Signal is an open-source, encrypted service used for messaging and calls.
The Trump administration is still grappling with the revelation from Monday that several senior officials discussed plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal chat that inadvertently included The Atlantic magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
But as the fallout continues and some allies of President Donald Trump call for national security adviser Michael Waltz, who Goldberg said added him to the chat, to be fired, members of the Trump administration have defended the group chat participants.
A key question that remains is whether any classified information was posted in the chat, something the administration denies. Still, Democrats and former national security officials claim that detailed plans ahead of the attacks sent in the group by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should have been considered classified.
Watch NBC 4 free wherever you are
WATCH HEREIn response to a request for comment for this story, the White House deferred to Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s past remarks.
Get Tri-state area news delivered to your inbox with NBC New York's News Headlines newsletter.
SIGN UP Here's a timeline of the Trump administration's responses to The Atlantic story since it went live on Monday.
Monday, March 24: The White House learns about the story
At a White House event with executives from Hyundai, Trump fielded the first questions about the story, telling reporters, "I don’t know anything about it," and going on to express his disdain for the magazine.
The president added that the attack on the Houthis discussed in the Signal chat "was very effective."
"I don’t know anything about it. You, you’re telling me about it for the first time," he added about the story.
Later, Leavitt echoed Trump's remarks, telling NBC News in a statement, "As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective."
She added that the president "continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz.”
After he landed in Hawaii late Monday, Hegseth blasted Goldberg and said, "Nobody was texting war plans and that’s all I have to say about that."
Tuesday, March 25: Senior intelligence officials face questions on Capitol Hill
CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced a barrage of questions on Tuesday during a Senate hearing that was scheduled well before Monday's Atlantic article dropped.
In testimony to Senate lawmakers, Ratcliffe acknowledged that he was one of the administration officials in the Signal chat and said the text thread was "lawful and did not include classified information."
Gabbard, on the other hand, dodged questions about whether she was a participant in the Signal chat, but told lawmakers, "there was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group."
During an ambassador meeting at the White House on the same day, Trump reiterated the claim, telling reporters, “There was no classified information, as I understand it. They used an app, if you want to call it an app that a lot of people use, a lot of people in government use, a lot of people in the media use.”
In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, Waltz took "full responsibility" for Goldberg being in the Signal chat, calling the move "embarrassing" and a "mistake. He added, "We're going to improve it. We're going to fix it. We're going to move forward to achieve the president's agenda."
Hegseth, in Hawaii on Tuesday, once again reiterated to reporters that "nobody's texting war plans, and that's all I have to say."
"I know exactly what I'm doing, exactly what we're directing, and I'm really proud of what we accomplished, the successful missions that night and going forward," the defense secretary added.
Wednesday, March 26: Full transcript of group chat is released
Following two days of denial from the administration that classified material was discussed over Signal, The Atlantic on Wednesday published the full transcript of the group chat. In response, some Trump administration officials focused on the fact that The Atlantic initially used the term "war plans" to describe the topic of conversation but on Wednesday referred to "attack plans."
"No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS," Waltz wrote in a post on X.
"These were NOT 'war plans,'" Leavitt wrote in a post on X, continuing to bash Goldberg.
In remarks to reporters while boarding a plane to Guam, Hegseth again claimed, "nobody’s texting war plans."
"There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information," he added.
Trump also downplayed the story during an executive order signing, blaming the press while also distancing himself from the discussion. "I think it’s all a witch hunt," he said. "That’s all. I think it’s a witch hunt. I wasn’t involved with it."
But as lawmakers and national security experts began to raise concerns about the specific military details seen in the transcripts, some administration officials also began to soften their language around whether or not there was classified information.
During the executive order signing, Trump was asked if he still believed that nothing classified was shared during the Signal conversation. “Well, that’s what I’ve heard," he said. "I don’t know. I’m not sure, you’ll have to ask the various people involved. I really don’t know.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in his first public remarks about the incident, said that he had "been assured by the Pentagon and everyone involved that none of the information that was on there — though not intended to be divulged, obviously, that was a mistake and that shouldn’t have happened, and the White House is looking at it — but that none of the information on there at any point threatened the operation of the lives of our servicemen."
Asked if any of the information discussed was classified, Rubio said, "Well, the Pentagon says it was not, and not only do they say it was not, they make very clear that it didn’t put in danger anyone’s life or the mission."
Thursday, March 27: Senators push for answers
Congressional pressure has continued to grow in the days since the chats were revealed. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., sent a letter to the acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense asking for a formal review of the situation and a briefing once that review is complete. Reed told reporters on Wednesday that if no review happens, "you have to assume the worst.”
Leavitt on Thursday struck a softer tone on the story, telling reporters outside of the White House.
“Well, we have never denied that this was a mistake," he said. "And the national security adviser took — took responsibility for that, and we have said we are making changes. We are looking into the matter to ensure it can never happen again.”
In a news conference, Attorney General Pam Bondi also weighed in on the matter for the first time, declining to say whether the Justice Department would investigate the disclosure of military plans in the Signal chat.
“It was sensitive information — not classified — and inadvertently released,” she told reporters, “and what we should be talking about was: it was a very successful operation.”
NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell, Benjamin Deeter, Sarah Dean, Abigail Williams, Owen Hayes, Elyse Perlmutter-Gumbiner and Megan Shannon contributed.
This story first appeared on NBCNews.com. More from NBC News:
