Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the first time, on Wednesday addressed the Signal-chat controversy and conceded that ‘someone made a big mistake’ when a journalist from the Atlantic was added to Signal text chain that included Washington’s top national security heads. 

‘This thing was set up for purposes of coordinating,’ Rubio told reporters from Jamaica, noting the point of the text exchange carried out on the encrypted messaging application was purely so officials knew how to communicate with their various counterparts. 

But the revelation that potentially classified information was exchanged on a site that has been the target of Russian hackers, and that the chain included an editor from the Atlantic, sent shockwaves globally – though the Pentagon maintains that no classified intelligence was exchanged in the messages.

‘Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake and added a journalist,’ Rubio said. ‘Nothing against journalists. But you ain’t supposed to be on that thing.’

‘I contributed to it twice. I identified my point of contact, which is my chief of staff, and then later on, I think three hours after the White House’s official announcements had been made, I congratulated the members of the team,’ he continued. 

Rubio said that though the information was not technically classified nor did it at ‘any point threaten the operation of the lives of our servicemen,’ the information was ‘not intended to be divulged’ and the White House was investigating the matter. 

President Donald Trump has downplayed the severity of the lapse, noting it was ‘the only glitch in two months’ his administration has faced and told NBC News the debacle ‘turned out not to be a serious one.’

National security advisor Mike Waltz, who reportedly set up the text chain and accidentally added the Atlantic editor, told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that he took ‘full responsibility’ for the ’embarrassing’ mishap.

Similarly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday told the House Intelligence Committee it was a ‘mistake’ to include a reporter in a text group that included ‘candid and sensitive’ information.

She also maintained that the texts did not include any classified information while testifying in front of senators on Tuesday. 

Debate between the Atlantic’s reporting and the White House erupted after the Trump administration and Pentagon said that no ‘war planning’ information was shared.

Waltz in a Wednesday tweet said, ‘No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent.’

The Atlantic maintains the texts did include ‘attack plans.’

‘TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch. 1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package). 1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s),’ Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reportedly wrote in the text exchange released Wednesday by The Atlantic.

‘1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package). 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets). 1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched,’ he later added. 

But Rubio, in alignment with other administration officials, pointed to the Pentagon’s assessment on whether its leader released classified information and said, ‘They made very clear that [the texts] didn’t put in danger anyone’s life or the mission at the time. 

‘There was no intelligence information,’ Rubio added. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., huddled privately with House Judiciary Committee members on Tuesday afternoon for what was described as a ‘brainstorming’ session on how to take on ‘activist judges’ blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The House is scheduled to vote next week on a bill to limit U.S. district judges in ordering nationwide injunctions. But the consensus among Republicans on the committee is that the bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is a good start, but more reform would be needed.

‘He came to offer his thoughts to the committee and [Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio], about… what’s available to us related to the judges,’ Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital. ‘So it was more like a brainstorming kind of thing. No decisions were made.’

He said there was also ‘general’ discussion about court funding – as senior Republicans publicly float the idea of using Congress’ appropriations powers to rein in activist judges.

‘The purse strings related to the courts – how does that work, what do we have available to us, what don’t we, if we want to have that impact,’ Fitzgerald said. ‘But I mean, nobody spelled out ‘Here’s what we’re going to do when it comes to funding.”

The Wisconsin Republican said the idea of legislating in a fast-tracked appeals process was also floated during the meeting.

It’s an idea also backed by his fellow Judiciary member Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., who declined to share details of the meeting with Fox News Digital but said ‘there’s other solutions’ beyond next week’s vote.

‘I think that it’s worth exploring some sort of expedited appeals process, right? So you can fast-track an appeal if there’s an injunction issue, to the D.C. circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court,’ Kiley said. ‘I think that’d be another way to approach the problem.’ 

‘But yeah, it’s an unfortunate state of affairs when you have someone, whose decisions are very much subject to appeal and reversal, who can keep administration policy in stasis.’

A source briefed on the discussion told Fox News Digital that Johnson also signaled to House Judiciary Republicans that he was in close contact with the White House on the GOP judiciary strategy.

The source described part of the conversation as a bid to rally Republicans behind the No Rogue Rulings Act, which is expected to get a House-wide vote either Tuesday or Wednesday next week, as of now.

Led by Issa, the legislation would force most district court judges to narrow most orders to the most relevant scope, therefore blocking them from pausing Trump’s policies across the U.S.

Fitzgerald said part of the discussion with Johnson also focused on legislation to limit the ability of progressive plaintiffs to so-called ‘judge-shop.’

It’s a similar idea to an amendment by Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., a first-term Republican on the committee, that is already attached to Issa’s bill.

‘On the forum shopping issue, the amendment I’ve got on the Issa bill addresses that, and makes it more difficult to engage in judge shopping because it requires that any request for a nationwide injunction is properly brought,’ Schmidt told Fox News Digital. ‘It would go to a three-judge panel that’s randomly selected.’

The Kansas Republican suggested House Judiciary members were interested in looking at what could be long-lasting reform.

‘I do think there are other opportunities. And one of the things I think is very important is that – not just on this issue, but more generally – we think…about how we can make long-term, lasting change that will outlast any of us who are serving in office right now and leave the system better than we found it,’ he said.

Fox News Digital reached out to the speaker’s office and the Judiciary Committee for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Jordan is expected to hold a hearing on April 1 examining judicial activism.

Elon Musk is helping lead the investigation into the Signal chat leak involving top national security leaders and the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, the White House press secretary said Wednesday. 

‘The National Security Council, the White House Counsel’s Office, and also, yes, Elon Musk’s team’ will be leading the investigation into the Signal leak, press secretary Karonline Leavitt said during Wednesday’s White House press conference. 

‘Elon Musk has offered to put his technical experts on this, to figure out how this number was inadvertently added to the chat – again, to take responsibility and ensure this can never happen again,’ she continued. 

The Trump administration is facing backlash from Democrats and other critics after the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed in an article published Monday that he was added to a Signal group chat with top national security leaders, including national security advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. 

Signal is an encrypted messaging app that operates similarly to texting or making phone calls, but with additional security measures that help ensure communications are kept private to those included in the correspondence. 

The Atlantic’s initial report characterized the Trump administration as texting ‘war plans’ to one another. The Trump administration has maintained that no classified material was transmitted in the chat, with President Donald Trump defending Waltz amid the fallout. 

Trump revealed Tuesday that a member of Waltz’s office invited Goldberg to the chat, but did not provide additional information. 

Waltz joined Fox News’ ‘Ingraham Angle’ Tuesday, where he took responsibility for the inadvertent addition of Goldberg to the chat, arguing he believed the account belonged to someone else. 

‘I built the group. My job is to make sure everything’s coordinated,’ Waltz said. 

‘Of course I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else,’ Waltz added. ‘The person I thought was on there was never on there.’

Waltz also said during the interview that he had just spoken to Musk about the matter and that the ‘best technical minds’ would look into it. 

Musk is helping lead the Department of Government Efficiency, which has been poring through federal agencies in search of government overspending, fraud and mismanagement. 

‘If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well,’ Leavitt continued. ‘And there’s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and pushing hoaxes more than Jeffrey Goldberg.’

Following Monday’s report in the Atlantic concerning the Signal chat, Goldberg published a Wednesday follow-up story that included messages directly from the chat. The article notably did not characterize the correspondence as ‘war plans,’ instead opting to refer to them as ‘attack plans’ in the headline. 

The Trump administration responded that the follow-up story proved that there were ‘no war plans’ in the correspondence, taking a victory lap that the story was exposed to be a ‘hoax.’ 

‘The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,” Leavitt posted to X Wednesday morning. ‘This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.’

Waltz posted to X Wednesday, ‘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.’ 

A spokesperson for the Atlantic defended that the outlet did expose a ‘war plan’ in its Wednesday report, pointing Fox News Digital to a screenshot included in the piece of Hegseth’s messages related to F-18s and drone strikes that were accompanied by timestamps for the operation. 

‘If this information – particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen – had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face,’ the report stated. 

Leavitt said during the press conference that Signal is an ‘approved app’ for government employees, citing that the ‘CIA has it loaded onto government phones because it is the most secure and efficient way to communicate.’

Republicans on Capitol Hill are fuming that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) general counsel who shut down President Donald Trump’s request to supersede California’s aggressive gas emissions laws once managed diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives for the agency. 

Republicans have dismissed the decision penned by GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez, because she once served as the agency’s ‘Managing Director of Opportunity and Inclusiveness (O&I).’ According to the GAO’s official website, the O&I office includes advising senior staff on equal employment opportunities and promoting a ‘work environment that is fair, unbiased and inclusive.’

‘A far-left radical whose main job is pushing DEI nonsense is trying to undermine American prosperity. What a surprise. These bad actors should be removed from government swiftly,’ Sen. Jim Banks, R-Indiana., told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

While some Republicans discredit Emmanuelli Perez’s decision as ‘DEI nonsense,’ other Republicans denied the ‘democratic legitimacy’ of banning California’s gas vehicles without a vote. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., told Fox News Digital the House will move forward with a Congressional Review Act resolution regardless of the GAO decision. 

‘The GAO’s conclusion that California can ban 95 percent of the state’s cars, without a vote of the Legislature and with no recourse from Congress, defies basic notions of democratic legitimacy and common sense. We will be moving forward with our Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse this insane ban and restore choice for California consumers,’ Kiley said in a statement. 

Emmanuelli Perez shut down any insinuation from Republicans that she ruled independently on the case, telling Fox News Digital in a statement that the GAO’s decisions are ‘institutional, not individually authored, products.’

‘In response to a Congressional request, we summarized relevant, established case law related to the Congressional Review Act and waivers under the Clean Air Act. We stand behind our work, as all GAO products go through our extensive quality assurance process,’ Emmanuelli Perez said.

The GAO released its decision earlier this month in response to a request from Congress on whether EPA waivers that grant California permission to enforce its 2035 gas car ban are subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). 

The GAO determined that California’s EPA waiver is not subject to the CRA, so Congress cannot use the CRA to overturn California’s aggressive zero-emission goals. Kiley, however, has committed to moving forward with the CRA despite the GAO’s ruling. 

Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the creation of a National Energy Dominance Council, in which the EPA will send President Joe Biden-era EPA rules to Congress for review. Those Biden-era EPA waivers included ‘allowing California to preempt federal car and truck standards promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.’

The Trump administration announced the EPA waiver transmitted to Congress included ‘California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Omnibus NOx rules,’ arguing the waivers on trucks increased the cost of vehicles, goods, and therefore, the cost of living for Americans.  

‘The Biden Administration failed to send rules on California’s waivers to Congress, preventing Members of Congress from deciding on extremely consequential actions that have massive impacts and costs across the entire United States. The Trump EPA is transparently correcting this wrong and rightly following the rule of law,’ Zeldin said alongside the president in the Oval Office. 

Following Zeldin and Trump’s announcement, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., requested a legal decision from the GAO on whether the EPA’s decision to grant California waivers under the Clean Air Act could be overturned using the CRA. 

The Democratic senators championed the GAO’s ruling and slammed the Trump administration for trying to eliminate the ‘California emission standards [that] have protected generations of Americans against fossil fuel emissions.’

‘By ignoring decades of precedent and the plain text of the Congressional Review Act, the Trump EPA is attempting to sell out our nation’s public health and environmental protections to the same polluting industries that bankrolled much of Trump’s campaign,’ the senators said following the GAO’s decision. 

However, Trump campaigned on eliminating such regulations, and on his first day back in the White House, the president signed an executive order ‘unleashing American energy.’ The executive order eliminated the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ to promote consumer choice. While the litigation is tied up in the congressional branch, with the stroke of a pen on day one, Trump moved to terminate ‘state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.’        

Trump also campaigned on a day-one commitment to eliminating DEI in the federal government. On his Inauguration Day, Trump signed an executive order ‘ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and referencing,’ which rolled back Biden-era DEI policies and initiatives in the federal government. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe blasted a California Democrat Wednesday for asking him ‘whether Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information’ in a Signal chat group, calling his words an ‘offensive line of questioning.’ 

Rep. Jimmy Gomez sparked the testy exchange during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, where Ratcliffe appeared alongside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other top Trump administration officials. 

‘The main person who was involved in this thread that a lot of people want to talk to is, Secretary of Defense Hegseth. And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his drinking habits in his confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?’ Gomez asked Gabbard, to which she responded, ‘I don’t have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.’ 

When Gomez then asked Ratcliffe the same question, telling him it was either a ‘yes or no’ answer, Ratcliffe fired back, saying ‘You know, no. I’m going to answer that. I think that’s an offensive line of questioning.’ 

‘The answer is no. I find it interesting…’ Ratcliffe continued before Gomez began shouting ‘Hey, I yield back, this is my time, director! Director!’ 

‘You asked me a question, do you want an answer?’ Ratcliffe said. ‘You don’t want to focus on the good work that the CIA is doing, that the intelligence community…’ 

‘Director, I reclaim my time. Director, I reclaim my time,’ Gomez then said. ‘I have huge respect for the CIA, huge respect for men and women in uniform. But this was a question that’s on the top of the minds of every American, right?’ 

‘He stood in front of a podium in Europe holding a drink,’ Gomez then claimed. 

‘Was his performance compromised because of a successful strike?… you think he should accept responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer?’ Ratcliffe started saying as Gomez again interrupted him in an attempt to get the situation under control. 

Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., followed Gomez’s questioning and allowed Ratcliffe to speak without interruption. 

‘I appreciate that, Congressman. I guess, you know, just a general reflection here again, that, for the last two days, members of the intelligence community have been asking questions about a Signal messaging group and not asking questions — from Democrats either in the Senate or the House — on China, Russia, Iran and the real threats, that are going on the United States,’ the CIA director said.  

‘No one’s asked me about my second day on the job here, where I lit the fuse that led to a foreign government participating with us to capture one of the senior planners of the Abbey gate bombing that killed 13 Americans,’ he added, ‘But instead, we’re getting questions about whether or not someone has drinking habits.’