Back on Capitol Hill as the House hearing continues with intelligence officials, Democrat Chrissy Houlahan says she finds it "offensive for [CIA Director John Ratcliffe] to accuse me as a Democrat of not caring about national threats".

Houlahan, an Air Force veteran, says she "had wanted to talk about those" global threats - which was the topic that brought these officials to the hearing - but now "I don't have time to ask those questions because the threat is in the House".

"When I served in the military.... if this happened to me I would have walked my resignation" in straight away, Houlahan says of the leaked military plans.

She presses Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, on whether she would investigate the leaked military plans.

"This was a chat among a great variety of people," Houlahan argued, saying Gabbard had an "obligation" to probe any significant leak. "Do you not think it's important to do such a thing?"

Gabbard pointed to the Defense Department having authority over the classification of the information discussed in the Signal chat and said the National Security Council, not her agency, was examining the leak.

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House

As the morning in Washington grinds on, the White House's strategy for dealing with the fall-out of what has now been dubbed "Signal-gate" is becoming more clear.

In the hours since the Atlantic published the contents of the messages, various White House officials - including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Communications Director Steven Cheung and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard - have contested that the shared messages constituted a "war plan".

"The Atlantic has conceded: these were not "war plans"," Leavitt wrote earlier. "This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin."

The semantics argument is unlikely to hold much weight with national security professionals, who have noted that the messages included specific attack plans and timetables that could have allowed the Houthis to prepare, if the messages had fallen into the wrong hands.

There is about an hour until today's news briefing is due to begin at the White House, and, for now, it appears as if this argument is likely to form a key part of Leavitt's answers to questions from the news media.

A lot has happened with this story today, so let's take a look at how we got here.

We started our coverage this morning US time after the Atlantic, external journalist who was added to a Signal group chat with top US security officials released new details from that message thread on Wednesday.

Some of the new details include specific timings of the airstrikes and, hours before the attack, confirmation from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth saying: "We are a GO for mission launch".

Some of those who were on the Signal message thread are continuing to testifying before the House Intelligence Committee.

The CIA Director testified the reports from the Atlantic were "misleading" and he never transmitted classified information". Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told lawmakers there would be an "in-depth review" by the National Security Council about the mishap and also denied there was any classified information discussed.

Democratic lawmakers like Senator Mike Warner have called for the resignation of Hegseth and others involved in the chat. Warner also said that the new information was "obviously classified", posing legal risks.

The White House on Wednesday dismissed the Atlantic story as "another hoax" and said the details of the chat were not war plans, though Trump did say in an interview today that someone on his team may have "screwed up".

Vice-President JD Vance says that Atlantic journalist "oversold what he had".

Soon, we're expecting to hear more from the White House in a news briefing where Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is set to take questions from reporters.

Ruth Comerford
Live reporter

One of the big questions in this latest leak of messages from the Atlantic is whether they are classified and whether they ever were.

The White House and members of the group chat, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who laid out the military plans over Signal, have denied the messages are classified.

But former senior military intelligence expert Philip Ingram said these messages are likely very classified. He says the most recent leak posted by the Atlantic "falls firmly into the bracket of what would have been classified top secret".

There is a huge amount of detail about what is being launched and when, he says. "You can practically plot where the aircraft are going to come from."

"There are likely to be other messages before and after this, and anyone with a bit of military knowledge - well this is plain speak to them."

Here's what some of the military jargon means.

A "package" refers to a set of aircraft that will be carrying different weapon systems and intelligence gathering devices.

A "trigger" means the set of parameters that have to be acknowledged before an airstrike or missile is deployed. It could be a visual reference point, like a mobile phone lighting up.

Image source, Getty Images

We've been talking a lot about Signal, the app that was used to discuss war plans.

It's a free, open-source encrypted messaging app that was launched in 2014.

Conversations within the app are end-to-end encrypted - meaning they can only be read or heard by the recipients.

It is often used by journalists and Washington officials because of the secure nature of its communications, the ability to create aliases, and the ability to send disappearing messages.

Here's more about the app, how it was used here and a look at how secure it truly is.

Image source, Getty Images

At the hearing, Democrat Jason Crow is focusing on the security of the Signal app itself.

He asks National Security Agency (NSA) Director Timothy Haugh if the agency has recently warned its employees not to use the app, which has been reported in the media.

Haugh says they have put out advisories related to how the use Signal and other encrypted applications.

Crow asks if that was because there are risks to using the app. "There are," Haugh replies.

Crow also asks Defense Intelligence Agency Director Jeffrey Kruse whether the Department of Defense has also recently issued a warning about the vulnerability of the app.

"That's correct," Kruse says.

A Pentagon spokesperson said in a statement the additional messages released by the Atlantic on Wednesday contained "no classified materials or war plans".

"The Secretary was merely updating the group on a plan that was underway and had already been briefed through official channels," spokesmen Sean Parnell said of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

"The American people see through the Atlantic’s pathetic attempts to distract from President Trump’s national security agenda."

New details from the Signal chat show specific times for airstrikes in Yemen and the types of weapons used.

Senior Democrats have been highly critical of the way messages about attacks on the Houthis were shared on Signal and that a journalist was added to the group.

Some have now gone further, calling for Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's resignation on the grounds that he texted sensitive and classified information on the chat.

At the ongoing House Intelligence Committee hearing, where several members of the Signal group are testifying before lawmakers, Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi says Hegseth "needs to resign immediately".

He displayed large print-out screenshots of the messages during the hearing, which he says should have been classified.

Others have piled on with similar thoughts. Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, who is a former US Marine, said on X that "the incompetence and cover-up is embarrassing".

"This could have gotten our men and women killed!" he wrote. "Strike times, when planes are taking off, what weapons are being used all shared in unsafe manner.@SecDef, external needs to resign."

"I cannot believe Hegseth would recklessly text info that could put a target on our pilots and service members," wrote New Jersey Senator Andy Kim on X. "He needs to resign."

Arizona's Mark Kelly, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, agreed: “This is what happens when you put unqualified people in important jobs where lives are on the line.”

And Michael Bennet, Colorado senator and another committee member, said National Security Adviser Mike Waltz should also go, adding that their continued denial of wrongdoing was making things worse.

President Donald Trump is so far today continuing his claims that nothing in the encrypted chat that was leaked could have "compromised" the attack plans in Yemen, though he did say that a member of his team may have "screwed up".

Speaking over the phone on the conservative Vince Show, Trump said: “There weren’t details, and there was nothing in there that compromised and it had no impact on the attack, which was very successful."

But, he added: “Somebody in my group either screwed up, or it’s a bad signal,” he said.

Trump has so far stood by his officials and has claimed the incident has been blown out of proportion.

White House finds itself on the back footpublished at 15:12 Greenwich Mean Time 26 March

15:12 GMT 26 March

Gary O'Donoghue
Senior North America correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

For more than two months now, the Trump administration has managed to dominate the news cycle by setting a frenetic pace, 'flooding the zone', as it's described here in Washington.

But this is the first real moment it has been put on the back foot - and it's responding with a familiar combination of techniques - denying, downplaying, attacking and distracting.

The problem with trying simply to face this down is that the messages in the Signal chat speak for themselves.

You don't have to be a national security expert to realise that discussion of the times planes are taking off, the times they will drop their bombs, the weapons being used and the targets they're aiming at, are operational and highly sensitive details. Classified? How could they not be?

What could save those involved, however, is that the president can't really afford to punish one without punishing the others.

If he sacrifices Mike Waltz for inviting the journalist into the group, how can he not also punish Pete Hegseth for sharing all the military detail.

But losing two such senior figures at this stage would be a disaster - and the White House will bend over backwards to prevent it.

Image source, Getty Images

Testifying to lawmakers, CIA Director John Ratcliffe lays into the Atlantic reporter, who he says "intentionally intended" to indicate he transmitted classified information in the Signal chat.

"I did not transmit classified information," Ratcliffe says, adding that he believes this is shown in the newly released messages.

"I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information", he says.

The CIA director adds that claims he released the name of an undercover CIA operative in the chat are "deliberately false and misleading". He says it was his chief of staff.

There has been "so much talk... about things that were said and what could have happened, instead of a focus on what did happen", he says. "My responsibility... is to kill terrorists, and that's what I did".

Democrat Jim Himes questions intelligence officials on the new messages shared by the Atlantic today, and asks those present to reflect on their testimony yesterday when they testified before members of the US Senate.

At one point yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was asked whether specific strike plans, weapons used or timings were discussed on the Signal chat. She said no, not to her recollection and deferred to the Department of Defense.

Himes asks about her testimony after the exact messages were released by the Atlantic this morning. The messages appear to reveal exact times, aircrafts being used and strike plans.

Gabbard says her answer yesterday was based on her "recollection... on the details that were posted there".

"I was not directly involved with that part of the Signal chat," she says, noting the messages revealed today show that she only really chimed in toward the end. "I did not recall the exact details of what was included there."

Image source, Getty Images

Back at Capitol Hill where lawmakers are questioning members of this Signal group chat, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is talking about the chat and its contents.

She tells the House Intelligence Committee that the National Security Council will conduct "an in-depth review along with technical experts" to determine how the reporter was added to the group chat with top US officials.

Testifying to lawmakers at a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee, Gabbard reiterates the stance of the Trump administration that it "was a mistake" that the reporter was added to the chat with high-level staff "having a policy discussion".

The conversation was "candid and sensitive", she says, but insists "no classified information was shared".

Gabbard says the Signal app "comes pre-installed on government devices", and cites guidance from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency last year, which she says mentions the app as an example of a messaging service with end-to-end encryption.

"Ideally these conversations occur in person", she says, but sometimes "fast-moving" co-ordination is necessary when people are not able to meet face-to-face.

She adds that a newly filed lawsuit over the Signal group chat would prevent her from discussing some details about the issue.

Image source, Bernd Debusmann Jr/BBC

I've just arrived at the White House, where what would normally still be a calm morning has taken on a frenzied atmosphere after the Atlantic's publishing of the full Signal group chat messages.

Outside, reporters are doing lives, while down in the basement - where the BBC sits - journalists are chatting amongst themselves, mostly theorising on how and why Goldberg was added to the group. Nobody seems to understand that one, key facet of this story.

Others are tuning into C-SPAN to watch a hearing at the House Intelligence Committee, where "Signal-gate" is almost sure to dominate the session.

President Trump has, by his standards, a relatively light schedule today. At 15:00 EDT (19:00 GMT), he will participate in an event marking Women's History Month, which will be open to pre-credentialed media. That's his only public event today, so far.

At 13:00 EDT, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt will host a news briefing. One can safely assume she will face a barrage of questions about the messages, as well as on the administration's response.

Nomia Iqbal
North America correspondent

I've been talking to Glenn Gerstell - the former general counsel of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 2015 to 2020 - serving under President Obama and President Trump.

After seeing the new Atlantic story that includes the full text exchange he said: "The idea this wasn’t classified information at the time is inconceivable. I don't know if they declassified it afterwards but any imminent military action involving American troops would have been classified at the time."

Gerstell is an expert on cybersecurity and the role of technology in national security and privacy. I ask him about the issue of using Signal.

"It shouldn't really be used. All official business, particularly when it comes to the departments of defense, state, national security, should only be done on approved devices as well. That is the general rule. If information was classified as it seems to be in this case, there are even more strict rules about that. The problem with signal is if it's on an insecure device, like a personal phone, it’s entirely possible for the comms to be intercepted before they get to the point of encryption."

The White House has said the strikes were successful as a way of responding to the concerns about the breach of national security.

But Gerstell says the issue isn’t about the strikes and that nothing went wrong.

"It can't possibly be the case that the test of - if a communication is appropriate - is that something bad didn't happen."

Image source, Getty Images

Trump officials are doubling down on their claims that no classified information was shared on the Signal messaging thread.

In a post on X this morning after the Atlantic released another slate of messages, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who created the Signal group chat, wrote: "No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests."

The messages released by the Atlantic this morning show that officials discussed many specific details of their planned attacks (including the aircrafts involved) and exactly what time they would strike.

Officials also shared information about the effectiveness of the attacks soon after they were complete.

Yesterday, Atlantic Editor Jeff Goldberg said he would only be releasing some of the messages exchanged on the Signal application for fear that some of the information might be too sensitive to share.

This includes the chief of staff for CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Before releasing the latest slew of messages this morning, external, a CIA spokesperson asked Goldberg not to share the name of the employee, because those officials are not typically publicly identified, according to the Atlantic.

But in a post on X this morning, Vice President JD Vance said Goldberg was accusing officials of "blowing the cover" of a CIA agent with the messaging leak when, Vance claims, Ratcliffe was "simply naming his chief of staff".

Vance claimed this was an example of Goldberg "over[selling]" the information revealed on the thread.

But given that the CIA asked Goldberg not to release his name, it is possible that the information was sensitive after all.

Image source, Getty Images

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes, says "everyone here knows" that Russia or China could have got hold of the Signal messages and passed them on to the Houthis.

In his opening remarks at today's hearing - where two members of the Signal group chat are appearing - Himes says they could have altered their plans to "knock down planes or sink ships".

"It's only by the grace of God that we're not mourning dead American pilots," he says.

There is "only one response to a mistake of this magnitude", he adds, "you apologise, you own it", and you stop everything until you know what went wrong and how to stop it in the future.

"But that's not what happened," he says.

We've been bringing you the latest on reaction to the full messages being publicised in a Signal group chat that detailed strike plans in Yemen after a reporter was inadvertently added to the group.

Here's more from those messages that were published this morning by The Atlantic, whose editor Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the Signal group.

After several messages of congratulations exchanged among Trump officials on the chat, future plans for attacks were also shared with the group, according to screenshots of the messages released by the Atlantic.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote later in the afternoon: “CENTCOM was/is on point", referencing the US Central Command of the Defense Department.

“Great job all," Hegseth continued. "More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.”

The last update was followed by more congratulations on the successful attack among Trump officials, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, chimes in with prayers and flexed bicep emojis in the last screenshot of the chat provided by the outlet.

Goldberg has said he left the group chat shortly after these messages - realising the group was real and the plans being discussed had been carried out.

Image source, Getty Images

Top intelligence chiefs are about to begin testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, as they face ongoing criticism over the Signal group chat leaks.

You can watch along live by clicking watch live at the top of the page - the committee's chair Rick Crawford is just delivering his opening remarks.

Those appearing before lawmakers include Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe - who were both in the group chat - and FBI Director Kash Patel.