Category: Top Stories

Senate Democrats at Tuesday’s Intelligence Committee hearing were operating partly in the dark when they questioned officials about the Trump administration’s latest scandal. Senators at the time did not have the full transcript of the group chat in which top officials inadvertently shared military secrets with a journalist hours before the United States carried out bombings in Yemen.

So the senators weren’t in much of a position to scrutinize the claims — made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who were part of that group chat (along with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and national security adviser Mike Waltz) — that none of the information exchanged in the chat was classified. (A claim that has been echoed by the White House.)

But then The Atlantic published the contents of that Signal chat Wednesday morning, ahead of a similar hearing in the House. And that information gave Democrats the opportunity to press intelligence officials, again including Gabbard and Ratcliffe, on the security failure and to call for Hegseth’s resignation. 

“A lot of this suggests sort of a lack of sobriety,” Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut said of Hegseth’s use of emojis in several of his posts to the chat. “When there’s punch emojis and fire emojis, it’s a lack of sobriety. I don’t mean that literally.” (Himes’ aside at the end is an apparent jab at Hegseth’s alleged history of alcohol abuse, which the secretary has denied.)

Elsewhere, in response to questions about whether classified material was in the chat, Hegseth told reporters, “Nobody’s texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s social media post was typical of the Democratic response to that:

In demanding Hegseth’s resignation, House Democrats at the hearing pointed to his Signal messages to highlight the sensitivity of the military plans he was discussing on a commercial messaging platform.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., sounded exasperated as he tried to get Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to say the details Hegseth shared were classified. “This is classified information,” the representative interjected after Kruse attempted to deflect. Krishnamoorthi said Hegseth “needs to resign immediately and a full investigation needs to be undertaken with regard to whether other Signal chats are occurring in this administration.”

Watch below:

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., brought in a large printout of Hegseth’s messages to prove the secretary was discussing details of an imminent attack by the U.S. Crow also showed images of anti-aircraft missiles the Houthis have at their disposal to illustrate the risks to U.S. military personnel if the information discussed in the group chat had fallen into the hands of America’s adversaries. 

“Nobody is willing to come to us and say, ‘This was wrong, this was a breach of security, and we won’t do it again,’” Crow said. “It is outrageous and it is a leadership failure, and that is why Secretary Hegseth — who undoubtedly transmitted classified, sensitive operational information via this chain — must resign immediately.”

Watch Crow’s line of questioning here:

The CEOs of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service denied accusations of liberal bias at a congressional hearing Wednesday, as Republican lawmakers sought to portray public media outlets as partisan organizations that are set on indoctrinating children.

Led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Republicans on the House’s DOGE subcommittee grilled leaders of both organizations on their federal funding and news coverage, which conservatives have claimed is one-sided.

During their allotted time slots, GOP lawmakers aired a range of grievances. They grilled PBS CEO Paula Kerger on segments about drag queens and transgender people, and questioned NPR CEO Katherine Maher on her organization’s lack of coverage about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop before her tenure.

“Our current editorial leadership believes that that was a mistake, as do I,” Maher conceded.

Meanwhile, Democrats dismissed the hearing as a frivolous attack on the press and repeatedly brought up the Trump administration’s Signal debacle, involving top national security officials discussing attack plans in Yemen on a group chat that included a journalist from The Atlantic.

Although GOP lawmakers have long threatened to pull federal funding for public media, there has not been a presidential administration as hostile to the press in decades. The White House has barred The Associated Press from events and the press pool for its continued use of the term “Gulf of Mexico.” Trump and his allies have filed lawsuits against news outlets, and the president is trying to shut down the federal agency that oversees the Voice of America news service.

A longtime advocate for defunding public broadcasting networks, Trump said at a White House news conference Tuesday that he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS.

“I think it’s very unfair, it’s been very biased, the whole group,” said the president, adding: “They spend more money than any other network of its type ever conceived, so the kind of money that’s being wasted, and it’s a very biased view.”

Press freedom advocacy groups have criticized the attacks on public media. Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and Reporters Without Borders sent a joint letter to the House subcommittee, urging its members to “approach its examination of public broadcasting with the understanding that press freedom is not a partisan issue, rather a vital part of American democracy.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas said that she was not deriding Gov. Greg Abbott’s use of a wheelchair when she called him “Governor Hot Wheels” in a speech, but that she was referring instead to his policy of sending migrants who cross the border into Texas to blue cities across the country.

“I wasn’t thinking about the governor’s condition—I was thinking about the planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by Black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable,” she wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.

“Literally, the next line I said was that he was a ‘Hot A** Mess,’ referencing his terrible policies,” she added. “At no point did I mention or allude to his condition.”

Crockett, a Democrat known for her candid criticism of President Donald Trump and his allies, came under fire for her comments about Abbott — who began using a wheelchair after a major accident in 1984 — in a speech at a Human Rights Campaign event over the weekend.

“Y’all know we have Governor Hot Wheels down there, come on now,” she said, referring to her home state. “And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot a– mess, honey.”

Her remarks instantly set off criticism from Republicans. Fellow Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said he would introduce a resolution to censure Crockett. Abbott himself dismissed Crockett’s comment, saying Democrats “have nothing to sell but hate.”

Disability rights advocates also expressed dismay at Crockett’s remark, with some saying that it further stigmatized people with disabilities, Politico reported. Crockett’s chief of staff, Kimberly McClain, told Politico that the congresswoman “in no way, meant any harm toward the Governor OR meant to take lightly any medical conditions that he may have” and that Crockett would “continue to advocate for the needs of our disabled neighbors.”

In her posts on X on Tuesday, Crockett called the backlash “yet another distraction,” adding that “maybe my political foes should focus on doing the work of the people who elected us to improve their lives.” She also dismissed Republican criticism of her comments in light of their support for Trump, “a man known for racially insensitive nicknames and mocking those with disabilities.”

The partisan outrage at Crockett stands in contrast to Republicans’ unwavering support for Trump, which has led at times to a blatant disregard for his behavior. Trump mocked a reporter with disabilities onstage in 2015 and has called his political rivals “mentally disabled.” Earlier this year, Trump falsely suggested the deadly plane crash near Washington, D.C., was due to the Federal Aviation Administration employing people with disabilities as air traffic controllers.

FBI Director Kash Patel said Tuesday that his office has been engaged with social media companies behind the scenes to remove supposedly illegal content.

It was an interesting revelation in light of conservatives’ angst-ridden — and fundamentally baseless — allegations in recent years that the government has coerced Big Tech companies into censoring conservatives.

Patel’s remark came during Thursday’s national security hearing before members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It came in response to a question from Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., about whether social media companies are cooperating with efforts to remove “illegal content off their sites.” Lankford said that “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.”

Patel replied:

Watch the exchange here:

It’s hard to know what, precisely, Lankford was talking about. His office didn’t immediately respond to MSNBC’s request for clarification, and the FBI didn’t immediately respond to MSNBC’s request for comment on the nature of Patel’s relationship with social media companies.

On one hand, Lankford might have raised a legitimate issue. The Texas Tribune, for example, reported late last year that some cartel leaders have been known to use social media sites to recruit Americans to aid human smuggling. But that same report highlights concerns from civil rights activists and lawyers that Texas’ law on human smuggling has “morphed into an unconstitutionally vague statute that gives state police a fishing license to look for undocumented migrants.”

In light of that, it’s worth noting that top Republican officials in Texas have contended on multiple occasions that charity organizations that help migrants at the border could be engaging in illegal trafficking, a claim these groups vehemently deny. And a Human Rights Watch report from last summer revealed how right-wingers in Texas have used laws around trafficking to target people who provide aid — such as transportation to medical appointments — to undocumented people.

Indeed, trafficking is a horrible crime — and legitimate efforts to root it out on social media should be welcomed. The problem is that we’re talking about an FBI director who has vowed to weaponize law enforcement against the MAGA movement’s perceived enemies and hasn’t earned the public’s trust, so the mere idea of him playing a role in policing speech online is a frightening prospect.

On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were evasive during a Senate hearing that focused on their roles in the Trump administration’s scandal involving sensitive military information that was inadvertently shared with The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. 

Democrats were most apoplectic over Gabbard’s and Ratcliffe’s insistence that no classified information had been shared in the group chat on the Signal app, which Goldberg said had involved “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” and had included Gabbard and Ratcliffe, along with Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and national security adviser Mike Waltz.

While Republicans largely avoided the disturbing report in their questioning, Democrats leaped at what was the first opportunity to question Trump officials at length about the scandal. And it was clarifying because it showed Trump officials’ eagerness to evade questions in the face of accountability.

“I haven’t participated in any Signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all,” Ratcliffe proclaimed at one point.

Gabbard, who initially wouldn’t even say whether she was on the thread, eventually stated that “there was no classified material that was shared” in the group chat. Gabbard, who conceded she had been abroad during at least some of the discussions, refused to say whether she was using a personal phone or a work-issued one at the time.

In one telling exchange, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., tried to dangle a lifeline to the officials.

“They testified, is my understanding — correct me if I’m wrong — that there’s no intelligence community classified information: Is that correct?” Cotton said. Gabbard and Ratcliffe both said that was correct, but Sen. Angus King quickly interjected.

“That’s not correct: She said repeatedly there was nothing classified,” the Maine Democrat said. “Period.”

Watch the exchange here:

For the record, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., made the point that even if there technically wasn’t classified information involved — and it certainly seems like there may have been — that the thread may have run afoul of Department of Defense rules barring discussion of “controlled unclassified information” on unsecured devices. Essentially, that’s information that hasn’t been approved for public release.

Remarkably, Ratcliffe said he wasn’t familiar with the policy, while Gabbard said she hadn’t read it. Gabbard said the intelligence community has a similar policy but wouldn’t say whether the publicly disclosed information would’ve been allowed for release under that policy “because of the nature of a private discussion that took place between individual leaders in our government.”

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also maintained Tuesday that no classified material had been sent to the thread. But Democrats, who repeatedly demanded that Gabbard and Ratcliffe release the contents of the thread publicly if there was no sensitive information, aren’t going to simply take the administration at its word.

“This is an embarrassment,” said Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga. “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.”

I found Ossoff’s grilling of Ratcliffe worth a watch. Check it out:

CORRECTION (March 25, 2025, 9:43 p.m. ET): A previous version of this post misstated the first name of the CIA director. He is John Ratcliffe, not Michael Ratcliffe.

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “Deadline: White House.”

The fallout continues following a report from The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg that top officials in Donald Trump’s administration mistakenly added him to a group chat on a private messaging app in which plans for military strikes in Yemen were discussed. It’s a breathtaking breach of national security, and it raises several questions about the judgment and the competence of the people at the very highest levels of this administration.

Number one, given the recklessness and the carelessness with which officials shared this highly sensitive information, I think we can assume that it’s likely not just Goldberg listening in; it’s also our nation’s adversaries. At this point, is there any reason to believe that foreign powers, such as Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin or China’s Xi Jinping, don’t have access to this kind of information? This behavior runs counter to Trump’s pledge to “make America safe again.”

Secondly, these are the officials tasked with guarding our nation’s most sensitive information. So, if this is how members of the Trump administration treat our country’s secrets, how confident can we be that sensitive data from other agencies — such as Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service or Social Security — won’t also be compromised? This likely isn’t an isolated problem. The president has stuffed his administration full of loyalists and toadies, as opposed to people who are experienced and competent.

That leaves the final question: Will Trump take decisive action? This entire story is inconceivable and unprecedented, and heads should roll. But will they? This situation is a huge embarrassment and vulnerability for Trump.

If the president is looking for a scapegoat here, we know he has showed no hesitancy in going after journalists, and there’s no love lost between Trump and The Atlantic. Given his pattern of retribution, given the revenge tour that he’s on right now, it’s easy to imagine his next steps. He’s likely going to make this about the media as opposed to the incompetence, the recklessness and the carelessness of his own team.

The Colorado legislature agreed to remove a portrait of President Donald Trump from the state Capitol after he derided the painting as “the worst” in a lengthy social media post over the weekend.

The Legislature’s bipartisan Executive Committee officially ordered Capitol staff to take down the portrait on Monday. Democratic state lawmakers, who have a majority in both chambers, said they agreed with their Republican colleagues’ request to remove it.

“If the GOP wants to spend time and money on which portrait of Trump hangs in the Capitol, then that’s up to them,” Jarrett Freedman, a spokesperson for Colorado House Democrats, told The Washington Post in a statement.

Trump railed against the portrait in a Truth Social post on Sunday, claiming that it was “purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before.”

The painting depicts Trump with full cheeks and a slight frown. When it was unveiled in 2018, the artist, Sarah A. Boardman, described Trump’s expression in the painting as “serious, non-confrontational, thoughtful,” the Colorado Times Recorder reported.

In his post, however, Trump criticized Boardman — who has also painted portraits of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush — and insulted her artistic ability.

“The artist also did President Obama, and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst,” he wrote. “She must have lost her talent as she got older.”

Trump then called for its removal, claiming that “angry” Colorado residents have complained about the portrait and that he was merely “speaking on their behalf.” He also took the opportunity to attack Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, as “weak on Crime” regarding Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang that he said has been active in Aurora, Colorado.

“Jared should be ashamed of himself!” Trump wrote.

After his rant, he posted both his official presidential portraits on Truth Social.

Infamously image-conscious, Trump has often taken issue with the publication of unflattering photos of himself. In a 2016 article about a meeting with media executives, Politico reported that Trump, then president-elect, personally complained to NBC News’ president at the time that the network was using photos in which he appeared to have a double chin.

In an early 2017 social media post, he grumbled that a CNN book about his 2016 election campaign used the “worst cover photo of me!” And in 2023, he repeatedly complained about Fox News’ photo choices, once even attacking the network for using the “absolutely worst pictures of me, especially the big ‘orange’ one with my chin pulled way back.” It was unclear at the time exactly which image he was referring to.

In 2019, Trump grumbled about energy-efficient light bulbs, telling reporters that they cost more money and made him look worse.

“And I hate to say it, it doesn’t make you look as good. Of course, being a vain person, that’s very important to me,” he said. “It gives you an orange look. I don’t want an orange look.”

Comedian Nikki Glaser is warning about the chilling effect Donald Trump’s second term has had on the country’s comedy landscape. Glaser said there’s “a real fear” among some comedians that they could be “detained” over political jokes, especially those involving the president.

“Like, you just are scared that you’re gonna get doxxed and death threats, or who knows where this leads, like, detained,” Glaser told Deadline on Sunday.

“Honestly, that’s not even like a joke,” she continued. “It’s like a real fear. So it’s unfortunate that that’s true, but I’m not gonna lie and say I don’t think about that sometimes and go, ‘Oh, God. Can I just say, I hope they all know, I can be up on the gallows and say I was just joking. I’m a comedian.’ I hope that that’s a defense.” 

The comedian, known for brutally honest celebrity roasts, also told The Hill she no longer “felt safe” including political jokes in her routines. “I missed that moment where I could say stuff, because I had a point of view and I felt safe speaking to that,” Glaser said. “I went from being like, ‘I don’t want to talk about politics because I don’t want to alienate anyone,’ to like, ‘I want to talk about it but now I’m scared to.’ And that’s just that’s a s‑‑‑-y place to be.”

Glaser made the comments at Sunday’s ceremony for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. The event, celebrating honoree Conan O’Brien, was held in the shadow of a slow-rolling controversy at the performing arts center. Back in February, Trump fired multiple members of the board of trustees and appointed himself chairman. Trump vowed to rid the center of “woke” influences, drag shows and “anti-American propaganda.”

Not all of Glaser’s fellow comedians shied away from mocking the president at Sunday’s ceremony. John Mulaney joked that the Kennedy Center would soon be renamed “The Roy Cohn Pavilion for Big, Strong Men Who Love ‘Cats,’” a reference to Trump’s late mentor, political fixer Roy Cohn and the president’s affinity for the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. Will Ferrell said the event was a distraction since he was “supposed to be shutting down the Department of Education” instead of attending.

During his acceptance speech, O’Brien appeared to make a thinly veiled reference to Trump in his praise for the prize’s namesake, telling the crowd, “Twain hated bullies … He punched up, not down. And he deeply, deeply empathized with the weak … Twain was allergic to hypocrisy and he loathed racism. Twain was suspicious of populism, jingoism, imperialism, the money-obsessed mania of the Gilded Age and any expression of mindless American might or self-importance.”

“Above all, Twain was a patriot in the best sense of the world,” O’Brien added. “He loved America but knew it was deeply flawed. Twain wrote, ‘Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.’”

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 22 episode of “Velshi.”

Dictators fear freedom of speech more than any other right because it is the beating heart of a free, democratic society. People who are free to speak are free to challenge authority, share ideas and organize, all of which undermine tyranny. This is why a true measure of a nation’s freedom can be seen in how much dissent it is willing to tolerate — and in a vibrant democracy, dissent is valued, not simply tolerated.

In the 1700s, the American framers, having recently freed themselves from British rule that suppressed free speech and persecuted dissent, understood the crucial role the First Amendment would play in protecting citizens from government overreach. Benjamin Franklin observed: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation, must begin by subduing the freedom of speech; a thing terrible to publick traitors.”

It’s no wonder, then, that Donald Trump’s administration has set its sights on America’s universities, institutions that serve as major centers of deliberation and free inquiry, institutions that have historically been principal sites and incubators of dissent and protest. If speech can be effectively chilled in these critical intellectual spaces, it makes it much easier to silence the broader public.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has threatened universities with massive cuts to federal funding if they don’t submit to his agenda, which includes dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning what Trump is calling “illegal protests.”

On March 10, the administration notified 60 universities that they are under investigation for what it alleges is a failure to protect students from antisemitism on campus and warned the schools they could face “potential enforcement actions” as a result. It comes at a time when there is an active debate on college campuses about what constitutes antisemitism and whether protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza would be included in that definition.

The Trump administration also announced that it was investigating 52 schools for using what it calls “racial preferences and stereotypes” in their educational programs and activities, essentially a continuation of its attack on DEI initiatives. Last week, the White House announced that it was pausing $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its transgender athlete policies. And in a move that stunned the academic community nationwide, the Trump administration attempted to exert unprecedented control over Columbia University by threatening to cut $400 million in federal funding unless the school met a long list of demands — among them, placing its Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies under academic receivership for at least five years.

Despite widespread calls from across the academic world urging Columbia to defend its independence, it appears that the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, has conceded to Trump’s demands. Armstrong announced several new measures, including a ban on masks to conceal identities, the hiring of 36 campus officers with the authority to arrest students and the appointment of a new senior vice provost to review “programs in regional areas across the University, starting immediately with the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, running parallel to these investigations and threats, the Trump administration has been deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to campuses to seize international students who have no criminal records and are accused of no crimes but who have participated in protests or online criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, their school’s investments in Israel, America’s military support of Israel or the continuing war itself.

Trump’s assault on academia has prompted massive opposition, with growing calls for administrators to resist this assault on academic independence. J Street, a Jewish lobbyist group, issued a statement blasting the administration’s actions: “While Trump will stop at nothing to attack higher education, we remain firm in our belief that universities are a tool for empathy, understanding and academic freedom.

“If the administration was serious about fighting antisemitism,” the statement continues, “it would listen to Jewish students; it would seek to calm campus tensions rather than escalate them; and it might start by throwing out the slew of bigots and conspiracy theorists it has promoted to top positions in its own ranks.”

University presidents, from Wesleyan’s Michael Roth to Princeton’s Christopher Eisgruber, have joined in condemning the administration’s assault on higher education. In The Atlantic, Eisgruber wrote: “The attack on Columbia is a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research. Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.”

Trump’s efforts to seize control of academia are part of a broader campaign to neutralize institutions that could potentially threaten his power. From law firms and media outlets to government inspectors general and federal judges, the administration is targeting every major institution that could challenge its agenda.

But Trump’s threats to cut off funding to some of the world’s premier research universities and deport students are especially alarming because the consequences of this intellectual retreat are not theoretical.

During the Red Scare of the early 1950s, the U.S. government expelled hundreds of immigrants, including Chinese students, effectively gifting the Chinese government with trained U.S. scientists and engineers. One of those scientists was Qian Xuesen; today he’s known as the father of China’s ballistic missile program. The odd twist of fate was summed up by Nicholas Sung in Just Security this way: “The very Chinese missiles that threaten Taiwanese and American security are the legacy of the U.S. government’s profiling and deportation of a Chinese scientist.”

Former U.S. Navy Secretary Dan Kimball, who fought to keep Qian in this country, was less polite in his criticism of the calls for the Chinese scientist’s deportation, saying at the time that it was “the stupidest thing this country ever did. He was no more a communist than I was, and we forced him to go.”

Qian wasn’t the only victim of the Red Scare. Among its earliest victims was, in fact, the federal workforce. It would eventually sweep up thousands of innocent Americans, destroying careers and reputations. According to historian Beverly Gage: “The anti-Communist surge reshaped every institution in American life: Hollywood, labor unions, churches, universities, elementary schools — and, above all, the national-security state. … From on high, they told ordinary Americans how to live, whom to love, and what to say.”

Today, a similar pattern is emerging — and make no mistake, MAGA hysteria won’t be confined to America’s campuses. Karen Attiah, a columnist for The Washington Post, warns: “For now, the threat is directed at ‘others’: Palestinians, undocumented immigrants, trans people. … For this kind of strategy to work, there must be an intentional creation of distance between human beings, the illusion that they are different from us, and that the weapons we throw at them are from a comfortable distance.”

Attiah added: “This distance is and has always been a delusion — a profoundly dangerous weakness that America touts as strength. … Unless a groundswell of popular resistance moves to meaningfully stop the Trump administration’s targeting of Columbia and students, the rest of America will be considered prey. It is a matter of when, not if.”