President Trump\u2019s nominee to be the U.S. military\u2019s highest-ranking officer on Tuesday asserted that he would have stopped a Signal chat among high-ranking officials last month had he been in the group. <\/p>\n
Retired Lt. Gen. Daniel “Razin” Caine, the nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, largely side-stepped questions from Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats about his views on the Signal chat controversy. <\/p>\n
But he did allow that officials should always protect the \u201celement of surprise,\u201d\u00a0a nod toward concerns that Trump officials breached security protocols in the scandal. <\/p>\n
Under questioning from several panel Democrats, Caine was repeatedly asked about how he would have responded to the leak, which happened after national security advisor Michael Waltz accidentally invited a journalist to a Signal chat group. <\/p>\n
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth then shared sensitive information with the group about upcoming U.S. airstrikes against Houthi militants in Yemen.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cKnowing what you do, about the substance of that conversation, how would you feel?\u201d Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked Caine.<\/p>\n
Caine replied that \u201cwe all can agree that we need to always protect the element of surprise,\u201d later saying, \u201cthat’s a key and essential thing that we owe our war-fighters.\u201d<\/p>\n
And when Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), asked what Caine would do if he saw classified information, war plans or tactical information on an unclassified chain of communication, he said he would \u201cweigh in and stop it if I was a part of it.\u201d<\/p>\n
He stressed that he has \u201calways communicated proper information in the proper channels.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Trump administration, while not denying the chat took place, has pushed back against assertions from lawmakers and former defense officials that anything discussed in the text could be considered classified or “war plans.”<\/p>\n
But critics argue the facts relayed in the chat \u2014 including a timeline of when the airstrikes in Yemen would take place and with what weapons \u2014 was deeply sensitive information, should not have been shared over an unsecured platform, and could have put service members in harm’s way if it fell into the wrong hands.<\/p>\n
Multiple lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for an investigation into the matter.<\/p>\n