S. healthcare institutions, and another set of criminal actors conducted cyberattacks against U.S. water

utilities. Some of these non-state cyber actors also operate as proxies for or emulate similar activities carried out by major state actors. While these non-state cyber actors often seek financial and intellectual property gains, they also carry out cyber operations for espionage purposes, targeting our critical infrastructure. Turning to key state actors, the IC sees China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea engaging in activities that could challenge U.S. capabilities and interests, especially related to our security and economy. These actors are in some cases working together in different areas to target U.S. interests and to protect themselves from U.S. sanctions.

At this point, the IC assesses that China is our most capable strategic competitor. Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, the People's Republic of China seeks to position itself as a leading power on the world stage, economically, technologically, and militarily. Beijing is driven in part by a belief that Washington is pursuing a broad effort to contain China's rise and undermine CCP rule. China's most serious domestic challenge is probably China's slowing economy and potential instability if socioeconomic grievances lead to large-scale unrest. Growing economic tensions with the United States and other countries could also weigh on China's plans for economic growth and domestic job creation. China's military is fielding advanced

capabilities, including hypersonic weapons, stealth aircraft, advanced submarines, stronger space and cyber warfare assets, and a larger arsenal of nuclear weapons. While it would like to develop and maintain positive ties with the United States and the Trump administration to advance its interests and avoid conflict, China is building its military capability in part to gain advantage in the event of a military conflict with the United States around the issue of China's efforts toward unification with the Republic of China, or Taiwan. China's military is also expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region with a focus on disputed territorial claims in both the

East China and South China Seas. Beijing is advancing its cyber capabilities for sophisticated operations aimed at stealing sensitive U.S. government and private sector information and pre-positioning additional asymmetric attack options that may be deployed in a conflict. China's cyber activities have been linked to multiple high-profile breaches, including last year's massive compromise of U.S. telecom infrastructure, commonly referred to as salt typhoon. Beijing currently dominates global markets and strategically important supply chains, for example, with the mining and processing of several critical minerals.

In December, China imposed an export ban to the United States on gallium, germanium, and antimony, all of which are important to the production of semiconductors and our defense technologies. This was in direct response to U.S. export controls on chips designed to broadly limit PRC access to advanced chips and chip-making equipment. China also aims to compete in other critical global industries, including AI, legacy semiconductor chip production, biomanufacturing and genetic sequencing, and medical and pharmaceutical supply production. Leveraging often heavily state-subsidized production at greater scale, lower costs, and weaker regulatory standards than required in the West, Beijing's strategy has given it a leading position in many parts of these sectors and supply chains that support them. In 2023, for example, China had five first-in-class domestic drug approvals and three FDA approvals. Turning to Russia, Russia's nuclear

and conventional military capabilities, along with its demonstrated economic and military resilience, make it a formidable competitor. Moscow has more nuclear weapons than any other nation that could inflict catastrophic damage on the United States and the world in the event of a major war that Russian leaders feared put them and their regime at serious risk. In late 2024, Russia announced updates to its public nuclear doctrine, expanding the conditions under which Russia would consider using nuclear weapons. Russia is building a more modern and survivable nuclear force designed to circumvent U.S.

missile defense through reliable retaliatory strike potential. Russia intends to deter the U.S. by holding both the U.S. homeland at risk and by having the capabilities to threaten nuclear war in a conflict. Russia has developed advanced cyber capabilities and has attempted to pre-position access to U.S. critical infrastructure for asymmetric options and make it a persistent cyber threat. Russia's cyber activities have been linked to multiple high-profile breaches, including the 2023 hack of Microsoft. threat. Russia's cyber activities have been linked to multiple high-profile breaches, including the 2023 hack of Microsoft. Russia is also fielding new capabilities and anti-satellite weapons meant

to degrade U.S. and allied space infrastructure. Among Russia's most concerning developments is a new satellite intended to carry a nuclear weapon as an anti-satellite weapon, violating longstanding international law against such activity and putting the U.S. and global economy at risk. Iran continues to seek expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against

Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.

Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorists and militant actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance. Although weakened, this collection of actors still presents a wide range of threats, including to Israel's population, U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, and to U.S. and international military and commercial shipping and transit. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is pursuing stronger strategic and conventional capabilities that can target U.S.

forces and allies in the region, as well as the U.S. homeland, to bolster North Korea's leverage and stature, defend its regime, and achieve at least tacit recognition as a nuclear weapons power. Kim's recently cemented strategic partnership with Russia supports these goals by providing him greater financial, military, and diplomatic support, reduced reliance on China, and providing North Korean forces and weapons systems authentic warfighting experience. Kim views his strategic weapons advances since 2019, its deepening ties with Russia, and North Korea's economic durability is strengthening his negotiating position against Washington's demands for denuclearization

and lessening his need for sanctions relief. North Korea is probably prepared to conduct another nuclear test on short notice and continues to flight test its ICBMs to demonstrate their increasing capabilities as leverage in future negotiations. Since 2022, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have grown closer. Removing the accelerant of the war in Ukraine is unlikely to revert these bilateral relationships to a pre-war 2021 baseline, leaving room for new strategic priorities and world events to create new incentives or challenges to their currently high levels of cooperation. Russia has been a catalyst for much of this expanded cooperation, driven heavily by the

support it has needed for its war effort against Ukraine, including protection from U.S. and Western sanctions. In addition to its exchange of military and other resource capabilities with North Korea, Russia has relied more heavily on China's financial and defense industry backing, and also has increased combined military exercises with China to signal shared fortitude against the United States and U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region. With Iran, Russia has also expanded financial ties to mitigate sanctions. Iran has become a critical military supplier to Russia, especially of UAVs, in exchange for Russian technical support for Iranian weapons, intelligence, and advanced cyber capabilities.

In conclusion, the threats that we see to U.S. national security are both complex and multifaceted, and put the lives, safety, and well-being of the American people at serious risk. As the heads of the American people's intelligence community, we will continue to provide the President, Congress, and our warfighters with timely, unbiased, relevant intelligence to keep the United States secure, free, prosperous, and at peace. To the American people specifically, our intelligence

community exists to serve you and to ensure your safety, security, and freedom. Thank you. Thank you, Director Gabbard. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the annual threat assessment for the first time lists cartels and traffickers as the very first threat. Director Patel, I'm pleased to say that the FBI's Little Rock Field Office has been doing its part in addressing this threat. The field office, along with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, have arrested nearly 300 immigrants in my state in 2025 so far. Could you provide some color about the nature of the threat these illegal immigrants have posed not just to Arkansas but our nation, perhaps including some of the details of the horrific offenses they've committed against the American people? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vice Chairman.

The witness will suspend. The greatest threat to global security is Israel and the whole world. Stop funding Israel! Stop funding Israel! Stop funding Israel! Stop funding Israel! So that protester was a Code Pink lunatic saying the greatest threat to world peace is funding Israel. I will observe for the benefit of the audience here on television that Code Pink is funded

by communist China as well, which simply illustrates—speak up now if you want to be removed as well, whoever's saying that. If anyone else would like to join them, speak now, please, so we don't have any more disruptions. As I was saying, the fact that communist China funds Code Pink, which interrupts a hearing like this about Israel, simply illustrate Director Gabbard's point that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other American adversaries are working in concert to a greater degree than they ever have before. Director Patel, back to my question. Could you give us some color about the threat that illegal migrants have posed, not only to my state, which has resulted in nearly 300 arrests in 2025, but also to the nation at large?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of the committee. I appreciate the time to address you all. Specifically to Arkansas, Senator, the priorities at the FBI, which I identified during my confirmation hearing and since, is attacking violent crime along with national security. And every single state in this country is a border state. Arkansas is no exception. Allow me to highlight the work of the men and women in the FBI and state and local law enforcement in the state of Arkansas. Since February 5th alone, we've got 220 illegal immigrants arrested on charges varying from violent offenses, weapons offenses, narcotics offenses, and serious violent felonies.

Two hundred fifty-three separate individuals have been charged related to those offenses. And here's something I want the American people to hear about narcotics and countering narcotics. Thousands of pounds of narcotics were seized in these three weeks in the state of Arkansas. Thousands worth tens of millions of dollars. Everything from fentanyl to meth to cocaine to heroin to marijuana and more and also including manufactured drugs. The FBI does have the biggest footprint in Arkansas, but we could not achieve this mission without our state and

local law enforcement partners, which has been one of the priorities since I took the helm at the FBI. They provide the greatest ground level intelligence to conduct these operations in Arkansas and in every single helm at the FBI. They provide the greatest ground-level intelligence to conduct these operations in Arkansas and in every single state across the union. Since February 5th, we've assisted with the arrest of hundreds of criminals and illegals throughout your state, and that was just a three-week operation. Prior to that, Senator, there was a bust of 17 federal indictments

relating to a meth lab in the state of Arkansas in the southwest corner of your state. All of those individuals are now facing prosecution for hundreds of pounds of illegal opioids, guns, and other illicit material. So we will continue to do that work. We will work at six, seven days a week, 365 days a year, not just in your state, Mr. Chairman, but in every state. Thank you, Director Patel. As Director Gabbard highlighted from the annual threat report, Director Ratcliffe, many, if not most, of the chemical precursors for deadly fentanyl produced by Mexican drug cartels originates in China. China, of course, is a techno totalitarian police state. They have technology to monitor their own people

that Soviet Russia could have only imagined. Is there any reason, Director Ratcliffe, to believe that China could not monitor and crack down on this flow of chemical precursors to Mexico if it chose to do so? Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator, for the question. No, there's nothing that prevent China, the People's Republic of China, from cracking down on fentanyl precursors. As you well know, Senator, one of the reasons that they don't is that there are more

than 600 PRC-related companies that produce those precursor chemicals in an industry that generates $1.5 trillion. That is one of the reasons that we see that Chinese efforts to affect the sentinel precursors are really limited in nature and intermittent in nature and not a dedicated effort to enforce their own laws and regulations to crack down on this. Thank you, Director Ratcliffe. I have many more questions I could ask, but I'm going to try to lead by example and stay within the five-minute limit for the benefit of senators. I remind everyone there is a vote scheduled at noon. I hope to finish the open portion of this hearing before that vote closes, after which time we'll move to the closed portion.

The Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be happy to take your extra 13 seconds, but I want to go back to what I addressed at the outset. I mean, this was not only sloppy, it not only violated all procedures, but if this information had gotten out, American lives could have been lost. The Houthis had this information, could reposition their defensive systems. So I want to get a little more information about this. Director Gabbard, did you participate in the group chat with Secretary of Defense and other Trump senior officials discussing the Yemen war plans? SEN. SEN.

SEN. SENATOR GABBARD, Senator, I don't want to get into the specifics. MR. Ma'am, were you on? You're not going to be willing to address— SEN. SEN. Conversations—

MR. So you're not—are you denying—Will you answer my question, ma'am? You are not TG on this group chat. I'm not going to get into the specifics. So you refuse to acknowledge whether you are on this group chat. Senator, I'm not going to get into the specifics. Why are you going to get into the specifics? Is it because it's all classified? Because this is currently under review by the National Security Council. Because it's all classified?

If it's not classified, share the text now. As the White House previously stated— Is it classified or non-classified information on this text? I can confirm— Director Ratcliffe, were you on the group chat? Senator, I was on a signal messaging group. So you were the John Ratcliffe on that chat? I was.

Thank you. Thank you. Can I provide some context, Senator, to that? Yes, but I've got a series of questions. But I think it's important because at the outset, you made a couple of comments about Signal messaging using encrypted apps. So that we're clear, one of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers. One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration. I've got a series of questions. If you're making the statement, the signal is a secure channel.

No. Can I answer that? It is. I've got a series of questions. Decryption. So to finish, it is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes provided, provided, Senator, that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels. So those were procedures that were implemented. My staff implemented those processes, followed those processes, complied with those processes. And finally, just please, so my communications, to be clear, in a signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.

Well, we will make that determination because if it's not classified, share the text with the committee. You know, let me go on. Director Gabbard, you are the security executive and set access guidelines for classified information. Did you contact the defense secretary or others after the specific military planning was put out and say, hey, we should be doing this in a skiff. There was no classified material that was shared in that. So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee.

You can't have it both ways. These are important jobs. This is our national security. Bobbing and weaving and trying to, you know, filibuster your answer. So please answer the question. If this was a rank, Director Gabbard, if this was a rank and file intelligence officer who did this kind of careless behavior, what would you do with them? Senator, I'll reiterate that there was no classified material that was shared in that signal. Ma'am, if there's no classified materials, share. And then if there's no classified materials, then answer the—you can't even answer the question whether you're on the chat. This is strangely familiar, and I think my colleagues will remember, when you couldn't answer the question, is Edward Snowden a traitor?

Ma'am, I have serious doubts about your, anyway. Director Gabbard, I'm going to give you this, tweeted just 11 days ago and I'm quoting you, any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such. So if this information is classified, what are you going to do? Senator, two points here. First of all, there's a difference between inadvertent release versus malicious leaks of classified information. The second point is, there was no classified information that was on the signal group chat. Director Patel, my time's about out, and I'm going to use my 12 seconds up the chairman came. Director Patel, has the FBI launched any investigation of this? Senator, I was just briefed about it late last night this morning. I don't have an affairs, I would recognize Senator Collins.

She asked me to express to you that she is under the weather this morning. She regrets her absence, but anticipates submitting written questions, to which I would request your prompt replies for the senator. Senator Cornyn. Director Gabbard, I applaud President Trump's efforts to try to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine. I want to read a statement out of the annual threat assessment and just confirm that you agree with this. It says, Russia views its ongoing war with Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West and its objective to restore Russian strength and security and its near abroad against perceived U.S. and Western encroachment has increased the risks of unintended escalation between Russia and NATO. Do you agree with that statement? And that is in the annual threat assessment, correct?

Correct. I'd like to refer to an AP story, Associated Press, dated March 21, 2025. The title of the article is Western officials say Russia is behind a campaign of sabotage across Europe. This AP map shows it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that's being made part of the record. Without objection. The document that AP compiled, and I presume this is through open sources—documented 59 incidents, including cyberattacks, spreading propaganda, plotting killings, or committing acts of vandalism, arson, sabotage, or espionage.

Is that consistent with your understanding and impression of what Russia is currently engaged in in Europe? Senator, I haven't seen that specific article, but I can confirm that we assess Russia's attempts to conduct such sabotage activities in Europe. Thank you. One of the things that I'm most concerned about following some of the discussions between Russia and Ukraine and the United States and our other allies—obviously, as I said, peace between Ukraine and Russia is the desirable end state. I think you'd have to be something—you'd have to be crazy to say otherwise. But I also want to talk a little bit about the unexpected

or maybe unintended consequences of European insecurity. I know the incoming chancellor of Germany has talked about the possibility that Germany might share its nuclear weapons with Ukraine and suggested that the UK would be part of that. I know that Poland has talked about acquiring nuclear weapons and perhaps other European countries to make up for what they view as a receding of the American umbrella of protection. General Kraus, what would be the result of the proliferation of nuclear weapon-armed countries in Europe, if in fact that would occur as a result of the perception of Russian—excuse me, European insecurity? MR. Senator, thank you for the question.

One of the things that the intelligence community works very hard on is to understand who has nuclear weapons throughout the planet. And as discussed in the opening statements, both by the chair and by Director Gabbard, the proliferation and the increase in the types and the lethality of nuclear weapons is one of the things that we have to track and we as a nation are going to have to face. It has changed dramatically in the last five years and will continue to change over the next five years. The addition of additional countries which have their own deterrence policies and will act in a nuclear dialogue or the presence of those weapons, the security of those weapons,

the movement and the threat of use of those weapons complicates the environment by which all of us will operate and will complicate all of the decisions by which all future conflict in the political decisions that we support are the decision-makers. SEN. It makes the world a more dangerous place, does it not? SEN. Senator, yes, it does. SEN. And just by way of history, Ukraine used to be—have the third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet, but as a result of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the United Kingdom, the Budapest memorandum documented a commitment by Russia and the United States to protect the territorial integrity

of Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. Did I correctly summarize the content of the Budapest Memorandum back in 1994? Yes, Senator, you did, and Ukraine willingly gave up its weapons for the protection of others. Thank you very much. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and obviously my colleagues and I feel very strongly about the war planning meeting over unclassified phones. Obviously reckless, obviously dangerous. Both the mishandling of classified information and the deliberate destruction of federal records are potential crimes that ought to be investigated immediately.

And I want to make clear that I'm of the view that there ought to be resignation, starting with the National Security Advisor and the Secretary of Defense. Director Radcliffe and Director Gabbard, have you participated in any other group chats with senior Trump administration officials in which classified information was shared using phones that weren't cleared for such information? Question for the two of you. Senator, thank you for the question. I haven't, your question was, have I participated in any other group chats sharing classified information? To be clear, I haven't participated in any signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all. Okay. Director Gabbard. Senator, I have the same answer. I have not participated in any

signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information. Yeah, and I just think it's important to follow through here. Would the two of you cooperate with an audit to confirm that that is the case? I have no objection. Senator, I'll certainly comply with any follow-up that the National Security Council would deem appropriate. But again, to be clear, the use of signal message and encryption applications is permissible and was, in this case, used permissibly, at least to my understanding, and in a lawful manner. The seriousness of this is so clear. That's why I want to have an audit,

and both of you gave me an answer indicating that you would be open to that, and I appreciate it. Director Patel, you weren't in this particular group chat, but have you participated in any chats on unclassified phones with other administration officials relating to national security? And if so, on what other topics? Thank you. Thank you for your question, Senator. Not that I can recall. Director Gabbard, involves this question of Elon Musk wasn't going to see the military's China war plans because he said he, quote, has business in China and he would be susceptible perhaps to that. That was his comment. So as DNI, you're responsible for security clearance policies across the government. Under your watch, how are you going to go about carrying out this obligation? Because

I think it obviously is a very significant one in terms of American national security. Thank you, Senator. As you know, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence provides oversight over these different 18 intelligence elements. Leaders within those elements are empowered with that responsibility to uphold the trust that the American people have placed in them. In this example that you cited, both Secretary Hegseth as well as President Trump completely denied the assertion that Elon Musk was going to receive any kind of classified war plan brief pertaining to China or any other country. So on the question of whether the president has the prerogative to get clearances is really the area that I want to touch on because you're formally responsible for security clearance policies, and that's why I'm asking about it. So can a president decide who gets the clearance?

Yes. So what about your role? You're formally responsible for security clearance policies. That is also true. So how do we resolve it? President just gets his way. The elected president and commander in chief has the authority to provide a security clearance to those who he deems necessary. Mr. Chairman and to the ranking member, I think we have to have a further discussion on this and figure out what the ground rules are. I think it's clear what the director says. I just think

we need more clarity because I think you have the formal responsibility for security clearances, and now we've heard that this somehow is going to be the president's project, and I think we ought to have further discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. security clearances and now we've heard that this somehow is going to be the president's project and i think we ought to have further discussions thank you mr chairman senator lankford showing thank you thank you to all of you your service to the country it matters there are a lot of country there are a lot of citizens of our country right now that have much greater security in their life because of the work that you do and the people that are working around you do. So I just want to say I appreciate that. For the folks in Oklahoma, they would definitely want me to be able to say thank you for your service.

Let me ask a couple of questions on this. Director Gabbard, let me start with you on this. Iran has been listed as one of the top sponsors of terrorism for a very long time. This is, they are the primary armors of Hezbollah, of Hamas, of the Houthis. They're arming the Russians to be able to kill Ukrainians. They continue to be able to destabilize the region. And just in the recent days, when many nations in the Gulf region have talked about how to provide greater stability,

Iranian leadership stepped out and made very clear statements they want a one-state solution for Israel, and it's to drive out all Jews. So this continues to be an issue not just for the region, but for Americans in particular. So my question is on this, is the sanctions and the effect of sanctions, what we know about the Iranian response under the Biden administration, those sanctions will turn down. Quite frankly, Iran has been able to sell $90 billion in oil on the global market to be able to rearm itself and all the others around the region. Now, sanctions are now going back onto Iran again. What do we know about the effect of those sanctions? Thank you, Senator, for the question. These sanctions have just begun to be reinstated, so the full effects have not yet borne fruit. But the message that the president has sent

with his maximum pressure campaign is certainly heard. As the chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, President Trump recently sent a letter to the leader of Iran expressing his interest in direct talks in order to try to de-escalate and to prevent war, prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, but also stated that there would be military consequences if there was no direct negotiations. So President Trump is continuing to carry out his vision and mission of peace through strength, acting in the best interest of the American people. We will see what choices are made from here. Okay, thank you. Director Patel,

during the last administration and the very open border policy that they had. We had some years, including 2022 and 2023, where there were 70,000 individuals that were released into the country that were identified as special interest aliens. This is something this committee and the Homeland Security Committee tried over and over again to get details on. The Biden administration was unwilling to be able to share any of the details in the special interest aliens, led to a great amount of frustration. The comment came often back to us is that FBI is going to track

all these individuals and to be able to identify them, even though it was 70,000 a year that were coming into the country. You just walked into this position and trying to get your feet on the ground and so many different issues that are outstanding on that. I raised to you the issue of individuals that are currently illegally present in the country going through a process, but are listed as special interest aliens. By definition from the administration, those are individuals that we don't know

their level of risk, but where they're considered a national security risk, but we don't know anything else about them from there. So how are you trying to get on top of the number of people that are criminal aliens in the country, but also these special interest aliens that come from terrorist areas? Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your question. As far as the FBI is concerned, you hit on it. Criminal. So we are focused across our interagency partners at DHS,

ICE, CBP, CIS, and elsewhere to identify through our information sharing networks that we have stood up with state and local law enforcement to provide us the details on any criminal evidence relating to any of the individuals you highlighted. And if there's a nexus there, a case will be opened, excuse me, by the line agents who predicated lawful and factual basis to do so. And we will further refer that matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution. We are reviewing all of these cases anew, and we will report back to you, Senator, with some fidelity on the outcome of that process. Okay, thank you. Are you getting good feedback from social media technology companies and cooperation from them on illegal activities that are promoted on their site?

All the different sites have rules and standards for what can and can't be done on that. But, for instance, in the border areas, many of the sites are allowing child trafficking or they're allowing basically the hiring of Americans to come be drivers and such, and they know this is being circumvented. Are they working with you on that to be able to take illegal content off their sites? Thank you, Senator. And we have engaged directly at the top levels of all the private sector software communities and social media companies. And they have been very helpful because they have known they have been told that this is a priority for me at the FBI to work with them because they have so much information to share back with us. Now, that's, of course, just on the public systems. We're not talking about the dark net.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Director Ratcliffe, I want to I want to start with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Director Ratcliffe, I want to start with you. Who determined that the content of this discussion on signal was not classified? Senator, I guess I'm not— Well, for example— I can speak to my personal knowledge. There was no classified— Senator, I guess I'm not. Well, for example. I can speak to my personal knowledge. There was no classified.

Agent mentioned as part of this story. Normally, that would be classified information. So I guess what I'm asking is, did you just determine it was not classified or was there any declassification after the fact? So to be clear, so everyone understands the process, as we talked about, Signal is a permissible use. I understand that. The CIA has been approved by the White House for senior officials. And appropriate for many conversations. And recommended by CISA for high-level officials who would be targeted by foreign adversaries to use end-to-end encrypted apps whenever possible, like Signal. In this case, what the National Security Advisor did was to request, through a Signal message, that there be coordination. So you mentioned the name of a CIA active officer, correct?

I didn't mention the name. You didn't mention the name. I didn't mention the existence of that. And in the article, the implication was that somehow that was improper. That was not the case. So a CIA officer was not operating undercover. So the request for coordination was for a staff member to coordinate on the high side. So I communicated the name of a CIA officer not operating undercover, completely appropriate,

who does openly and routinely coordinate with the White House as a member of my staff. So the intimation there that there was something inappropriate was clearly incorrect. Director, did it occur to you that given the sensitive nature of this discussion that it could just move to the high side? So that was clearly, Senator, I think the intent was that this was initially set up by the National Security Advisor with the instruction that send a point of contact and then you will be provided with information

further on the high side for high side communication. So I think reflects that the National Security Advisor intended this to be as it should have been a mechanism for coordinating between senior level officials, but not a substitute for using high side or classified communications for anything that would be classified. And I think that that is exactly what did happen. So I'm curious, did this conversation at some point include information on weapons packages, targets, or timing? Not that I'm aware of.

Director Gabbard, same question. Same answer and defer to the Department of Defense on that question. Well, those are two different answers, but you're saying that did not that was not part of the conversation knowledge precise Operational issues were not part of this conversation, correct? Okay I want to ask you director Gabbard Something on a very different tract here, which is I very much agree with the the conclusion of the ATA that foreign illicit drug actors are a

major threat in the United States, and many of you have spoken to this today. Is the IC wrong in its omission of Canada as a source of illicit fentanyl in the ATA? I was surprised, given some of the rhetoric, that there is no mention ofl in the ATA. I was surprised, given some of the rhetoric, that there is no mention of Canada in the ATA. Senator, the focus in my opening and the ATA was really to focus on the most extreme threats in that area, and our assessment is that the most extreme threat related to fentanyl continues to come from and through Mexico.

So the president has stated that the fentanyl coming through Canada is massive and actually said it was an unusual and extraordinary threat. And that was the language that was used to justify putting tariffs on Canada. I'm just trying to reconcile those two issues. Is it an unusual and extraordinary threat, or is it a minor threat that doesn't even merit mention in the annual threat assessment? Senator, I don't have the numbers related to Canada in front of me at this time. I'd like to get back to you on the specifics of that answer. It's less than 1% of the fentanyl that we are able to interdict.

But if you have different information, I would very much welcome that. Senator Budd. Thank you all for being here and Director Gabbard prior to your role here we had a big storm in western North Carolina and you were among those first from outside our state to show up. So thank you for your work there. Thank you for your ongoing work there and that of your family as well. It was good to see them when out in western North Carolina last week, so thank you.

Director Hawk, so what do we need to do in regards to Volt and Typhoon? There's a lot of pre-positioning that went on there, so where are we with? And what do we need to do in regards to our power companies, whether it's generation or distribution, Duke Energy in my home state, or even the rural electric co-ops? What do we need? What have we learned? And what can I tell them? Senator, 99% of the critical infrastructure in the United States is controlled by private companies. So that really drives us to talk about how do we partner with industry and with the commercial sector, in this case, power sector. Vault typhoon began when industry came to the intelligence community and

said we're seeing anomalous activity, can you help us gain context? And we were able to bring context to that to be able to understand what the threat was and then to ultimately be able to identify who was behind that threat. Since that time, we've continued to work very closely with industry to be able to determine what are the right ways for us to be able to pursue these threats within networks to enable the interagency, to enable our partners and industry to be able to pursue them. That's the approach we have to take. It is a collaboration between the government and industry to be able to eradicate these threats, and we have continued to pursue them together since our first identification and notification that we did related to this particular threat. Thank you. What have you done on the offensive side here in regards to, I think there were three, Salt Typhoon, Vault Typhoon, and even Flax Typhoon.

Maybe there were others, but those are the three that are known. Senator, I've been given really clear guidance in terms of what the Secretary of Defense expects in terms of our aggressive approach to be able to restore deterrence, and I look forward to talking with you about that in a closed year. Look forward to that. Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe and Patel, thank you all again for being here. So as you're all keenly aware, Section 702 of FISA is an extremely useful authority to help keep our nation safe. I also know that we need to rebuild American people's trust and confidence that such authorities are not being misused by the intelligence community to unlawfully target Americans. So since taking over your respective agencies, can you tell me and tell the American people how effective the recent changes have been in protecting privacy and civil liberties of each and every Americans. And then if you will comment on how useful the authority is in generating intelligence

that actually protects the homeland. We'll start with you, Director Gabbard. Director Gabbard Senator, Section 702, which authorizes foreign collection of non-U.S. persons outside of the United States, continues to be one of our most effective collection tools to ensure our national security. There are a number of reforms that the Senate passed, that Congress passed last year, that have proven to strengthen the protections of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. In the short time that I've been in the seat, I've seen a few examples of that directly, most recently through the FISA court calling in

an amici to come in and weigh in on a dispute regarding provisions that would further protect Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. I'll be visiting our friends at the NSA next week and doing a quote-unquote ride-along to observe directly how those reforms that Congress passed are being implemented to protect Americans' civil liberties, and look forward to reporting back after I've had that opportunity. Thank you. Director Patel. Thank you, Senator. With my background in FISA and 702, I just want to clearly delineate between FISA Title I-3 and 702 collection. We need to both ardently defend its use, but also ardently support reforms that allow the American public to entrust

that those charged with those capabilities are not violating the Fourth Amendment or any other violation. Speaking to Title I and Title III, when it comes to U.S. persons, I have already included an amendment in terms of FBI language to make sure that when a U.S. person is targeted, that the FBI specifically is responsible for culling through all exculpatory information that is reasonably known and satisfying that burden and stating it in the application. When it comes to 702, Senator, some of the biggest enterprise efforts we have had to thwart national security risk would not have occurred if 702 collection had gone dark and the FBI continues to use that information to

protect the homeland. We've had multiple takedowns in the last six months based on 702 and interagency collection processes, but we just need to ensure the American public, and I'm working with my team, that even in the 702 sphere, American citizens' information is protected. Thank you all. I look forward to the discussion in the closed session. Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Gabbard, I didn't intend to get into the Jeffrey Goldberg story, but something you said has sort of puzzled me. According to open source reporting at 1144 on the morning of March 15th, Secretary Hedseff put into this group text a detailed operation plan including targets, the weapons we were going to be using, attack sequences, and timing,

and yet you've testified that nothing in that chain was classified. Wouldn't that be classified? What if that had been made public that morning before the attack took place? Senator, I can attest to the fact that there were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time. So the attack sequencing and timing and weapons and targets you don't consider should have been classified. I defer to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council on that question. Well, you're the head of the intelligence community, and you're supposed to know about classifications.

So your testimony very clearly today is that nothing was in that set of texts that were classified. I'll follow up on Senator Wyden's question. If that's the case, please release that whole text stream so that the public can have a view of what actually transpired on this discussion. It's hard for me to believe that targets and timing and weapons would not have been classified. Well, let me move on. You approved this report, this annual report prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Is this submitted to the White House routinely in anticipation of its public release? I don't know what you mean by submitted routinely. Was it?

Well, was this report submitted to the White House before it's released today? It was submitted to them once it was completed. I think probably around the same time it was sent to all of you. I want to move on. One note that surprised me, I've been on this committee now for, this is my 13th year, every single one of these reports that we have had has mentioned global climate change as a significant national security threat, except this one. Has something happened? Has global climate change been solved? Why is that not in this report? And who made the decision that it should not be in the report when it's been in every one of the 11 prior reports?

I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this annual threat assessment has been focused very directly on the threats that we deem most critical to the United States and our national security. Obviously, we're aware of occurrences within the environment and how they may impact operations, but we're focused on the direct threats to Americans' safety, well-being, and security. How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation, political violence, which is the finding, by the way, of the 2019 annual threat assessment under the first Trump administration? You don't consider that a significant national security threat? For the intelligence community, being aware of the environment that we're operating in

is a given. What I focused this annual threat assessment on and the IC focused this threat assessment on are the most extreme and critical direct threats to our national security. Let me ask a direct question. Who decided climate change should be left out of this report after it's been in the prior 11? Where was that decision made? I gave direction to our team at ODNI to focus on the most extreme and critical national security threats.

Your direction include no comments on climate change? Senator, as I said, I focused on the most extreme and direct national security threats that we face. That's not a response to my question. Did you instruct that there be no finding in terms of climate change in this report? I don't recall giving that instruction. Final questions in a few short seconds that I have left. You all concede, and it's in the report repeatedly, about the cyber danger from China, from Russia, from Iran.

Why then is the administration deconstructing CISA? 130 people fired. The General Hawk talked about the importance of public-private cooperation. That section of CISA seems to have been disestablished. What possible policy reason is there for undermining CISA's relationship to the states with regard to elections and to the private sector with regard to cybersecurity when the cybersecurity threat is only growing? Anybody want to tackle that? I won't speak for all of my colleagues here, but I don't believe any of us have any insight into those specific staffing decisions that have been made. Well, let me ask you this question. The report has found explicitly growing cyber threats, including to elections from Russia, China, Iran. Do you believe that it's in the

national interest to diminish our capacity to deal with those cyber issues? Yes or no? President Trump is focused on effects and making sure that the people that we have and the resources that we have are focused on our national security. He and his team recognize that more people doesn't necessarily always mean better effects. Those are some of the things that are driving the changes that we're seeing across the administration is getting all of our agencies back and focused on their core mission. General Hawk, do you agree that— Senator King, your time is up. Time is up. Thank you.

Senator Rounds. Thank you, Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country. With regard to the issues surrounding Signal, I'm going to address it, but I'm going to address it in the closed session so that we can get more in depth into that issue. In the meantime, I want to direct my first question to Director Ratcliffe. As the debate continues in Washington regarding spectrum, what can you share in this unclassified setting

regarding the critical nature of spectrum to national security interests generally? Thanks for the question, Senator. I know this is an issue of great interest to the Senate and the potential auction of commercial space on Spectrum. Those, as you correctly point out, the discussions about Spectrum, I will start out by saying there are national security implications from such an auction where take to take place to both the DoD and the IC I think the discussions that we need to have in a classified setting I can relate to you that the direction from early meetings that we've had is that the discussion about where that might take place would not affect specifically CIA or IC equities.

And I hope that's the case where the discussion goes, but I think we need to be concerned that a public auction at bands at certain levels would have an impact on our ability to deliver an accurate intelligence picture. In other words, there are parts of the spectrum which simply cannot be shared with the commercial. That's correct. All right. Thank you. And we can talk about the specific reasons about why in a classified setting that would cause a diminishment of our ability to deliver a good threat picture to the Commander-in-Chief.

And in some cases, life or death consequences. Absolutely. Thank you. Director Patel, first of all, I just want to thank you for what you are doing and I know that there's a number of items that in your previous life you did that simply can't be discussed, but nonetheless, we've appreciated what you have done for your country already. Today, I just wanted to talk to you about, we've seen a series of public news reports about ISIS threats within the United States, and there have been several successful interdictions, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, New York. Although the question remains as to the total number of ISIS operatives who were able to breach porous borders in the months and years before policy changes in this January, January of 2025, to what extent is the FBI tracking

operatives who remain in the United States today, and what is the FBI doing to track them down? Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your question and your comments. So the priorities at the FBI, since I took over, have been violent crime and national security. And this speaks directly to national security. The direction for the FBI is to track down any individuals with any terrorist ties whatsoever, whether it be ISIS or another foreign terrorist organization, and now to include the new designations of the cartels down south and elsewhere. So the FBI is utilizing our Joint Terrorism Task Force, which are situated in all 55 field offices. But the key to success there is our partnership with state and local law

enforcement who have the ground-level intelligence in some of these operatives. And as you've highlighted, we've already shut down numerous threats and we've identified publicly where permissible these threats and individuals and where they're coming from. And I think the FBI is doing a very good job right now in collecting this information through our interagency process. And we will continue to thwart every bad actor affiliated with a terrorist organization or otherwise. Thank you. And Director Haack, first of all, you've talked a little bit already about Salt Typhoon, but what I want to really get into is the things that are moving right now that you haven't had a chance to address, and in particular, CyberCom 2.0 and the need to accelerate that particular plan moving forward. Can you talk just briefly, I've got 40 seconds left, talk to us a little bit about how critical 2.0 is in terms of

countering the cyber activity that's going on through nefarious actors. Senator, what we were asked to do by Congress was to look at what's the force generation model for the Department of Defense to be able to generate cyber forces. Based off of that request, I produced a recommendation for the Secretary that outlined three critical things, which is really how we manage the talent, how we develop the talent in the department, and also how we equip that talent underpinned by computing AI. We've brought that plan initially back to Secretary Hegseth. He told us to go faster. We've delivered him that plan. And now, based off of his guidance, we will now begin to move forward with the rest of the department. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. Thank you for being here. Mr. Director Ratcliffe, it sounds to me like your testimony today and the DNI's testimony is that there was nothing wrong at all with the signal thread that you were on, that it didn't include any targeting information or battle sequence. That is your testimony that's your testimony and i'm a little staggered that that is your view director radcliffe does the cia have any

rules about handling of classified information yes or no yes thank you Thank you, Director Radcliffe. Do you agree—Secretary of Defense Pete Hexeth said this morning when asked by members of the press what had happened, he said this morning in Hawaii that Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeff Goldberg is a, quote, deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of providing hoaxes time and time again. Do you share that evaluation, the Secretary of Defense's evaluation of Jeff Goldberg as a journalist? Senator, I didn't see those comments. I don't know Jeff Goldberg. So do you share that view of the Secretary of Defense? Well, I don't have a view on— Okay.

Do you—assuming that he has that view, I'm curious about whether—you are the CIA director, okay? This has happened. We know it's happened. Did Jeff Goldberg somehow—was it a—did he create a hoax that allowed him to become part of this signal thread? Please answer the question. You don't—don't insult the intelligence of the American people.

Did he invite himself to the signal thread? I don't know how he was invited, but clearly he was. Did you see the nods added? Clearly it was. Finish your sentence, please. the Signal thread? MR. I don't know how he was invited, but clearly he was— Do you—you did not— MR. —add it? Clearly, it was—finish your sentence, please. MR. Clearly, he was added to the Signal group.

I—your question is— No, you don't know that the president's national security adviser invited him to join the Signal thread? Everybody in America knows that. Does the CIA director not know that? I've seen conflicting reports about who added the reporter to the signal messaging group. You think that it's perfectly appropriate that there was a reporter added, especially one that the Secretary of Defense says is deceitful, highly discredited, a so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes over and over again.

Do you—is your testimony that it was appropriate that he was added to this signal thread? No, of course not. Why did you not call— Hold on, Senator. You're mischaracterizing my testimony. Good. You answered the question. Let me ask you, when he was added to the thread, you're the CIA director. Why didn't you call out that he was present on the signal thread?

I don't know if you use signal messaging, Amp. I do. I do. Not for classified information, not for targeting, not for anything remote. Neither do I, Senator. Well, that's what your testimony is today. It absolutely is not, Senator. Were you not listening at the beginning when I said that I was using it as permitted, it is permissible to use? I agree that's your testimony. Yeah. I agree that's your testimony. You asked me if I use it, and I said, not for targeting, not for classified information. And I said, I don't either. I also know Jeff Goldberg. I don't use it to to to communicate with him. But you thought it was appropriate. By the way, I think he's one of the more outstanding journalists in America.

But I'm shocked to find him on a thread that he's reading in the parking lot of a grocery. Truck month is on at Chevrolet. Get 0% financing for up to 72 months on a 2025 Silverado 1500 Custom Blackout or Custom Trail Boss. With Custom Trail Bosses available, class exclusive Duramax 3-liter diesel engine and Z71 off-road package with a 2-inch factory suspension lift, you get both on-road confidence71 off-road package with a two inch factory suspension lift, you get both on-road confidence and off-road capability. Dirt road ahead? Let's go! Truck month is awesome! Ask your Chevrolet dealer for details.

...store in Washington, D.C. and your testimony as the director of the CIA is that it's totally appropriate. Is it appropriate? No, that is not what I— Okay, go ahead, please. When did I use the word appropriate? Well, go ahead, please. Well, I didn't. That—everybody in America— So, clearly, Senator—

There's nothing to see here is what your testimony is. No, I never said that. This is just a normal day at the CIA where we chat about this kind of stuff over Signal. In fact, it's so normal that the last administration left it here for us. That's your testimony today. That's your testimony. No, that's not my testimony. That's what you said. I didn't say any of those things that you just related, Senator. I heard you say it. We'll let the American people decide. Let me ask you one final point. I'm out of time. Well, are you going to give me a chance? Is it appropriate? Did you know that the president's

Middle East advisor was in Moscow on this thread while you were as director of the CIA participating in this thread? Were you aware of that? Are are you aware of that today i'm not aware of that this sloppiness this incompetence this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for him is entirely unacceptable it's an embarrassment senator you need to do better. You need to do better. Thank you. I'm being gaveled by the chairman and I apologize for going over my tongue. Senator Young.

Thank you all for being here. I'll be asking some follow-up questions, clarifications about this Signal episode in a closed setting and try and work with all of you to bring clarity to that situation. It appears to me there's some unanswered questions. It'll take some time, I think, to get there in a more dispassionate setting. Director Gabbard, I'm going to begin today asking you some questions about emerging technologies. It's been a real point of emphasis I know of our broader national security community for a period of time.

We know that PRC is making generational investments in certain emerging tech, AI, biotech, and other areas of technology to reduce their vulnerability against any supply chain disruptions and to lead the world in some areas. As the IC assesses, the PRC is seeking to, quote, become a global S&T superpower, surpass the United States, promote self-reliance, and achieve further economic, political, and military gain. So, Director Gabber, can you describe the actions China is taking to operationalize that IC assessment in ways that directly target the security and prosperity of everyday Americans. Senator, what we know is that they are trying to use these capabilities as a means to continue to exploit vulnerabilities within our own critical infrastructure and our cyber technology.

Critical infrastructure is a key area of concern given what we know has already been exploited, these asymmetric attacks that have been placed within our critical infrastructure that are of serious concern given how they could be exploited, especially during a time of conflict. We know that they are experiencing a boom in their generative AI capability and are competing very heavily against our own AI capabilities. Obviously, AI can and will be used across a multitude of every sector of our society, both here as we are in our own country, and we expect China to be able to continue to do the same there. So two key areas of vulnerability to the United States, conceivably, susceptibility to cyber attacks, and China's leveraging of AI towards

misinformation increasingly into the physical realm, they can pose threats to us as well. As follow-up, Director Ratcliffe, you know, we've had Huawei, we've had TikTok. What do you believe will be the next point of technological friction and competition between the U.S. and China? What should members of Congress be looking for? Senator, I think I can answer this question more fully in the classified setting. What I would say is it relates to the issue of emerging technologies and matters of quantum computing and quantum sensing and our ability to stay ahead of China

on the technological curve with respect to those issues. I'd be happy to get into that in further detail in a classified setting. Excellent, we'll dive into that. Director Haw, General, how do you see biotech playing into this broader competition? I think it's an area that from our perspective has increasingly been a priority as we want to understand the approach that China's taken and also to ensure that as we think about the President's priorities in terms of both economic and technology

security, we are certainly as a community following DNI's guidance that we are increasingly putting our resources to be able to ensure that we understand where China is investing in those resources and how that will impact our economy and overall the overall health of our national security. Thank you, General. Director Gabbard, not a lot of time left on this end, but I do have a little crypto interest I wanted to communicate to you. Can you share with this committee how we're positioned to disrupt foreign cyber efforts to steal cryptocurrency such as the North Koreans have successfully done. If others would like to pull this thread and weigh in on this question very briefly, that

would be great. Senator, we're obviously aware of North Korea's revenue generating by stealing cryptocurrency has had a significant effect on North Korea's capabilities. I defer to our technical experts on the actions that are being taken. Senator, I think this would be a great topic when we go to close session. It's going to be a busy closed session. Yes. Director Patel?

I agree with the General. In closed session, I can provide some details. It's what you get when you visit with a bunch of spies. All right, Chairman. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to come back to the topic of the day here, the signal chain as reported by the Atlantic. Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Ratcliffe, you each testified that there was no information operational

in nature, no classified information. So I want to ask each of you just a series of, just respond yes or no. I'll start with Ms. Gabbard. In the signal chain that we have been talking about, was there any mention of a target in Yemen? I don't remember mention of specific targets. Any generic target? I believe there was discussion around targets in general. Mr. Ratcliffe. I think that's consistent with my recollection.

Again, I don't have access to that. Was there any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system? I don't recall specific weapons systems being named. I'm not talking about specific any weapon or weapons system. I don't recall specific names of systems or weapons being used or named within the... Well I'm not asking whether, I don't want you to tell me what the specific weapon was, but any weapon at all? Mr. Ratcliffe, same question. I don't recall. How about anything about timing? Ms. Gabbard. I don't recall specific timing.

Was there any mention? I won't get into the detail of the conversation, but obviously there was a significant amount of planning and internal discussions that had occurred prior to and outside of this signal chat. Mr. Rackliff, you're nodding your head. prior to and outside of this signal chat. Mr. Ratcliffe, you're nodding your head. Any mention of any military unit whatsoever? Mr. Ratcliffe?

Not that I recall. Ms. Gabbard? Not that I recall. Okay. So I understand that DOD policy prohibits discussion of even what is called controlled unclassified information, or CUI, on unsecured devices. Are both of you aware of that DoD policy? I haven't read that policy. Not familiar with the DoD policy, but I would say that the Secretary of Defense

is the original classification authority for DoD in deciding what would be classified information. Ms. Gabbard, does the intelligence community have a policy that prohibits discussion of controlled unclassified information? Yes. It does. Okay. Controlled unclassified information, according to DOD, includes information that is information that has not been approved for public release. Would you, of what's been disclosed publicly of the signal chain, would either of you feel that that would be approved for public release? Ms. Gabbard.

The discussion that took place in that signal chat group was a conversation reflecting national security leaders and the vice president around the president's objectives. So yes or no, would you approve that for public release? I don't feel I can answer that question here. Because of the nature of this hearing? Because of the nature of a private discussion that took place between individual leaders in our government. It would make sense that you would not approve it for public release, wouldn't it? There are other factors that would go into that consideration. Mr. Ratcliffe, yes or no? I wouldn't approve the release of classified information. Again, as I've said, my understanding is...

I'm not talking about classified information, Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm talking about information that has not been approved for public release. That is information that is considered controlled, unclassified information. The principles that would have been on that would have been individuals capable of approving that for public release. Do you—let me—I've got 20 seconds. The deliberation as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country, would you consider that classified information, Ms. Gabbard? Ms. The information was not classified. Mr. I'm not talking about this. I'm just talking about deliberation from principals as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country. Would you consider that classified

information? I'm not talking about what happened this week. There are other factors that would go into determining that classification. Mr. Ratcliffe, the deliberation between principals in our national security apparatus about whether or not to strike another country, would you consider that to be classified information? Mr. Pre-decisional strike deliberation should be conducted through classified channels. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I just want to return, Mr Ratcliffe to your answer there in part Senator Kelly. It's been raised at several occasions now in this hearing about whether classified information

was discussed in this chat. You mentioned about the Secretary of Defense being what you called, I think, the original classification authority. Correct. Correct. I think it's important for the public to understand that although you and Director Gabbard are original classification authorities on many matters, you're not that for all matters that might be classified in the government.

Is that right? That's correct. So if the Secretary of State has classified sensitive diplomatic details, that's his authority. If the Secretary of Energy has class of sensitive classified information about our national laboratories, that's his authority. If the Secretary of Energy has class of sensitive classified information about our national laboratories, that's his authority. And the two of you can't speak to other departments who have their own original classification authority, in which, of course, as Director Gabbert said, ultimately rests with one person, the President of the United States. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify

that. It looks like the vice chairman wants to weigh in as well. Just very briefly. I mean, I think it strains the audience and the watching public's credibility. If we're talking about timing packages, that somehow this would be okay to put out, or just frankly senior American officials trashing Europe. I've been around this for a while. This is not information you generally put out. And the notion there's not even acknowledgement of, hey, gosh, we screwed up, is stunning to me. And the idea somehow, well, none of this was classified, but we can't talk about it here. You can't have it both ways.

I think the witness's point is they can't speak for every official in the government who has original classification authority. Chairman, I don't, that's not what we're, I'm not trying to litigate that. I'm trying to litigate on the face, unless, as Senator Bennett said, this reporter is somehow making this all up. And I think the White House has acknowledged that the text chain that he submitted was authentic. It strains my mind to think, again, it strains my mind if the shoe had been on the other foot, what my colleagues would be saying about this. And again, we're going

to get to the bottom of it. I appreciate your comments, but you guys have both testified under law. There's nothing classified in that information. There's nothing, in a sense, I've not heard any, either one of you say, gosh, we screwed up. So we'll find out. This is too important to our national security. And again, I know we've got more members to those. They testified is my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, that there's no intelligence community classified information. Is that correct? That's right. Is that correct? Director Gabbard? Yes, Chairman. Well, again.

That's not correct. She said repeatedly there's nothing classified. Period. Period. You can't have a book. And again, we'll see. I cannot believe this is not going to come out. And if it's not classified, again, we'd ask you to make it, give it to the public today.

I'm sure some, one of your aides back there probably got it on paper. If you've got it here, it's not classified. Stand by your position. Or is this just one more example of a careless approach to how we keep our secrets in this administration? With apologies to Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. I want to explore a little bit about Ukraine, and I'll direct this to Director Ratcliffe or Director Cruz. The ATA assesses that, quote, the grinding war of attrition in Ukraine, quote, will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv's positions on the battlefield. Are Ukrainian forces at any significant risk of collapse this year?

Mr. Go ahead. Mr. Before I turn it over to Director Ratcliffe, I think both sides are working through the equipment that they need, the industrial base they need to support that, and the personnel that are required to man all of that equipment and man the front lines. And as we see the battle space in the various portions, whether it's in Kursk, whether it's in any of the 4-0 blasts, we see areas where Kiev will struggle to prevent the slow attritional grind. We do not see an imminent collapse in any of the line of control battle spaces at this point. And then vice versa. That answers my question, unless you want to add something, Director. Whatever advantages manpower and material

they have, can Russia maintain its operational tempo without significant changes to how it's conducting the war? I think our assessment from a military perspective is that Russia has the ability to sustain its campaign longer than Kiev would. Now, when that timeline hits, we do not have an assessment of, but I believe that if this were to go on for more than the remainder of this year, both sides would have a significant challenge maintaining their defense industrial base as well as their operational ops tempo. Longer than this year. That is correct, and they will each have difficulty at various points throughout the spring, summer, and fall as well. Thank you. Director Ratcliffe, ATA says continuing the Russia-Ukraine war perpetuates strategic risk to the United States of unintended escalation to large-scale war and heightened insecurity among NATO allies. What are the strategic risks to the United States if Russia

were to achieve its maximalist objectives via peace agreement? Achieve via peace agreement? Yes. Well, I think that clearly the negotiations that are going on reflect that President Trump is seeking a cessation of the war on terms that will end the war permanently. From an intelligence community standpoint, and specifically with regard to CIA assets, we've taken steps to support that, the president's goal of an enduring peace. To General Cruz's comments, I agree with his assessment and generally the public assessment that Russia has the battlefield advantage, is grinding forward slowly. I want to comment on that, however, to say that with regard to the Ukrainian resistance, the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military have been

underestimated for a period of several years now. And ultimately, I'm convinced from my reflections in observing from an intelligence standpoint that they will fight with their bare hands if they have to, if they don't have terms that are acceptable to an enduring peace. Obviously, to the point of maximalist goals, President Trump has communicated that he is aware of the dangers of that, of Russia getting what they want. And I think that the peace talks that are taking place would reflect, if successful, and they are making progress, that both sides would not get everything that they want and no one's maximalist goals would be achieved. Thank you both. In the short time I have, I'm going to skip a question

that I intended to ask, but ask the director of the FBI. Director, I chair the subcommittee that appropriates money for the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It has been our practice that the FBI director, as well as the attorney general appear before our committee each year. And I would want to make certain that you do not foresee any challenges that I will have in your presence when you come to speak to,

when we invite you to come speak about your budget. I think when we visited in the office, you made yourself often available, pleased to talk to Congress. We're getting ready for the appropriations process to begin. The budget that the president intends to submit is seemingly months away, weeks away, long weeks away, and we may ask you to come testify about your priorities now or sooner than that. Is that a challenge for you that I'd be aware of?

From the FBI, no, as long as the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are good with it. Thank you. Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director Ratcliffe, you have repeatedly made the point that there was no classified information contained in any of these discussions that were reported in the Atlantic Monthly. Is that correct? No, that's not correct. So, Senator, what I've related is that any information that was related from my perspective or that I observed from the intelligence perspective was not classified information. With respect to the assertions and the allegations that there was strike packages or targeting

information or things that relate to DOD, as I pointed out, the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for determining whether something's classified or not. And as I've understood from media reports, the Secretary of Defense has said the information was not classified. MR. Are you aware that the Secretary of Defense declassified this information prior to the Disizka? I'm not. Director Gabbard, same question.

You've indicated, at least the impression I got, was there was no classified information discussed. Is that correct? Senator, my answer is the same as the Director of the CIA's. So the question has to be posed to Secretary Hegsteth whether he declassified the information and at what point he did declassify it. Do you agree? Yes, I defer questions to the Secretary of Defense. Okay. Director Patel, are you conducting an investigation of these discussions and activities?

Thank you, Senator Senator as I informed the vice chairman on the same question I found out about this late last night early this morning so I don't have an update for you on that. Well thank you when you get an update we'd appreciate it very much. Yes sir. Director Gabbitt were you overseas during any parts of these discussions? Yes, Senator, I was. Were you using your private phone or public phone for the signal discussions? I won't speak to this because it's under review by the National Security Council. Once that review is complete, I'm sure we'll share the results with the committee.

What is under review? It's a very simple question. You have a private phone or an officially issued phone. What could be under review? National Security Council is reviewing all aspects of how this came to be, how the journalist was inadvertently added to the group chat, and what occurred within that chat across the board. DR. So you are not going to disclose anything about whether you use the phone.

Director Ratcliffe, there's been indication that the CIA has warned recently retired personnel about the vulnerabilities of Signal and other encrypted messaging applications. If that's the case, why were you discussing these issues on Signal? Senator, Signal use, as I've said repeatedly, is permissible for work purposes. I've never said that end-to-end encryption apps like Signal are a substitute for classified systems, and I was not discussing classified information in this setting. But as you've indicated previously, perhaps the Secretary of Defense was discussing classified information, and only he can be held accountable in terms of whether it was classified or declassified at the

moment he spoke. Is that accurate? Well I didn't say it that way. I said the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority and my understanding is that his comments are that any information that he shared was not classified. But you have no way to verify that. I don't. Again, this is a very troubling example and a great lapse in our intelligence and our discussion. One further point, if you are not aware of any classified information on the discussions back and forth, would it be appropriate for the author to release the entire text of what he heard or transcribed?

I think the author has released my understanding essentially almost all of the information as it's been related to me. I don't know what calculation the author made with regard to what information would be released or not. Well, he actually... I can again confirm that with respect to the communications that were related as to me, there was no classified information. According to the article, quote, the message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations. And the author did not disclose that information. So the question would be, if he disclosed everything he heard, in your view, that wouldn't be classified information. I know the context of what that is, and I think the author said might be interpreted as related to intelligence information. It was not classified information. So it goes back to my point. If you released all this information he did not release, he could do so without any liability at the federal level. I think you're asking for a legal answer. I'm not able to give

you, but Mr. Patel, can you opine? You're a lawyer and you're the director of the FBI. Would he face any legal liability if he released the information? Because of the questions you and the vice chairman have put to me, I'm not going to prejudge the situation and that legal call is ultimately for the Department of Justice. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for joining us and for your service. Just to make sure I understand some of the basics here. So, Director Radcliffe, you were a member of the Houthi PC small group signal chain, correct?

I was. Yeah, and so were the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and Ms. Gabbard, correct? I believe so. I don't have a list of who was invited to be on. And so was national political reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, correct? MR. I don't know that. Yes, you do. MR. I don't know Jeffrey Goldberg, and I've already testified. I don't know

whether or how he was added. Okay. Well, he was a member of the signal chain, and the discussion included the vice president's private opinion on the wisdom of proposed U.S. strikes in Yemen, correct? I don't recall. Vance, quote, I think we are making a mistake. I am not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There was a strong argument for delaying this a month. You don't recall? I don't. As you read that, I don't.

It included the private opinions of the Secretary of Defense on the timing of strikes in Yemen, correct? I don't recall. Director Ratcliffe, surely you prepared for this hearing today. You were part of a group of principals, senior echelons of the U.S. government, in now a widely publicized breach of sensitive information. You don't recall whether the Vice President opined on the wisdom of the strikes? That's your testimony today under oath?

In that setting, I don't recall. Here's what Secretary Hegseth said, quote, waiting a few weeks or months does not fundamentally change the calculus. Two immediate risks on waiting. One, this leaks and we look indecisive. Two, Israel takes an action first or Gaza ceasefire falls apart and we don't get to start this on our own terms. Your testimony is you don't recall the Secretary of Defense sending that message or reading it? I recall there being an exchange. I don't recall the specifics as you're reading it. Well, let's put it this way, Director Ratcliffe. A discussion by senior U.S. officials on the timing and risks of a proposed military campaign and disagreements between the president and the vice president about U.S. plans and

intentions would be of obvious interest to foreign intelligence services, would it not? Yes. And they were discussing the timing of sending U.S. air crews into enemy airspace where they faced an air defense threat, correct? I'm going to, Senator, defer to the other principles that you're referring to about what the meaning and the context of what they were on. They're talking about the timing of U.S. airstrikes, correct? Yes. Yes, and therefore the timing of sending U.S. air crews intoirstrikes, correct? Yes, yes. And therefore, the timing of sending U.S. air crews

into hostile airspace, correct? Yes. And therefore, the time period during which enemy air defenses could target U.S. air crews flying in enemy airspace, correct? I don't know that. You do know that. Let me ask this question, General Hawk. You lead America's signals intelligence collection.

Would the private deliberation of foreign senior officials about the wisdom and timing of potential military action be a collection priority for you and the U.S. intelligence community? Senator, it's our job to do indications and warning for both the plans and intentions of adversary leaders and for military commanders. And would not information about the timing of airstrikes allow a military to pre-position or cue air defense systems to shoot down enemy aircraft? I think Senator, from our perspective, any advance warning is something that we certainly are trying to protect. Director Radcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct? No. Cliff this was a huge mistake correct? No. A national political no no you hold on. No no Director Radcliffe I asked you a yes or no question and now you'll hold on.

A national political reporter was made privy to sensitive information about imminent military operations against a foreign terrorist organization. And that wasn't a huge mistake? That wasn't a huge mistake? They characterized it as an embarrassment. This is utterly unprofessional. There's been no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error. And by the way, we will get the full transcript of this chain and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, ladies and gentlemen, here we go. Okay. And geez. Oh, man, it's another PSYOP. Oh, we thought we were over this for at least a season,

but, you know, it is spring, and so here we go. Another Russiagate level up against the Trump administration, and now we get a chance to talk about all of it with somebody who is well-known for defending President Trump against hoaxes. And we're going to dive a little deeper. We've been covering this hearing. I think this hearing is absolutely fascinating.

And they're about to go to the top secret session. And so we can't budge into there. Unfortunately, Tulsi Gabbard's been on the program. Cash has been on the program. Ratcliffe, about a year and a half agoard's been on the program. Cash has been on the program. Ratcliffe, about a year and a half ago, has been on the program. We are wishing to get to the truth about what actually happened here,

but I gotta tell you, my bullshit radar detector is screaming red right now. We'll rip into all of that in just a moment. However, let's go directly to the White House, to somebody who's made a ton of news at the White House and has made, again, a professional career off of exposing hoaxes against President Trump, the great Alina Haba, who's the counselor to the president, newly just appointed as the interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. Joining us live now. Alina, that was a mouthful. I got to tell you, you got a longer title every single day. It's really something. And I missed something in your title, which is happy birthday. It's Aliyah Hama's birthday. It's my birthday.

I'm back in the fake Biden oval on my birthday just for you, Benny. You know, this is where we had that show and I was like, film it. I can't believe I'm in here. Well, I'm back at it again. I will miss the fake oval while I'm in New Jersey, but I'm honored. What a birthday gift. What a birthday gift from the president. Any milk of magnesia or any wheelchairs?

Did they clean up? No, I think the wheelchairs, they put back in the medic unit at the EOB, and we now have a president that doesn't need all of that assistance. So this is solely for press and things of that nature. And now he actually uses his real Oval Office. It's tremendous.

That's right. Just a note on this, because we weren't exactly sure where you were last time. And then you filmed that video and that went thermonuclear viral. It's been seen by millions. You have a penchant for this. And like, why? Just since we we you know, this you're going to move on to this big position. But but got to ask why, since you're there inside of the fake Oval Office, why would they do this to Joe Biden? What's your what's your assessment?

It seems like a act in humiliation. It seems like an act to simply disgrace the office. I think he needed assistance, honestly. I think that he needed assistance. This is, you can manage, I wish I could turn the film around, but I'll explain to you what I'm sitting in. There are screens, there's lighting, there are, if I wanted or needed a teleprompter, which I do not because I also have my mental faculties, but it is a stage. It is a true stage. And I'm sitting in it thinking, you know, as a president, other than to do a TV show, in which case, you know, maybe you want to change

the lighting or whatever, you know, how these go, the fact that they had to put him in this scenario that is controlled, where I have a camera in front of me, where there is not free press in this room right now, where it's right across from the White House, just so everybody understands. I literally walk across the street and it's on the ground floor. So he didn't have to walk up any steps to get into the fake oval. And it's controlled space. It's truly a movie set, right? And you're sitting here going, why would a president need to always have this kind of control and this kind of narrative? And the reality is it's because I don't think he had any control over his own mind, in my opinion. I don't think that he had control over the own mind, in my opinion. I don't think that he had

control over the Oval. I think that he was a puppet. And we've seen that with a ton of things. We've seen that with the auto signature. We've seen that when you see Jill Biden sitting in, Jill should not be sitting in the cabinet meetings. We don't see Melania sitting in cabinet meetings running the show. She is at FLOTUS. She is amazing and doing her own thing. But Jill was truly running it, along with, in my opinion and guests, probably some former presidents and administrators. But this is, it's weird.

It's just weird. It's not weird for me to come in here and do a show with you. It's weird that the president was constantly coming in and out of this place where they actually can change. If you see in that video on the left and the right, there's screens so they can make it look like he's out. He's actually not in a studio, but that there's windows and they would put fake windows up that would look like there was,

you know, trees in the background and things like that. There are no trees. I am in the ground floor of a building right across from the White House. It's crazy. It's an entire fake world that they've built. Yeah. Staged. Just staged. So we just did two hours of a hearing inside of the Senate. The Intel hearing. Cash was there. Tulsa was there. Ratcliffe was there. And you knew, pretty shocking timing, Alina, that there's this Atlantic piece. It is really just made for TV. And this was what every Democrat wanted to talk about. And obviously, this is what so many people are talking about. The official White House opinion on this, President Trump says he has full confidence in Mike Waltz. And Carolyn Leavitt has been out with details about what was going on, saying there was zero classification inside of these signal chats. You know, how did this

journalist get added? This guy is a obvious hoaxer who's a real scumbag. We don't like Jeff Goldberg, but like, I don't even have his number. I mean, I talk to journalists all the time. I don't have his number. I've never spoken to him as far as I can recall. If I have, he didn't make much of an impression on me. But I don't know. And because there's currently a hearing, I'm not going to speak to that. I'm going to let them address it. I will say that, you know, we have heard testimony for your listeners that have been watching that said that there is an appropriate method used for some communications. This is an approved way. I don't know how he got added or what happened there, but I work with Mike Waltz. I work with the individuals that were on that group every day.

We also heard from Racklip that this was not a top secret. They try and spin things and say, oh, there was a CIA agent named. Well, he's not an undercover agent. And actually the name was so that they could refer to high side, which is our system to have top secret communications outside of those that we, so it's just, I'm going to defer to the testimony, but I'll say this is a lot to do about nothing. And at the same time, the narratives and their excitement to have this whole orchestrated, oh my God, like, you know, nothing leaked before. We saw that this was something that happened. They're gonna answer those questions. Unlike the last administration,

they're not avoiding answering questions. They're sitting in front of these individuals. They're going to get berated and do what they do best and make a TV series about the White House. But, you know, things happen and we'll see what they say. I'm not really concerned about it, to be honest. Yeah. Like, again, you're sitting here in the fake Oval Office. The DOJ said that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent and incapacitated and couldn't stand trial and nobody cared. And nobody, nobody cared. Nobody cared. Real problems like we didn't have a sitting president.

We had somebody who didn't have who was mentally, you know, not doing well. I mean, that's being polite, frankly. His mental decline was evident. People hid it for from the American people and he was running our great nation. But you want to make a signal chat about, with high level officials, a massive thing. I mean, there are leaks, by the way, all the time that is part of the world that we live in. And I just see this as another showman's thing by the Democrat Party, who, by the way, needed something to have because they've been losing tremendously. I mean, their best bet right now is AOC. That's that's where that's where their team has gone.

So, you know, I don't I'm not surprised that they're taking this to another level. That's what they like to do. AOC. And I mean, don't miss the rising star, Alina, Jasmine Crockett. Oh, Crockett. Yes. Crockett. Yes. Oh, Crockett. What is she doing? Did you see, Benny, that she said they asked her what she was working on in your job? What are you working on currently to advance your constituents, to advance the American people? What are you actively working on? And her response was nothing. I don't actually I know it's not political for me to say this, but I'm not working on anything other than stopping was nothing. I don't actually, I know it's not political for me to say this, but I'm not working on anything other than stopping and trying to be a pain in the neck and

doing TV shows, which are really frankly ruining her brand. And if she had one and, and then there, there that's, that's what you literally said. You're not doing anything, but trying to stop and be a curmudgeon and a pain in the neck. And it's insane. I mean, the things I'm seeing are insane. I mean, was she part of that? Was she the one dancing down the halls? Was she, was that her, that they not like us thing? That was her. Lovely. Lovely. That's what we want to see from our people. So she's dancing to my feed over the last couple of 12 hours by one threatening Elon Musk saying she wants him to be taken out for her birthday present. I hope she tries that. I hope she tries that in the state of New Jersey next week.

Okay, let's go there. I mean, are you going to allow Tesla dealerships to be burned to the ground and for people who are purchasing these products to be harassed? It does seem like a massive civil rights violation, right? Like wouldn't you, wouldn't this target, this is clearly targeting and it's bigoted. It's, it's terrible. What Elon has sacrificed to be here, I consider him a friend and I'm disappointed in the American people. Their behavior is inappropriate and frankly illegal if you're going to start spray painting and defacing and targeting Teslas. It's ironic to me that the left wing media used to say, you know, we're ruining the environment. We should all be driving electric cars. Everyone's buying a Tesla. And now the man is cleaning up the

economic issues and fraud here in this country and taking money out of those same people, those same politicians pockets, because they were funneling them through, you know, different angles and different avenues that he's exposed. And now all of a sudden, Tesla bad man, Tesla, Elon bad, Elon bad. They don't even know what they stand for. So I don't know whether they're all going to start buying G wagons with all the money they made and gas guzzling now and flying private like, you know, they're just talk out of both sides of their mouth. What do these people stand for? So will you be prosecuting not just the terrorists, but the people who are funding them? Because I believe that that's actually how you get to the heart of the issue. I actually agree with that firmly. I think that you have to look

at look, you always follow the money. If what I've read is true, and obviously Pam Bondi is leading the charge on this, first and foremost, we have to get rid of serious crime. New Jersey, unfortunately, has serious crime. Secondly, I'm not going to say that I'm not going to look at what's happening in Patterson with that mayor, what's happening with police officers taking their American flags off and wearing Palestinian flags. Not happening. Then we're going to look at who's funding this, of course. And this is a bigger issue. This is an issue in our entire country. But for the state of New Jersey, I plan to completely follow Pam's lead, follow the president's lead in terms of getting rid of fraud, waste, corruption, and crime.

And it's such an honor, truly. I was kind of blindsided by it. I love it here at the White House, but I'm excited for this opportunity. And nobody understands how much we have to fight and get the legal system back in check and get America to feel like the DOJ is there for them, not for their own political gain. And that's my mission is really just to work hand in hand with Pam and the FBI, Cash and the president and make sure New Jersey is strong. You mentioned Patterson. We had this article ready. This is

something that we've covered a lot on the program. This is such an egregious violation of the rights of the people of New Jersey, where the mayor of Patterson, the head of the city council, collude in order to remove mail-in ballots from people's mailboxes, fill them out themselves, and then vote for those people. And it is to hundreds, if not thousands of individuals that are under indictment right now. This is just one of many, many cases of voter fraud in New Jersey, a state where the last gubernatorial race was decided by just like a handful of votes and a state that has a large contingency of people that hate the direction of the state itself and are like good, obviously, like strong patriots.

It's a patriotic state. How are you going to confront this? I mean, what are you going to do to these individuals who are so openly committing voter fraud? Well, see, here's the blessing about where I came from. I came from seeing the president's witch hunt on the hush money case, seeing the president's witch hunt on the quote unquote fraud Letitia James case, then being part of a campaign where our focus at the RNC was to truly make sure voter integrity in this country is preserved so that we don't become a third world country. And I will tell you anything in my jurisdiction, if you are planning on behaving in any way other than law abiding,

I'm coming for you. I will not have it. America needs to start. New Jersey is an incredibly populated state. It's heavily populated state. And I'm going to try and set a serious example, the same example that, frankly, Pam and Cash and the president have been setting here and if you screw around with the law if you screw around with our justice system if you mess around with the constitution with our normal due process with our normal voting with our elections that is a crime that we will not turn a blind eye on and uh and i plan on on prosecuting those individuals very heavily and very quickly excellent this is uh something that obviously is a massive problem in the state of New Jersey. I think a state that could, you know, I think a state that deserves a lot better than its current.

They do. They do. It's my home. And it's been neglected, I think, in a lot of ways. I think that poor leadership has definitely been a problem. I think there's a lot of political corruption in our state. And I'm going to get to the bottom of it. Yeah, good. Okay. So people, people who commit voter fraud are going to jail in the state. Yes, you will be going to jail. If you commit any crime in this state, you will be going to jail. You will fully be prosecuted. And I will be supporting our men in blue for doing their job. They will have my full support always to get out there and get violent criminals, get all criminals off the streets. This is there's no one that cares more

about it than me. My children are being raised in that state. And I'm happy to go home and help help my people out. Or you're going to hurt the brand of the state of New Jersey, Alina. The Sopranos, right? Godfather. You clean that state up, you're really going to hurt the brand. What's HBO going to make a series on if you clean the state up? They can make a series about how I'm going to make New Jersey great again. There you go. Yeah. It's a beautiful state. It really is. But there's some dark spots that need to be fixed. So let's talk about that. You talked about your children,

raising them in New Jersey. It's wonderful to be close to home. I couldn't imagine doing the show away from my children. This is something that you've made a lot of news about recently. And it is now, according to Breitbart, the FBI furiously going through on a frenzied mission to redact the Epstein files ahead of release. Can you please give us a update here?

You did this last night. You previewed this actually last time and said, you know, that there is work being done right now and that everything that we've heard is accurate. Just a really quick update. And then what you will do as a prosecutor if one of these individuals resides in New Jersey. Oh, they better they better watch out. I have zero tolerance for any of this. If it look, here's number one. And I keep saying this. We cannot be careless. This is not a reckless administration. We are looking at everything very, very carefully. We have to, have to, have to, number one, make sure that we preserve witnesses who unfortunately are victims. A lot of

these people are victims. Make sure their identities and their protection, and you have to get a lot of things in place. If you have a witness in a case, on a murder case, you know, we sometimes put them in witness protection. We sometimes make sure that they're, we have to take care of the poor victims that have been through so much already. That's number one. So that's the first priority. And then we look at the underlying issues. Now, you have to make sure also we bring valid cases. You cannot bring frivolous lawsuits. If anybody knows anything about frivolous lawsuits, it's me and Pam and the DOJ that we currently have. We will not do that. But those people that are criminals,

those people that were crossing state lines and trafficking those girls or having sex with minors will be prosecuted. There is just no pornography, all of that. As you know, human trafficking was a main focus of mine while I was here and I plan on still helping with that cause. I have some executive orders in the pipeline to help the Homeland Security and HHS and all those departments get the things that they need to really go after them. And actually my request of the president,

which he was all on board with, is to make sure that the penalty is much harder for anybody who is violating any crime of moral turpitude. And that is the worst crime. Those are terrible to me. I mean, the taking of a child's life in a way, robbing them of their childhood and raping somebody like that is just disgusting. It'd be absolutely wonderful to see you in this position. We're so thrilled for you.

We're so excited about it. And as a parting question, we just have to, since you name dropped it, our producers grabbed it. Here's the dancing clip, Jasmine Crockett. She's making a ton of news right now, calling the governor of Texas, her state, Governor Hot Wheels. He's been, this is Greg Abbott.

He's wheelchair bound. This is blowing up right now. Just getting your comment on this. If you're talking about morality and raising the standards in this country, that seems like an unbelievably offensive thing to do from jazz. I just I mean, how is she not embarrassed? That's so embarrassing. I don't know. That's just really embarrassing. You're not at your home with your kids. And listen, I'm on social media. You know, I do things on social media. I'm a social media presence, but I most certainly, when I came to the White House, didn't start, you know, dancing down the holes and

filming it for the, I mean, you have to have some decorum. You have to have some respect for your office. Now everybody's entitled to their private life and sometimes social media merges the two, but that is in your office. This is not a joke. You are being paid by American people and you are instead orchestrating a dance-off with your team and to Kendrick Lamar. I mean, I don't understand what was going on there, what was part of her thought process. But again, this is somebody that went on national television, I think it was last night or yesterday, and said, I am not pushing forward anything new. I'm just here to prevent things and be a disruptor. But you're also evidently here to do dance-offs in Congress or where the hell she was. I mean,

it's embarrassing. I would be embarrassed for her. I feel embarrassed for her, truly. And call her Governor Hot Wheels, even though he's been paralyzed. You know, that's the most disgusting thing, by the way. I mean, you're hitting somebody who is hurt and then you she she has no compass, no moral compass. I cannot I have nothing to say about her. That is good. And the fact that I'm trying to restrict myself from using language that would be inappropriate in the White House. I can just tell her, shame on you. You're disgusting. You should be ashamed of your behavior.

And the way that you are just demeaning somebody who is handicapped, shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. Well, let's hope she doesn't do it in your state, as you said. In the state of New Jersey. Come on in.

Congratulations. No, she's a disgrace. Yeah, thank you. Congratulations, congratulations alina please follow along obviously 600 000 americans already do the great alina haba heading back to clean up her home state godspeed yeah our prayers are with you thank you well ladies and gentlemen you just never know right you just never know, right? You just never know what's going to happen. Those intel briefings are spicy, but we weren't planning on the, shall we say, flamethrower testimony where there's a lot of yelling, screaming, and arguments about

what we believe to be the newest hoax. It's very, very strange, this operation. We're going to talk about it in detail, ladies and gentlemen. You must have in your business HR, and this kind of ties into what we're talking about here. You have to have rules, all right? And we're gonna not withhold our criticism about where we think that rules should have been implemented or where they may have been broken. And we have our own assessment of this situation with the leaked signal chats, and we're gonna talk about it.

But you gotta have rules in your company, especially if it's a fast growing company. Like our company, if you're an entrepreneur, nobody's really uh it starts off as an expert in hr they they need hr as they as they grow that's why we're proud to be partnering with bamboo hr this is something that we're really glad to have as this brand is uh hiring like crazy and as we are able to branch out into some very exciting opportunities, Bamboo HR is a powerful tool that is a flexible all-in-one HR solution for your growing business.

Stop spending countless hours on payroll and time tracking benefits, performance management. With Bamboo HR, those hours are shaved down to minutes. Bamboo HR is also robust hiring and onboarding tools that will streamline the process, creating a better first days for new hires. Very important. 34,000 companies trust Bamboo HR and they make it super easy. Easy to use, easy to learn, easy to implement,

and easy to love. Take a couple of minutes and check out the free demo and how nimble and affordable it can be. HR is hard, but Bamboo HR is easy. I can't recommend Bamboo HR enough. Check it out for yourself. Free demo at BambooHR.com slash free demo. That's BambooHR.com slash free demo. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a wild time. It's a very, very interesting time. What happened yesterday after the program was I opened up our, you know, you open up X and you're like, oh, great. The newest hoax just dropped against Trump. And that's the way that I approached this article. The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans. This is from The Atlantic. This is written by somebody named Jeffrey Goldberg.

Jeffrey Goldberg is personally responsible for fomenting some of the largest hoaxes, not just against President Trump, but against our nation, destroying what was a very upright, righteous, and bright future for this country by miring us into forever wars, 20-year-long wars that have cost us trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives and so much American treasure. Jeffrey Goldberg, for instance, was one of the individuals who pushed with reckless abandon, with wild-eyed, blood-soaked abandon, the weapons of mass destruction hoax in Iraq, got us into wars in Iraq, pushed hoaxes like that Osama bin Laden was communicating with Saddam Hussein all day. These were lies. Jeffrey Goldberg was a part of them and was key to ensuring that so many young American men died in the deserts

so that their blood could increase the Halliburton stock for Dick Cheney. Just a couple of points. We loathe Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg also pushed the very fine people hoax with President Trump after he spoke Charlottesville. He also pushed the 51 Intel experts hoax. Jeffrey Goldberg has never seen a war he doesn't like. He's a neocons neocon. He's a liar and a fraudster. And he's also somebody who wrote one of the largest debunks hoaxes in the history of President Trump and his political life, which is the suckers and losers hoax. I'm just trying to set the stage here for where this information comes from. The suckers and losers hoax was allegedly President Trump, who's so beloved by our military,

and you see President Trump at all these military, like nobody has cared more for our service members than President Trump. Allegedly, Trump flew over a cemetery, a military cemetery, and says, they're all suckers and losers. I hate them, those people who died for our country. Got it? Yeah, got it? This guy is who wrote that. So consider the source here, because that's going to play a huge role in how I approach this. Because these individuals, and here's a photo of Jeffrey Goldberg here, these individuals have lost all credibility. They're repugnant. They're proven liars. They'll do anything to stop Trump. They love war and the fomenting of forever war.

They hate that President Trump is a president of peace. They are financially incentivized to bring us more war. They are neocons. They are evil. All right. So that's the setup here. And what actually happened for that? Let's go ahead into the article, shall we? The article itself establishes that there is jump over over here, please add my screen, thank you, established that on March 11th, Mike Waltz, who is the National Security Advisor, somebody who's been on this program, somebody that we don't know super well, but seem to be doing great work at the White house mike waltz added jeffrey goldberg on signal if you're not familiar with signal it's a messaging app it's like telegram or your iphone messaging app it's an encrypted messaging app as we just heard from the testimony from the

ci director ratcliffe these are apps that were pre-installed on government phones, secure government phones that were given to the administration. And as I have been educated by multiple sources inside the Intel community, the signal app is something that was created by the Intel community actually for this set purpose. It gets more nefarious and more creepy. This is something that is an app that was, according to my sources, designed by the CIA, created by the CIA, in order to have backdoors so that they can monitor chat. Or so that they could have an encrypted app that they could use in their communications. Again, as Ratcliffe and Tulsi just verified, these are apps that are preloaded onto government phones that are handed to people with security clearances. Okay, so that's what Signal is. Let's get into the actual, what actually happened here. Mike Waltz, I'm reading to you directly from the article. So here are the allegations. Because this was my question,

this is the question, the most important question. Who question this is this is the question the most important question who added this scumbag so this guy jeffrey goldberg's clearly a regime propagandist who added him because now we have two conflicting stories here and i i'm on signal i communicate with people on Signal. I never say anything that I wouldn't want published on the front of the New York Times. OK, but who would add the architect of the Iraq war, the architect of so many hoaxes against Donald Trump? Who would even have this guy's contact in their effing phone? Here's how it works on Signal. You have to have the contact in your phone. To add someone, you must first have their number. Don't even put regime

propagandist numbers in your cellular device. So Signal scrapes your contacts and then connects you, if you wish, on Signal with people who have, you've saved their telephone number. So it connects you on the encrypted app. Somebody clearly had Jeffrey Goldberg's telephone number. That's step number one. That's the problem. Okay? We're going to take this at face value and talk through it.

So don't have regime propaganda. Don't have propagandists for the deep state saved in your telephone. Don't talk with them. You don't have to respond for comment. You know how many times we're hit up a day by the Washington Post, the New York Times for comment? Like our show and our program, what we're building here is caught a lot of attention.

It's blowing up. God bless you. Shout out to blowing up. God bless you. Shout out to the chat. We love you. Do you know how many times a day we get outreach from corporate media to comment on this or that or that drama or this drama?

And you know what we say to all of them? F off. We don't trust your intentions. We know your intentions are evil. And so we don't communicate with you. I don't save their numbers in my phone. I see no upside to this other than my name's been printed in this publication that my great grandfather used to read. I don't need that validation. So rid your devices of these

people's numbers. If you are to assume that this was an honest mistake, let's read the article and I'll let you decide because now Mike Waltz is saying something entirely different than what the article portends. Here we go. This is the writer, Jeffrey, Jeffrey Goldberg writing here. I received a connected, connected request on signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal has an open source and corrupting messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text messaging services are capable of delivering. I assume that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump's national security advisor. I did not assume, however, that the request came from the actual Michael Waltz.

I've met him in the past, although I didn't find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me. I did think that it was somewhat unusual he might be reaching out to me. I did think that it was somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration's contentious relationship with journalists and Trump's periodic fixation with me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that somebody would be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. This is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors. True. That's the way that we approach these things. All right. Here we go. On to the actual crux of the article. I accepted the connect. This is, this is the key here. All right. We're going to break this all down as to what actually happened. I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was an actual, the actual national security advisor, and that this was the actual national security advisor and that he wanted to chat about

Ukraine or Iran or something of an important matter. Two days later, at Thursday, 4.28 p.m., I received a notice that I will be included in a signal chat group called the Hootie PC Small Group. The message of the group was from Michael Waltz. It read as followed. Team establishing a principals group for coordination with the Hooties, particularly over the next 72 hours. My deputy, Alex Wong, will be pulling together a tiger team of deputies

and so on and so forth. The message continues, please provide the best point of contact for your staff. Okay. So Jeffrey Goldberg says, Michael Waltz added me to this chat. Why the F would you do that? Let me just tell you, this is suicide, career suicide to do this. It's not like you mistakenly added a journalist and

that journalist was Michael Schellenberger or Tucker Carlson. It's not even like you accidentally added somebody who was like, I don't know, like a Democrat elected member of Congress, which there are reasonable ones. You're adding a enemy of the state. You're adding the known propagandist who has regularly and often fomented the worst trump hoaxes it's you're i mean listen you're adding the worst person you could ever add to this chat if you were running heaven if you're saint peter you're letting in satan i don't know how else to like i don't know how else to explain it I don't know how else to explain it. If you're running the hen house, you're letting the fox in. Whatever happened here

was the most catastrophic, cataclysmic F up in the history of people doing Intel work. There's no other way to spin it. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to like say that it's not. It was a bad, whatever, whoever did this, it's a bad mistake.

Now, can somebody be managing Michael Waltz's account? Do these people who have all the security, who are like the busiest people on earth, do they have people managing their accounts for them? Totally. Could this have been a mistake by one of the members of the staff? Totally. Are there other people named Jeffrey Goldberg that this could have been a mistake, right? You hand a staffer your phone. You ever see these guys? You ever see these guys walking around? They have like seven phones, these people.

You have like seven phones. You hand your staffer the wrong phone, they add the wrong Jeffrey Goldberg. There's so many explanations for this. But the result is the worst possible result, which is why we're talking about it. So that's what they contend in the article. Now, what are they saying publicly? Michael Waltz is telling colleagues that he has never met or talked to the editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, which I believe is totally disqualifying, right? You shouldn't be talking with these people. You shouldn't be kind to them. You should give them nothing. That's what we do,

and it's worked out great for us, actually. I don't gotta see my name in the New York Times. I don't gotta see my name in the Washington Post. They're gonna write whatever garbage they're gonna write anyway. So why should I add fuel to the fire? Why should I give them more clicks? Why would I give aid and comfort to the

enemy? Don't do it. Michael Waltz is saying now that Jeffrey Goldberg is lying. Jeffrey Goldberg says he's met Michael Waltz. Michael Waltz, national security advisor, big time, big time dude. The question here is more important than the latest claims that Waltz has never, ever talked to Goldberg before. So who added the number for the regime propagandist journalist liar, hoaxer? Anti-Trump. Vicious animal. Okay, so then what happened in these chats? I mean, what happened in these chats

are what you would expect. There was a little like tick-tock of what was going to happen to the Houthis. I've reviewed the chats as far as what's available. It was pretty much public knowledge. President Trump put out photos of him bombing the Houthis. There was a ton of saber rattling. And it was public knowledge about what was about to happen to the Houthis. I don't see any problem with it, but I'm no national security expert. Should all this been going on on Signal? I don't know.

I can't answer that for you. To be honest with you, I don't have a security clearance. It doesn't seem like a bright idea to me because of the nefarious, because of the nefarious purpose of that app. And I'll get to that in just a second. Because the app was all but designed

to do something like this. And I'll explain, all right? I'll explain. Sean Davis asking the real questions here. I just want to get into this because President Trump sounded off on this this morning, saying that Michael Waltz has learned a lesson.

The White House has confirmed that this isn't fake, meaning this isn't fake news, meaning the chats are real. OK, the chats are really pop up the image of the chat. The chats are real. This is the chats are like this isn't fake news, meaning they're not making all this up. The White House has confirmed that this did occur and this chat did occur. And the only explanation is that Jeffrey Goldberg got access to it, which again is insane because what's he listed under in the chat? I mean, clearly there's a bunch of smart people in this chat. They all know Jeffrey Goldberg. They all know what he's capable of. Did he show up as like Jeffrey Goldberg's been added to the chat?

I'm in signal group chats. When you add someone, it shows their number. It shows their name. Like who would ever have this conversation in front of Jeffrey Goldberg? Seems insane. Was he there as like a spy? Was he spying on it? Was he there under a pseudonym did they think he

was someone else this is a real question but this is what this is what the the chats look like the chats are real okay so here we go here are the here are the questions who initiated the chat when did it occur who added goldberg when he did he, uh, when was he added relative to other members? Whose device was being used to add Goldberg? How was Goldberg's information stored in that device? Did Goldberg's number have different name associated with it, right? Was he there as a spy? Did that name belong to anybody else in the chat? Was anybody working from within the chat to try and sabotage everyone? How did Goldberg's name appear in the chat? When did Waltz and or any other person add Goldberg to the chat? This is a massive breach. Listen,

we're here to fight and destroy the communists. We have like four years. Really, we have like 18 months before everybody is like locked into like running for Congress and fighting for their seats again and fighting with these majorities. We don't have time for this F up. And this is an F up. There's no other way to say it. So we don't have time for this. And you heard like this entire national security Senate hearing that we just went through, like every question was about this. And oh, when does this story drop?

It drops the day before the hearing so that Democrats have something to prattle on about. Because actually, Trump has done an incredible job at making the country secure. This is why I keep calling it a hoax, because it's all too perfect and there are no coincidences. Okay, let's go. Which media personalities did Waltz and his staff have contact with after learning the breach? What was the content of those conversations? If you're not trying to answer these questions, you're a hack or you're not an honest broker. If you're entirely focused on Vance or Hegseth, whom both are victims of what happened, because there's no indication that Vance or Hegseth,

who are two big players in this chat, Tulsi Gabbard also in the chat, there's no indication at all that they had any clue what was going on. Goldberg himself says right here that Michael Waltz is the reason I'm in this chat. Michael Waltz asked me to be in this chat. He added me this chat. Dude, is he bonkers? Like, I don't think Michael Waltz has been on this show. Like, he seems like a, I don't know. I'm not his best friend, but like, is he suicidal? I don't think so. Something terrible happened here, a horrible operational F up. And they're saying that Waltz did it. Now, what's really curious to me is that the way that like this is being talked about inside of the administration. So let's establish two or three very quick things. One, the signal chat is something that is allowed on government computers.

It's not like what happened with Hillary Clinton at all. This has no, zero connection to Hillary Clinton storing top secret information on her own personal PC off-site. This is a government-allowed app. This was an app created by the Intel agencies. Seriously, I'm in connections with intelligence. People that I know who've worked in intelligence, who have a great understanding of this. They say that the CIA created the Signal app for this purpose, for like conversations that don't need to happen inside of a skiff,

inside of like everyone walk into this underground trailer, right? Where nobody has any phones, where you can actually have working conversational capacity with people. So having this app and talking on this app isn't illegal. What they're gonna try and do is they're gonna try and get Trump to fire people or maybe criminally charge them for saying that they were sharing classified information in an unclassified setting. Hilarious from the people who brought you Joe Biden. Hilarious

from the people who brought you Hillary Clinton. Hilarious. Particularly funny, hilarious particularly funny but it just goes about you know the way that evil works right they're gonna take what they're guilty of and flip it around and try and smear you with it it's called the wrap-up smear so here we go i want to establish this signal is allowed here's tom cotton this morning many people in the intelligence community use Signal. They have communication all the time. Is that not correct? Lawrence, that is correct. In fact, I bet a bunch of those senators that you see at the hearing today are using Signal as well to speak to each other or to speak to their aides. And it is my understanding that the Biden administration authorized Signal as a means of communication that was consistent with presidential record keeping requirements for its administration.

And that continued into the Trump administration. It's simply another messaging app like the iMessage app on your iPhone or email servers that every administration has set up in which senior administration officials can communicate with each other. OK, let's go down the next. Let's go down to the next issue. War plans to the Carolyn Leavitt tweet, please. Jeffrey Goldberg is well known for his sensational spin. There's no here are the facts about the latest story. There's no war plans discussed. No classified material was sent. The White House Counsel's Office has provided guidance, a number of different platforms,

the president's's top officials to communicate with safely and efficiently as possible. National Security Council stated the White House is looking into how Goldberg's number was inadvertently added to the threat. So here she straight up admits that's the question. Who did this? Thanks for the strong, decisive leadership, President Trump. The Houthi strikes were successful and effective.

Terrorists were killed, and that's what matters most. Okay, good. President Trump saying that Mike Waltz learned his lesson. So even President Trump saying, it seems to be Mike Waltz's problem. All right, we're getting to it now. No war plans were discussed. Now, this is something that even Jeffrey Goldberg, a weasel, was on TV last night saying, ah, it wasn't actually war plans that were discussed.

This is the point. If you're sharing war plans, if you're sharing classified information in an unclassified setting, then they can charge you. There are rules for that. They could literally charge you. You could lose your job. There could be the brand new Russia hoax, right?

All over again. So that's what this really hinges on. So let's listen to Goldberg himself. What are these war plans exactly? I'm responsible here and not disclose the things that I read and saw. I will describe them to you. The specific time of a future attack. Specific targets targets including human targets

meant to be killed in that attack weapons systems even even weather reports or you know that the government is is i don't know why hex up was sharing it with everybody i mean the precise detail of and then and then a long section on sequencing. This is going to happen. Then that is going to happen. After that happens, this happens. Then that happens. And then we go and find out if it worked.

I mean, you know, he can say that it wasn't a war plan, but it was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen. I love that this jackass later in the interview says that it's Pete Hegseth's fault and it's J.D. Vance's fault. It's amazing. You can almost see the op that's being worked on right now in order to pry into the Trump administration and create a team of rivals that hate each other and that are backstabbing each other. And that seems to be the operation that's going on right now. Tulsi Gabbard saying no classified information was shared. Now, she's the director of national intelligence. All of the agencies answer to her. So you'd assume she'd definitely know about this.

Let's go. Your question was, have I participated in any other group chats sharing classified information? To be clear, I haven't participated in any signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all. Okay. Director Gabbard. Senator, I have the same answer. I have not participated in any signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information. So that's going to be the question. What's classified and what's not? And the deep state is going to deep state, right? They're going to fight like hell to try and get some nugget classified and say that everyone on the chat's a criminal and that everyone on the chat is now culpable. That's how this op is going to play out. Carolyn Leavitt saying the same thing that we're saying. The real question here is who the literal F

added this regime propagandist to this chat. This is a huge problem and I just want to throw something out there. I don't have any evidence of this except for this. I have great sources

telling me that Signal is just an operational Intel app and that Signal is designed by our own intelligence agencies and the CIA. Could Mike Waltz be a victim here? Could all of these people be a victim? Again, let me establish something. This is very different than accidentally adding Tucker Carlson to a chat. This is adding the single worst journalist that you could conceivably imagine to this chat. A very, very bad move. You want to talk about a lack of security in something that

has massive potential consequences for the administration that's it because these people are out to kill us they're out to destroy the country people like jeffrey goldberg and his ilk are here to put maga in i mean they want trump in prison or with a bullet in his head and they want all of us anyone who's ever worn a red hat in their lives, locked up, fired, and destroyed. Could it be that there was other forces that added Jeffrey Goldberg to that chat that knew that it was going on, that potentially have operational control,

like a black splinter group inside of the cia that have operational control of the app and how it works and could shove jeffrey goldberg's number into that chat that those individuals maybe they i i'm not going to show you my signal right now but if you have a if you have a signal you're going to get bots that hit you up. You're going to get fake people that hit you up. He says himself in his writing that he wasn't sure. He didn't think it was the real Mike Waltz who was hitting him up. Could it possibly be an op from somebody masquerading as Mike Waltz who has operational control or some line of data,

some line of code that could add Jeffrey Goldberg to this chat. They knew this chat was going on. Maybe they were maybe spying on it. And then they added the single worst journalist in America. They snuck him in there. Could this be the case? Could this actually be the new deep state op? That they can take these social media apps and messaging apps, add journalists to them when they know that members of the Trump administration are using them

and then blame it on members of the Trump administration by using pseudonyms, right? By using fake IDs and fake identities and do that. That's a theory way over here. All right. I'm not ruling it out. We're just asking questions. There's a theory right over here, which is, I would assume that Michael Waltz isn't suicidal from a career perspective.

Michael Waltz says he's never even met Jeffrey Goldberg, that somebody, perhaps like somebody had his number in their phone, a staffer takes the phone and then accidentally adds the wrong Jeffrey Goldberg, has butter fingers, adds the person by accident, still doesn't account for the fact that everybody messaging, everybody talking in the chat would have seen Jeffrey Goldberg, Atlantic editor-in-chief, has been added to the chat.

Blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink. Everyone leaves, right? Like, ooh, we're out. Like, that's what would happen, duh. Something insane is going on here. Something way darker beneath the surface, I think, is going on here. Somebody who has operational control of the Signal app has got to be effing around

adding journalists that they know are regime propagandists in here in order to F over the Trump administration. That's, that's where I, that's where I think I find myself right now. The reason why is that I don't believe in coincidences and this is just too perfect. You know, you don't have a bunch of access to Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, we do, And this is just too perfect. You know, you don't have a bunch of access to Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, we do, right? Cash, you know, we're chilling with cash at the DOJ. We have relationships with these people.

We can ask for meetings, right? We can ask for steak dinner. In fact, we may be doing just that in the future but you would never have you know it's not like they do like regular pressers where tulsi gabbard's just standing there going ask me anything they deal in classified and very secret information and they only come out to talk to the press on very specific circumstances and very controlled environments often the only time you're really able to like, like go in and ask the FBI director a question is during a Senate hearing or a house hearing. That's it. I mean,

that's it with the exclusion of very specific circumstances inside the FBI controlled press, controlled media, access points, blue cards and everything. You don't just get to walk up and ask cash a question so it's like this report drops within 12 hours of them doing this this morning like it's just like a photo can we get just like a photo of them at the hearing like like they're so every multiple people who are on this chat are gonna be sitting before the Senate within 12 hours? It's just too perfect.

And get a chance for the desperate, there it is, perfect, for the desperate Democrat Party to like foment this hoax. I know, Cash, who's the only guy who wasn't on the chat, right? Like, isn't that something? What does that tell you? I think it's dirty. I think it's dirty tricks. That's what I believe in my heart of hearts.

That's the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and also Pete Hegseth, clearly furious about this. I wouldn't be able to leave this topic without showing you. Pete Hegseth said he happens to be traveling 5000 miles away. Just how this stuff works. And they were landing for refueling in Hawaii. And he did a short press interview. And he also like Mike Waltz was like, who the F is?

I don't even know this guy. How this guy get out of the chat? Let's go. One question. Can you share how your information about war plans against the Houthis in Yemen was shared with a journalist in the Atlantic? And were those details classified? So you're talking about a deceitful

and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the i don't know the hoaxes of russia russia russia or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hope so this is the guy that pedals in garbage this is what he does. I would love to comment on the Houthi campaign because of the skill and courage of our troops. I've monitored it very closely from the beginning. And you see, we've been managing four years of deferred maintenance under the Trump administration. Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at as targets. Our ships couldn't sail through. And when they did shoot back, it was purely defensively

or at shacks in Yemen. President Trump said, no more. We will reestablish deterrence. We will open freedom of navigation. And we will ultimately decimate the Houthis, which is exactly what we're doing as we speak from the beginning overwhelmingly. Why do those details show? what we're doing as we speak from the beginning overwhelmingly.

So the the press, the conversation here from Hegseth is, you know, F this reporter, F you guys. This operation was wildly successful, and it was. And I don't got time for this. So we'll see. President Trump saying that Mike Waltz learned his lesson and that he's a good man, right? This is what he said the verdict is in.

Trump remains confident in Mike Waltz. Atlantic story is the only glitch in two Trump remains confident in Mike Waltz. Atlantic story is the only glitch in two months. They're calling it a glitch. They're saying he learned his lesson. I don't know. I don't know. I'd love to hear the answer.

I'd love to hear the answer. Jesse Kelly, ladies and gentlemen, is somebody that I, he's a veteran, somebody I really respect on these issues. He has a searing, burning moral clarity on this kind of stuff. And he really understands who the enemy is. And he had this take on this. And hard for me to tell you I don't disagree with a lot of this.

Here we go. Accidents are okay depending on the qualifications of the person who committed the accident and depending on, most importantly, the importance of the topic at hand. We are dealing with national security

issues, military issues. The Trump administration has less than four years to purge the communist menace from inside the federal government while at the same time juggling about 19,000 world affairs, international, domestic, and otherwise. And if there is one person, I don't care what his name is, in the Trump administration who is so thoughtless, careless, or stupid that he's going to include a dirty communist on an important group chat of national security matters,

then that person can prepare his resume, pack up your stuff, and leave Washington, D.C. immediately. And it needs to be done publicly so everyone else in the administration understands you're not allowed to be a moron. You hold a critical national security position in the most powerful country on earth. The stakes of the game are quite literally, I hate to use that word, life and death when it comes to future generations of this country. I don't want to hear about accidents. I don't want to hear about boo-boos, mistakes. I'll try to do better next time.

No. No, sir. F'll try to do better next time. No. No, sir. Fired. Publicly. Immediately. I don't care what his name is. I don't care what his position is. Gone.

See ya. That's assuming that a member of Team Trump accidentally added this regime propagandist via a mistake. Maybe it was on purpose. Maybe they were trying to get some cutesy story written, some puff piece about how great they are. This is, DC's wild, man. People do the dumbest, the absolute dumbest shit in DC. I mean, nah, I'm telling you, I've seen it all. They are so addicted like moths to a burning blue light, a buzzing blue light on the back of a porch in the middle of Louisiana. Moths just can't resist it. And they just go up and get zapped. So goes neocons and establishment Republicans to corporate media and legacy journalist mastheads.

Oh, it's the New York Times. Oh, it's the Washington Post. Oh, it's the Atlantic. I've seen it before. And they debase their entire careers. They'll do anything to get their names in a polished headline from those places. And it's real sick, cuck-like behavior.

It's a total disrespect to people that are built like they're the vibrant media ecosystem, conservative media ecosystem that's been built by people with actual grit and care for this country, like Jesse Kelly. So that's the option. It was either done, it was one of three options, and then we're going to not talk about this again because I hate these kind of news cycles. It's one of three options.

Option number one, dumbass managing Mike Waltz's account accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg. Option number two, dumbass managing Mike Waltz's account or Mike Waltz purposefully added Jeffrey Goldberg in order to get some beautiful story written about him or whatever. I don't know. I don't know.

Option number three, far more nefarious option. The worst option. There's an op for people who control lines of code at Signal and they were able to sneak a journalist in there without anybody knowing. And they used fake names, and they snuck this individual in, and it was actually an intel operation. A black splinter group acting against the interests of the Trump administration.

Be nice to find out. Be nice to find out. It's one of those three. And I don't know, man, I tend to agree with Jesse Kelly on this. Like you shouldn't, there should be punishments for this type of threat to the movement that we're building. as you saw democrats are flailing they've never been worse and they're screeching and screaming to grab hold of some new hoax and this is it this has given them a teeny little breath of life as they're floundering it's giving them a teeny

little rope as they're drowning for something to scream and hold on to will it matter will it work with the american people i'm not not sure, ladies and gentlemen. I don't know. I don't know. I felt like it was important to educate our audience on it because you're going to hear a lot about this because Democrats have nothing else. That's it.

They have nothing else. Remember, Mar-a-Lago classified documents. Remember what they did with that? This is the gear they try and bite you with. This is the trap. The trap is this. Oh, it's classified. Oh, it's unclassified.

Oh, you mismanaged classified information. That's what they're going to do. That's what they're going to do here. So I want you to prepare you for that. All right, ladies and gentlemen. Have you ever met Jesse Kelly? He's like 6'5". He's a really tall dude.

Jesse Kelly is extremely tall, but some may say he's tall as a tree. And, well, I would agree with that, except for I've got some tall trees in my yard. How tall are the trees in your yard? Big, tall, 100-year-old oaks in our neighborhood, and I freaking love them. They're great.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've just redone our backyard at my house because we have little kids and those little kids need, uh, you know, kind of a different, kind of a different vibe in the backyard. We use fast growing trees in order to make sure that we had plants custom sent in, in order for us to be able to have the backyard that we want. Fast growing trees is the biggest online nursery

in the United States. Thousands of different plants, over 2 million happy customers. They have plants for all your yard needs like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering tree shrubs, much more, we use the privacy trees. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered.

Find the perfect fit for your climate and space. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy for your dream yard. Order online and get the plants delivered to your door in just a few days. Plus, get support from their trained plant experts. Ladies and gentlemen, make sure that you go right now to fastgrowingtrees.com. Fastgrowingtrees.com. Use the code Benny. It's a perfect time in the spring to plant.

This has helped us get a headstart on sort of, we don't have a big yard, don't have a big house, but it's enough for our little kids. And my wife is going crazy with the kids running out in the street. So locking it down. This spring, they have the best deals for your yard, half off on select plants and other deals

listeners to our show get 15 off their first purchase when using the code benny b-e-n-n-y at checkout that's an additional 15 off at fastgrowingtrees.com okay ladies and gentlemen this has uh been interesting what have we been live for three hours and 15 minutes we just let her rip this is just how we roll on this program. Nobody will work harder to bring you the front seat to the golden era. No one will work harder than us. But I'll tell you what, man. There's so much news that we just can't get to because, well, when you do two hours of a two hours of a senate confirmation hearing

you just don't you don't have the time to let it rip but it was very very interesting so here's one thing that we must push forward our tesla giveaway we got this tesla we don't have a tesla yet we're gonna pick somebody and then we're gonna work with them on getting a tesla okay we're gonna give away a tesla we've had a wildly successful year, and we want to give back. No gimmicks. You don't have to pay anything, buy anything to enter. You just got to follow along. Follow is free.

Go over here to BennyJohnson.com slash tesla giveaway and we're going to be giving away tesla we want to support elon we want to support his mission we want more teslas on the road uh the the libs screaming and burning down tesla dealerships uh motivates us all the more because the brand pisses them off so much and um makes us really happy that we can disabuse these libs of their terrorist ways. So we hope they all get locked up in prison. And if Tesla is a triggering brand, then we're going to make sure there's more of them on the road. So go on over there. All you got to do is subscribe and then enter your name and email.

And we're going to pick in about a week. We're going to pick a free Tesla. Okay? All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if you'll win the Tesla. I'm going to hand deliver it too, by the way. I'm going to go and I'm going to deliver the Tesla, okay? We already worked this out.

I don't know. But I do know that if you are feeling lucky today, maybe you will win. But no matter feeling lucky today, maybe you will win. But no matter what happens today, you need your verse of the day. From Psalm 118. The Lord is with me. I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?

Ooh, man. There is a lot of darkness out there. And it's important for you to understand that without having a good foundation, you are going to get destroyed. This world will punch you and hit you and break you until you are down and you can't get back up. You've got to have a good, strong foundation,

especially in these times. Seems like for the first time in my lifetime, evil is retreating just a little bit. That's wonderful to see, and it doesn't like that. So it's going to lash out. Make sure you have a good foundation. The Lord should be with you. Do not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us on this long broadcast today. It's your boy Benny, front seat to the golden era. March with us. We're going to win. See ya. This is how a democracy works. We talk to each other. Because only by speaking can we create a free and a... I'm sorry. I'm sorry about the knife.

I won't talk about it. scream stand up strong battle through the night the penny shows here bringing liberty to life from the speeches to the baits benny sharp like a blade coming through the lies watch the truth cascade with the booriest heart this man never fades you know it's prime time when betty invades from saving the nation to stories untold the betty shows the storm see the truth unfold stay in the loop let freedom take hold salt in all the libs, soul never sold It's the Benny Show, where the truth gon' be Faith and freedom on your TV screen Stand up strong, battle through the night The Benny Show's here, bring your liberty to life Liberty to life

Bring your liberty to life Liberty to life. Bringing liberty to life. From the speeches to the debates, Benny's sharp like a blade. Cutting through the lies, watch the truth cascade. With the warrior's heart, this man never fades. You know it's prime time when Benny invades. From saving the nation to stories untold. The Benny shows the storm, see the truth unfold. Stay in the loop, let freedom take hold.

Salt in all the libs, soul never sold. It's the Benny Show, where the truth unfold stay in the loop let freedom take hold salt and all the libs soul never sold it's the benny show where the truth gonna be faith and freedom on your tv screen stand up strong battle through the night the benny show's here bringing liberty to life bringing liberty to life bringing liberty to life bringing liberty to life bringing liberty to life Bring your lip and eat a light. Bring your lip and eat a light. Bring your lip and eat a light. Former MLB All-Star Sean Casey, aka The Mayor, keeps hitting it out of the park.

Take my 30 years of experience. Take the wisdom and knowledge I've learned from the failures when I got sent down my rookie year. All the injuries I had to overcome. Your mind is the most important tool you have in life. Be relentless. Keep charging. It matters how you talk to yourself, how you look at the world. That matters.

We talk about that. I don't know. I'm fired up. Baseball's back, and it's going to be incredible. I love it. The Mayor's Office with Sean Casey from Believe. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.