The White House is clapping back against media reports alleging intelligence officials have been using the end-to-end encrypted messaging app Signal to send classified information, describing the allegations as ‘false’ in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

The statement from National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Brian Hughes comes after Politico published a report suggesting Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his team have used the app frequently to discuss sensitive communications on a variety of different issues. 

‘This is a clear attempt by some in media and the Democrats to obscure the simple truth: The President and his national security team are delivering for the nation by confronting our adversaries and standing with our allies to bring peace through strength,’ Hughes said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

Hughes added that Signal is ‘an approved’ messaging app, particularly as it pertains to unclassified info, ‘and any claim NSC officials are sending classified information over these channels is false.’

Questions have circulated about the Trump administration’s use of Signal since The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg released his exposé alleging he was accidentally invited by Waltz to a sensitive group chat on the encrypted messaging app. Critics of the Trump administration have said the messages included ‘war plans’ for an attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

There have also been debates over whether the information discussed in the chat uncovered by Goldberg was classified information or contained ‘war plans.’  

Media reports from The Wall Street Journal, Politico and The Washington Post have claimed Waltz and his team have frequently used Signal and other public messaging platforms to discuss sensitive topics and official government business. 

‘Using Signal to send unclassified information is appropriate, and these same facts have been reported multiple times in the last few days,’ Hughes said, noting there are federal agencies that ‘automatically install’ Signal on government devices.

‘Some in NSC, like those in the media and many areas across the federal government, use the Signal app,’ Hughes added. ‘All communications are a reflection of a thoughtful dialog of those committed to the effective implementation of the president’s agenda.’

In December, before President Trump took over the White House from Joe Biden, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called on senior government and political officials to switch to end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms like Signal.

Still, critics of the Trump administration are demanding answers. On Tuesday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee sent letters to ‘non-principal agency officials’ who were part of the original Signal group chat that accidentally included Goldberg. 

The letters call for the individuals, who Democrats say may have ‘firsthand knowledgeconcerning the discussion of sensitive and/or classified national security information on Signal,’ to appear before Congress for transcribed interviews.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent another letter to Waltz Tuesday as well, demanding he and his staff stop using Google’s Gmail for official government business after The Washington Post published a report claiming members of the president’s National Security Council were using personal Gmail accounts to discuss official business. 

The letter to Waltz demanded he turn over all communications relating to official government business that he or his staff sent over Signal or other ‘unauthorized messaging and email applications and platforms.’

Waltz has taken responsibility for the leaked Signal chat that Goldberg accidentally accessed, but he also insisted ‘no classified information’ was ever discussed in the messaging thread.   

President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners throughout the world Wednesday, saying the U.S. would add a 10% minimum baseline tax on all products coming in.

The Trump administration has identified what it has called the ‘Dirty 15’ as the 15 nations with the largest trade deficit with the U.S., meaning the trade partnerships by which Washington imports more from countries than those nations import from the U.S.

But the White House has also flagged what it describes as other ‘unfair’ trading practices, chiefly implemented through tariffs on U.S. goods. 

CHINA

Washington and Beijing have been in a trade war since the first Trump administration when the first-term president imposed 25% tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods starting in April 2018.

Beijing responded the next day by slapping reciprocal tariffs on 106 U.S. products worth $50 billion, mostly targeting U.S. agricultural products worth some $16.5 billion.

The tariff war would continue with repeated back-and-forth escalating tariffs before some tariff relief was agreed upon beginning in January 2020.

By January 2021, the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) found that the U.S. had lost nearly a quarter of a million jobs.

The Biden administration and China largely maintained the status quo established during Trump’s initial trade war. 

But Trump threatened to hit Beijing with 60% tariffs on the campaign trail and, by February 2025, just weeks after his inauguration, he slapped China with a blanket 20% tariff on all Chinese imports.

Beijing again responded with up to 15% tariffs on more than $33 billion in U.S. agricultural products, including U.S.-grown chicken, wheat, corn and cotton.

China’s trade deficit with the U.S. is $295.4 billion. 

EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union, which is no stranger to Trump’s tariff war, is bracing for a much bigger battle this time around after enduring metal trade spats during his first term. 

Trump has already announced a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, which directly hits the European Union, the U.S.’s largest trading partner, along with a 25% tariff on imported cars, which will affect nations like Germany. 

The EU said it could impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. of up to $28 billion. 

The U.S. had a trade deficit of $235.6 billion with the European Union in 2024, which Trump has called ‘an atrocity.’

But it is not only the difference in trade agreements that has irked the president.

Last month, the White House said specific levies charged by various trading partners are making it ‘virtually impossible’ for U.S. products to be exported, including a 50% tax on American dairy products sold by EU nations. 

But expert Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst in trade policy with the Heritage Foundation, explained that the dairy industry in particular has massive barriers stopping Europe from being able to lower prices to match American products.

‘They have a very, very protected agricultural market,’ Hale said, highlighting Europe’s strict husbandry practices. ‘Europeans would not be able to compete.’

Hale explained that norms like overcrowding and poor conditions frequently found in the U.S.’s poultry, dairy and pork industries in mass farming are barred in Europe. 

Animal spacing regulations and bans related to hormone injections have required a completely different type of farming that favors quality treatment of the animals versus mass production, which makes European meats and dairy products more expensive than American products and makes it unlikely that the EU drops this tax.

CANADA

The White House has also taken aim at Canada, which is expected to see more tariffs fired at it Wednesday and said it has a 300% tariff on American butter and cheese.

Hale explained that while this is technically true, it is a tariff rate-quota that was negotiated during the first Trump administration under the revised NAFTA agreement, which became the United States Mexico Canada (USMCA), and one which has never been implemented.

The massive tariff would only be used if U.S. exports exceed negotiated tariff rate quotas. Otherwise, daily sales to Canada face no tariffs under the USMCA.

Canada and the U.S. in recent weeks have entered into a tariff war after Trump announced a blanket 25% tariff on 25% on Canadian goods and 10% on its energy.

Ottawa, in return, imposed 25% reciprocal tariffs on $30 billion in U.S. goods, mostly targeting the agriculture sector. 

It has threatened to hit the U.S. with tariffs on $95 billion in U.S. imports if Trump imposes more taxes on the country’s northern neighbor.

HOW IT ENDS

‘Everyone needs to do what Israel has just done, bring down zero tariffs against the U.S. And then we can have absolute free trade,’ Hale said. ‘That’s fair, and we can all have market access.

‘When you have stupid tariffs, like tariffing stuff you don’t grow and make, that’s just basically being unfair.’

The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether a state can block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, in a technical interpretation over healthcare choices that has become a larger political fight over abortion access.

In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority offered measured support for South Carolina’s position.

The specific issue is whether low-income Medicaid patients can sue in order to choose their own qualified healthcare provider. The federal-state program has shared responsibility for funding and administering it, through private healthcare providers.

Federal law bans taxpayer money from going to fund almost all abortions, but Planned Parenthood also provides a range of other medical services with and without Medicaid subsidies, including gynecological care and cancer screenings.

Blocking the provider from Medicaid networks could effectively defund it. Given the divisive underlying issue of abortion, groups on both sides rallied outside the high court ahead of the arguments. 

The state’s governor in 2018 signed an executive order blocking Medicaid funding for the state’s two Planned Parenthood clinics, saying it amounted to taxpayers subsidizing abortions. 

Courts have put that order on hold, leading to the current case. 

South Carolina now bans abortion around six weeks of pregnancy, or when cardiac activity is detected, with limited exceptions. 

The key provision in the 1965 Medicaid Act guarantees patients a ‘free choice of provider’ that is willing and qualified. 

Much of the court session dealt with whether Planned Parenthood was a ‘qualified provider’ under the Medicaid law, and whether individual patients have an unambiguous ‘right’ to sue to see their provider of choice, under its specific language.

‘It seems a little bit odd to think that a problem that motivated Congress to pass this provision was that states were limiting the choices people had,’ said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. ‘It seems hard to understand that states didn’t understand that they had to give individuals the right to choose a provider.’

‘The state has an obligation to ensure that a person… has a right to choose their doctor,’ added Justice Elena Kagan. ‘It’s impossible to even say the thing without using the word ‘right.”

But some conservative justices questioned how to interpret a provision that does not contain the word ‘right.’

‘One can imagine a statute written as an individual benefit that’s mandatory on the states but isn’t right-creating’ for the patient, said Justice Neil Gorsuch. ‘I mean, that’s an imaginable scenario.’ 

Justice Samuel Alito added it was ‘something that’s quite extraordinary’ to give individuals that right to sue under the Constitution’s spending clause. 

The votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett could be key: They asked tough questions of both sides.

Barrett offered a hypothetical of the right of a patient to go to court over their doctor accused of medical malpractice. ‘Does it make sense in that circumstance for Congress to want plaintiffs to be able to sue?’ she asked.

Planned Parenthood says its future is at stake, noting nearly $700 million – about a third of its overall nationwide revenue – originates from Medicaid reimbursements, and government grants and contracts.

But the group notes just $90,000 in Medicaid funding goes to Planned Parenthood facilities every year in South Carolina, which is comparatively small to the state’s total Medicaid spending.

Julie Edwards, a South Carolina resident, sued along with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which operates two clinics in Columbia and Charleston. She has type-1 diabetes and associated medical complications and wanted to choose the Columbia clinic for its range of services, including reproductive care. 

A federal appeals court ruled against the state in 2024, concluding the ‘free choice of provider’ provision ‘specifies an entitlement given to each Medicaid beneficiary: to choose one’s preferred qualified provider without state interference.’

In a 2023 Supreme Court opinion involving care for nursing home residents, the justices concluded that a different law from Medicaid gives individuals the right to sue. 

A year earlier, the high court overturned its Roe v. Wade precedent of a nationwide right to abortion.

Several states – including Texas, Missouri and Arkansas – have already done what South Carolina wants to do by cutting Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood and more could follow if South Carolina prevails. 

‘The people in this state do not want their tax money to go to that organization,’ said Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who attended the oral argument. ‘I believe the decision of this court will be that the people of South Carolina have the right to make this decision for themselves, for our state. Other states may make a different decision, but not ours. South Carolina stands for the right to life, and we’ll do whatever is necessary to protect that.’

The Trump Justice Department is supporting the state, and abortion rights groups say the issue is about patient choice.

‘Our health centers serve an irreplaceable role in the state’s healthcare system, providing birth control and cancer screenings to people who can’t afford those services anywhere else,’ said Paige Johnson, interim president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. ‘Government officials should never block people from getting healthcare or be able to decide which doctor you can or cannot see.’ 

One concern raised by healthcare advocates is finding gynecological and family planning services in states with limited facilities. Low-income women often have greater difficulty traveling long distances to get such quality care, a requirement for Medicaid providers.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he would make it his mission to bring as much clarity over when patients can go to court, which he called a 45-year ‘odyssey.’

Much of the public arguments dealt with whether a ‘right’ to sue was a magic word to automatically decide the matter.

‘I’m not allergic to magic words, because magic words – if they represent the principle – will provide the clarity that will avoid the litigation that is a huge waste of resources for states, courts, providers, beneficiaries.’

The case is Medina (SC DOH) v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (23-1275). A ruling is likely by early summer.