White House has good reason to believe this storm will passpublished at 18:31 Greenwich Mean Time 25 March

18:31 GMT 25 March

Anthony Zurcher
North America correspondent

The White House counteroffensive against the ongoing controversy surrounding the Houthi strike group chat is taking shape – and it should be a familiar one.

Attack, attack, attack.

Steven Cheung, White House communications director, launched perhaps the most pointed fusillade on X, accusing Donald Trump’s critics of "weaponising innocuous actions" and "peddling misinformation".

"Don't let enemies of America get away with these lies," he wrote.

If the administration can convince conservatives to stick by Trump and view the incident as just the latest attempt to bring the president down – and history suggests that they will – then the White House has good reason to believe that this storm, like all the others, will pass.

Republicans in Congress are also following a well-beaten path. During testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – two participants in the group chat – the conservatives on the committee tended to assiduously avoid talking about this week's biggest news.

When Republican legislators were pressed by reporters for comment in the hallways, as the BBC did of Ted Cruz, they focused on the success on of the Houthi strikes and characterised the chat revelations as minor news.

Even though the group chat possibly violated federal law and its revelations suggest an embarrassing level of negligence, Democrats – without control of Congress and the investigatory power that provides – may be challenged to find a way to make the story stick for long.

How much European and US trade runs through the Suez Canal?published at 18:14 Greenwich Mean Time 25 March

18:14 GMT 25 March

By Gerry Georgieva

In the US government group chat over impending strikes on Yemen, a message from Vice-President JD Vance stated that "3% of US trade runs through the Suez. 40% of European trade does".

Another message later talked about "bailing out" Europe, prompting others to talk about remuneration for the US military action against Houthi rebels.

BBC Verify couldn't find these figures and has asked the White House.

We spoke to experts and their research suggests that Europe does use the Suez Canal more than the US.

So far in 2025, 0.5% of exports from the US and 12% from Europe have passed through the canal, according to commodities intelligence firm Kpler.

In 2022, before Houthi attacks on shipping there, it was 7.7% and 19.8% respectively.

In terms of container ships, so far in March 0.7% of US capacity and 0.9% of most of Europe's capacity passed through the canal, according to freight transport consultants MDS Transmodal.

In August 2023, it was 21% and 46%.

Jonathan Csapo
Reporting from Capitol Hill

Image source, Getty Images

I've been speaking to Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Asked about the Signal group chat being exposed inadvertently to a journalist, he says "it was obviously a mistake".

But, he says, "if you look at the underlying substance of what they were discussing, I think we actually should be very encouraged."

The Republican goes on to say that Yemen's Houthis have been attacking American interests crossing the Suez Canal for four years.

"Now the consequence is Americans, Texans, when you go to the grocery store, you're paying more… When you go to the department store, you're paying more because this terrorism," he adds.

"What the entire text thread is about is President Trump directed his national security team take out the terrorists and open up the shipping lanes. That's terrific."

Image source, Getty Images

There have been questions over whether US security might have been compromised by members of the group carrying their phones abroad.

Now, data analysed by the BBC's US partner CBS shows that Donald Trump's Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Moscow meeting with Vladimir Putin when he was included in the Signal group chat.

According to CBS, which looked at data from flight tracking website FlightRadar24, Witkoff arrived in the Russian capital around noon on 13 March.

Twelve hours later, while still in Russia, Witkoff was added to the Houthi Signal chat that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was also accidentally included in.

CBS notes that it is unclear from Goldberg's testimony whether Witkoff made any comments in the group chat until a couple of days later once he had returned to the US.

It's also unclear whether a phone issued by the government or a personal device was included in the Signal chat. There's also uncertainty over whether Witkoff had the device with him in Russia.

According to CBS, Russia has repeatedly tried to compromise Signal, which would have put the device at risk of exploitation if Witkoff had been carrying it with him.

Image source, Getty Images

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has demanded accountability. "For the defence secretary to coordinate war plans in such a haphazard and dangerous way puts our national security, our troops, and every single American at risk," he says.

Schumer then calls for a "bipartisan investigation" into the "mishandling" and says Republicans "must not just shrug their shoulders and call this incident 'one of those learning moments'".

Schumer raises the possibility that Russian or Iranian intelligence could have gained access to the text thread - which he calls a "terrifying thought".

"At best, Secretary Hegseth showed a colossal lack of judgement," he says. "At worst, he put America’s national security - and perhaps American troops - in danger."

Atlantic Editor Jeffrey Goldberg has appeared on anti-Trump media outlet The Bulwark Podcast, following the Senate Intelligence Committee grilling.

He is asked if he should now publish the full text from the Signal Group chat, given that the Trump administration said there's no classified information.

"No because they're wrong," Goldberg replies, before letting out a heavy sigh.

He says he and his colleagues, and those giving advice to them, have some "interesting conversations" to have.

"But just because they're irresponsible with material, doesn't mean I am," Goldberg tells the podcast.

He calls the administration's reaction "defensive" and says they will "say anything" when under pressure.

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House

In a statement, the White House has described the fury over the group chat as being a "coordinated effort" to distract from the "successful" actions of Donald Trump.

The White House accused the administration of Joe Biden of doing nothing as Yemen's Houthis, a "band of pirates with precision-guides, Iran-provided weaponry" exacted a toll on "one of the most important shipping lanes in the world".

The statement also listed a number of perceived failures of Biden-era policies towards the Houthis, as well as steps Trump to put them "on notice" including large-scale military strikes and the re-designation of the group as a foreign terrorist organization.

Image source, Getty Images

Democratic Representative Maxwell Alejandro Frost says he has sent letters to the identifiable members of the group chat "demanding that they retain all messages for any pending litigation and Congressional investigations".

In his post on X, Frost adds that "any deletion of the chat is a wilful destruction of evidence".

Image source, EPA

Republican members of the committee attempted to steer clear of the Signal group chat drama, the Democrats refused to let it slide. Democrat Senator Warner called it "sloppy, careless, incompetent behaviour".

It led to a grilling of the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe - who both denied that there was classified information in the chat. Here's what else we heard:

CIA director John Ratcliffe:

• He said he's not aware that any specific operational information on weapons, targets or timing was discussed in the group chat
• Ratcliffe also insisted that communicating via the Signal group chat was "permissible"
• Pushed on whether the incident was a "huge mistake", he replies: "No."

National Intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard:

• Gabbard at first declines to confirm whether or not she was actually in the group chat
• She goes on to say there is a difference between "inadvertent release" and "malicious leaks" of information – following on from earlier comments she had made about the unauthorised release of classified information

Image source, Getty Images

Clocking in at just under two hours, the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing has adjourned.

With that, the intelligence heads - including Director of National Intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, CIA head John Ratcliffe, and FBI Director Kash Patel - have now walked out of the room.

But they're not done just yet. The panel will shortly continue to face questions in a closed session, where sensitive and classified information can be discussed.

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

In another tense discussion, Senator John Ossoff presses CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

"This was a huge mistake, correct?" Ossoff asks.

"No," Ratcliffe replies.

The two then begin speaking over each other, making what they're saying indecipherable.

Ossoff gets the last word and says: "This is an embarrassment."

"There's been no apology. there has been no recognition of the gravity of this error."

Image source, Reuters

Democrat Jack Reed asks John Ratcliffe if it would be appropriate for the Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to share all the details from the group chat.

Ratcliffe replies that he thought Goldberg had shared "essentially almost all the information" he had.

Reed says Goldberg had said in his article that he had withheld some details because it was classified.

The Democrat turns to FBI director Kash Patel, asking if Goldberg could face legal repercussions for releasing all the information.

Patel replies that he is "not going to prejudice the situation", adding that it's an issue for the justice department.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner says he finds it "stunning" that no one has acknowledged that the administration "screwed up".

Information about the timing and weapons involved in a military strike, or "senior American officials trashing Europe" is not information that is generally revealed to the public, he says.

He adds the heads of intelligence cannot argue that the information was not classified, but cannot be discussed on the Senate floor. "You can't have it both ways," Warner says.

Image source, EPA

After a brief respite during Republican Todd Young's questions, the intelligence heads are once again being asked about the Signal leak.

Democrat Mark Kelly asks Gabbard if specific targets were mentioned in the Signal group chat - she says she doesn't think so.

When asked whether there was mention of a general target, she admits the discussion may have touched on that.

Kelly asks both Gabbard and Ratcliffe whether specific weapons systems and military units were mentioned.

"I cannot recall," they each reply.

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

Image source, Reuters

The Senate hearing has officially evolved into a shouting match between Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat, and CIA director John Ratcliffe.

It's dead silent in the room, except for the two gentlemen yelling over each other.

"I don't know if you use Signal," Ratcliffe tells Bennet.

"I do, not for classified information," Bennet replies, speaking over Ratcliffe. "That's what your testimony is today."

Ratcliffe replies: "Absolutely not Senator."

As his time to speak runs out, Senator Bennet finishes by saying: "This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable."

Senator Michael Bennet is taking his turn to question the panel now.

He says to CIA head Mark Ratcliffe that his testimony today is that "there was nothing wrong at all" with the Signal chat. This leaves Bennet "staggered", he adds.

He asks his view on Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's comments, who earlier said the journalist added to the chat "is a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist" and said he has history of creating hoaxes.

Ratcliffe says he doesn't have a view on this, and doesn't know the journalist.

Bennet won't drop the line of questioning, saying to Ratcliffe "don't insult the intelligence of the American people".

He asks again if the journalist invited himself.

Ratcliffe says "clearly he was added".

Things between the two are uncomfortable, as they go back and forth as Bennet tries to understand Ratcliffe's understanding of how the journalist came to be in the chat.

"You're the CIA director, why didn't you call out" that the journalist was there, Bennet says with a raised voice.

"Were you listening at the beginning?" Ratcliffe retorts.

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

Senate committee hearings are often ripe opportunities for political partisanship, and today's hearing is a prime example.

Republican Senators have mostly avoided talking about the Trump administration's recent slip up involving the messaging app Signal.

In contrast, Democratic Senators have harped on the issue almost exclusively, conveying it as a major mishap and possible national security threat.

Senator James Lankford says: "Thank you to all of you.

"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."

Immediately after him, Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat, aims to get the to bottom of who determined the information discussed in Signal was not classified.

Speaking to CIA director John Ratcliffe, Senator Heinrich asks: "Did you just determine it was not classified, or was there any declassification after the fact?"

Democrats have tried to highlight a contradiction between the White House saying the information discussed was not classified - which could be in violation of the law - while also appearing reluctant to share details of the messages due to their sensitivity.

Image source, Reuters

Independent Senator Angus King says he's "puzzled" that Gabbard says there was no classified information in the Signal group chat.

He says that according to reports, on the morning of 15 March, Secretary Hegseth put into the chat a "detailed operation plan including targets, weapons, attack sequencing and timings".

"Wouldn't that be classified?" King asks the director of national intelligence.

She reiterates that there was no classified information in that chat, and when pushed again by King, says she refers the question to the secretary of defence and the national security council.

"Well you're the head of the intelligence community, and you're supposed to know about classifications," King replies.

CIA director Ratcliffe is now being asked if any specific operational information on weapons, targets or timing was discussed in the group chat.

"Not that I'm aware of," he tells Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich.

Director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is also brief in her answer to the same question, saying she gives the "same answer", adding she defers to the Department of Defense.

Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich asks Ratcliffe about who determined that the material in the chat was not classified.

CIA director John Ratcliffe, who earlier said he was in the chat, says Signal is a permissible platform to use.

Heinrich says this is already clear, as Ratcliffe continues to explain that it has been approved for use.

In this case, Ratcliffe says the national security advisor requested through a Signal message "that there be coordination".

He says it is not improper that a CIA agent was a member of the chat.

The chat was set up with the instruction to send a point of contact, and information would be further provided in a more secure manner of communications, he says.

Therefore, Ratcliffe says, the chat was set up as a mechanism for coordinating between senior level officials, "not a substitute for using... classified communications".

That is exactly what happened, he says.