US senators confirm call for formal probe of war plan Signal chat
In a letter to Steven Stebbins, the acting Inspector General at the department, Republican Senator Roger Wicker, the panel's chairman, and Senator Jack Reed, its ranking Democrat, asked for an inquiry and assessment of the facts surrounding the Signal chat and department policies "and adherence to policies" about sharing sensitive information.
Stebbins' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Wicker had said on Wednesday he and Reed planned a letter, after critics said U.S. troops could have died if the information in the chat had fallen into the wrong hands.
Wicker and Reed also asked for an assessment of Defense Department classification and declassification policies, and how the policies of the White House, Pentagon and intelligence and other agencies differ, if at all, as well as "An assessment of whether any individuals transferred classified information, including operational details, from classified systems to unclassified systems, and if so, how."
After the review is finished, they said in the letter, dated Wednesday, that the Armed Services Committee would work with Stebbins to schedule a briefing.
Although no Republican member of Congress has called for any official to resign, a few members of Trump's party have joined Democrats in expressing concern about the chat on Signal, an encrypted commercial messaging app, about the planned killing of a Houthi militant in Yemen on March 15.
CABINET SECRETARIES, VP, INTELL CHIEFS ON CHAT
The chat included National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who did not know that Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, was inadvertently included.
A wide range of Democrats have called for the resignations of Hegseth and others who participated in the chat.
As administration officials have discussed, and at times sought to downplay, the incident, they have focused on the question of whether any of the information was classified, and which agency might have classified it.
They also have insisted it did not include "war plans," although the messages listed the time of the planned attack and equipment - including aircraft - that would be involved.
"I am appalled by the egregious security breach from top administration officials," Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said on X.com.
"Their disregard for stringent safeguards and secure channels could have compromised a high-stakes operation and put our servicemembers at risk. I hope this serves as a wake-up call that operational security must be a top priority for everyone—especially our leaders," she said.
The Defense Department's inspector general, a nonpartisan official charged with rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, was one of several officials Trump has fired since he began his second term in January. Trump has not named a permanent replacement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
19 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will Trump's tax bill help or hurt you? It may depend on your income
"It's still higher-income households that are the winners, especially those who are alive today," said Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The analysis also found the Senate's version of the tax bill, which narrowly passed on July 1, would lead to higher deficits and slower economic growth compared to its counterpart from the House. The bill heads to the House for final approval. Trump has asked for a final version on his desk and ready for signature by July 4, but acknowledged the deadline may be "very hard to do" as some House Republicans voice frustrations with changes made in the Senate. Trump's big tax bill is a win. It could also be a big problem for GOP What's different under the Senate version of the tax bill? The legislation, dubbed the "One, Big Beautiful Bill" by Trump, would make the 2017 tax cuts from Trump's first term permanent, increase the child tax credit and introduce other tax cuts, including no taxes on tips or overtime wages. To help pay for the cuts, the government would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, and make cuts to Medicaid, a program that provides health insurance to more than 71 million low-income Americans. The version in the Senate has some key differences from the House bill, including: Permanent tax breaks for corporations that allow businesses to deduct the full cost of qualifying investments and research projects immediately, rather than over a number of years. In the House's bill, these tax breaks were in effect from 2025 to 2029. Permanently enhancing the standard deduction, adding $750 for single filers, $1,125 for heads of households and $1,500 for married couples starting in 2025. There was a temporary adjustment in the House's version that added $1,000 for single filers, $1,500 for heads of households and $2,000 for couples from 2025 to 2028. Permanently raising the child tax credit to $2,200 starting in 2026, compared to a temporary increase to $2,500 through 2028 in the House bill. "The Senate one makes things more permanent," Smetters told USA TODAY. "On the one hand, we don't have to revisit the same politics in four years. On the other hand, there's a fiscal cost associated with that. That means more debt and more burdens inherited by future generations." More Americans would also lose Medicaid under the Senate's version, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, with an estimated 11.8 million people uninsured by 2034, compared to previous estimates of 10.9 million people under the House's proposal. 5 takeaways: Trump asserts dominance with 'big, beautiful bill' Senate passage Impact on future generations Various analyses suggest Trump's tax bill would reward higher-earning Americans more than their lower-earning counterparts. A June analysis of the House bill by the Congressional Budget Office, for instance, found resources for the poorest would decrease by about $1,600 per year under the legislation, largely due to cuts to Medicaid and food aid - which would be more aggressive under the Senate bill. Meanwhile, the wealthiest would gain about $12,000 on average. Another June report from the Yale Budget Lab suggests the bottom fifth of earners would lose about $560 per year while the top 20% would gain $6,000. But all future generations, no matter their income, would experience lifetime losses, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. High-income households are set to lose $5,700 under the Senate's bill, while low-income households would lose $22,000. The report points to a reduced social security net and lower wages as the main drivers. Under the House bill, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projected lifetime losses ranging from $500 for high-income households to $15,800 for low-income households. "The future generations, they're going to be worse off. It doesn't matter where on the income bracket they fall," Smetters said. "Ultimately, someone has to pay for (the tax bill), and we're basically passing it on to the next generation." Slower economic growth While the House version showed a 0.4% gain in GDP by year 10, according to the Budget Model's previous analysis, the Senate's version would yield a 0.3% loss. After 30 years, GDP would drop 4.6% under the Senate bill compared to a 1.5% drop under the House version. Higher deficits Primary deficits are projected to increase $3.1 trillion over the next decade through the Senate's tax bill, compared to roughly $2.7 trillion under the House bill, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Other reports have also found a higher debt load under the Senate bill. The Congressional Budget Office projects it would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, $800 billion more than the House's bill. And a July report from the Yale Budget Lab says the Senate's bill would add $3 trillion to the debt by 2034, compared to an estimated $2.4 trillion under the House bill. How much do lower-income Americans stand to lose? According to the most recent Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis, the lowest-earning households stand to lose after-tax-and-transfer income in both the short- and long-run, while higher earners would see gains under the Senate bill. Those earning less than $18,000 would lose $235 on average in 2027 and $1,380 by 2033. Those earning between $18,000 and $52,999 would lose $75 in 2027 and $1,625 by 2033. Those earning between $53,000 and $95,999 would gain $1,350 in 2027 but lose $130 by 2033. Those earning between $96,000 and $178,999 would gain $3,880 in 2027 and $2,825 by 2033. Those earning between $179,000 and $271,999 would gain $6,615 in 2027 and $4,985 by 2033. Those earning between $272,000 and $400,999 would gain $9,360 in 2027 and $7,670 by 2033. Those earning between $401,000 and $1,019,999 would gain $20,605 in 2027 and $18,645 by 2033. Those earning between $1,020,000 and $4,450,999 would gain $36,020 in 2027 and $29,430 by 2033. Those with an income above $4,451,000 would gain $290,485 in 2027 and $82,255 by 2033. Smetters said figures may be slightly adjusted as more information on specific amendments becomes available.
The Herald Scotland
21 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump reaches trade deal with Vietnam as big tariff deadline looms
"In return, Vietnam will do something that they have never done before, give the United States of America TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade," Trump said in a July 2 post on Truth Social announcing the deal. "In other words, they will 'OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,' meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff," the president added. More: Trump's tariffs are 'not going away' amid legal battles, White House says Trump announced the deal after speaking with To Lam, general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Vietnamese state media said the U.S. and Vietnam reached an agreement on a joint statement for a "reciprocal, fair and balanced" trade deal. During Trump's phone call with Lam, the Vietnamese leader asked the U.S. to recognize Vietnam as a market economy and remove restrictions on the exports of hi-tech products to Vietnam, Vietnam News Agency reported. More: Trump says U.S. will end trade talks with Canada, could move deadline for other tariffs Companies are currently paying a 10% universal U.S. tariff that Trump imposed on imports from Vietnam and some 180 other nations. However, significantly larger reciprocal tariffs that Trump initially imposed in early April - but soon after paused for 90 days amid market turbulence - are set to go back into effect July 9. Trump could choose to extend the pause, but he's said he's not interested in that. "No, I'm not," Trump told reporters July 1 when asked whether he plans to lengthen the pause. "I'm not thinking about the pause. I'll be writing letters to a lot of countries. And I think you're just starting to understand the process." When the Trump administration delayed the sweeping reciprocal tariffs to allow negotiations with other nations to continue, the White House economic team predicted deals would come at breakneck speed. "We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days. It's possible," White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said at the time. But the administration has struggled to make progress on that pledge. Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keri Starmer in May reached the first trade deal since Trump imposed the new tariffs - but no others have followed. More: Trump says trade deal with China is 'done;' aides tout 'framework' deal In June, Trump announced the framework of a trade deal with China in which the U.S. would collect 55% tariffs on Chinese imports and China would collect 10% on U.S. imports. A month earlier, Trump and China agreed to slash triple-digit tariffs imposed on the other as the two parties continued talks. The Trump administration had previously pointed to Japan as another opportunity to secure a trade deal. But Trump on Tuesday said a U.S.-Japan deal is unlikely. "I doubt it with Japan - they're very tough. You have to understand, they're spoiled," Trump told reporters. Contributing: Reuters Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
The Herald Scotland
21 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
How did the Senate change the GOP tax and spend bill?
Here are some of the changes the Senate made to the bill: Not making it easier to ignore court rulings Senate Republicans removed a provision in the House version of the bill that would have restricted judges' ability to hold people accountable for violating court orders. In recent months some judges have considered contempt rulings against the Trump administration for ignoring court orders that restricted the administration's actions. The legislation would bar judges from enforcing such contempt rulings if they didn't first order a bond, which is commonly set at zero or not ordered in cases when people are claiming the government did something unconstitutional. Democrats say it's an attempt to limit the power of the courts, while Republicans say it was an incentive to stop frivolous lawsuits by requiring plaintiffs to pay in. Who is eligible for the child tax credit? The Senate version allows mixed-status immigration status families to quality for the child tax credit for American citizen children. Currently, children with Social Security numbers, the vast majority of whom are American citizens or legal permanent residents, are eligible for the Child Tax Credit, even if their parents lack Social Security numbers, according to the Center for Migration Studies. The Senate version, requires at least one parent to have a Social Security number to qualify. The House version required both parents to have valid Social Security numbers to qualify, which would have kept millions of children from getting the benefit. The Center for Migration Studies estimated this would have impacted 4.5 million citizen and legal permanent resident children. A ban on regulating AI Senate Republicans stripped out a provision in the House bill that would have blocked states from creating new regulations to shape how artificial intelligence is used or developed for the next 10 years. It would have also blocked dozens of states from enforcing AI regulations and oversight structures already in place. There is now no federal AI regulation to take the place of state policies, which are likely to vary across the country. Tax-free gym memberships Senators removed a portion of the bill qualifying sports and fitness expenses as qualified medical care, which would have allowed people to pay for them tax-free through a Health Savings Account. The benefit, worth $500 for an individual or $1,000 per couple, could not have been used at "a private club" owned by members, or a facility that offers golf, hunting, sailing or riding facilities. The health and fitness part of the business also couldn't be "incidental to its overall function and purpose." Purple Heart benefits Senators also removed a provision that would have created a new income tax credit for some people who earned a Purple Heart - the decoration for service members who were wounded or killed in action. Purple Heart recipients who lost a portion of their Social Security disability benefits because they got a job could have also gotten a higher Earned Income Tax Credit to make up those lost Social Security benefits. Pell grants The Senate also pulled out a change to the Pell Grant program, which provides federal aid to low-income students to attend colleges and universities. Right now, students are considered full time and qualify for the maximum amount of aid if they take 12 credits a semester. The House version of the bill would have changed that to 15 credits a semester, which the National College Attainment Network estimated would result in a nearly $1,500 cut in benefits for students who can't increase their courseload because of work or caretaking responsibilities. The Senate left the 12-credit requirement intact.
