What started as a group chat has turned into a circular firing squad.

Trump administration officials who participated in the now infamous leaked Signal chat are scrambling to minimize the political stain on themselves. Many are blaming the media, or Democrats, for making such a big deal about it. Some are subtly pointing fingers at each other. Others are finding ways to reframe the conversation so they become minor players, otherwise deflecting, or staying silent and hoping the storm passes over.

Nineteen people were on the chat in which top officials discussed sensitive details of an attack against the Iran-backed Houthi militant group in Yemen, all in view of a journalist who was accidentally added to the group. Debates continue about how big of a security breach this was, but it’s clearly not a good look for those involved.

While President Donald Trump has so far stood behind the officials in the group chat (in public at least), the scandal could balloon big enough that someone loses their job.

Administration officials have defended themselves by saying no classified information was shared in the chat and, regardless, the strike on the Houthis was a success. None of those in the chat have expressed regret about discussing the sensitive material, which some former and current officials do believe may have been classified at the time it was sent. Signal has an unclear security reputation within the U.S. government and has previously been barred from use on government devices.

One common villain has emerged: The Atlantic’s top editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist who was added to the chat. Administration officials accuse him of over-torquing the story and sensationalizing what was discussed in the chat.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the differing strategies administration officials are taking.

Here is POLITICO’s review of how the main characters from the chat are tailoring their responses to the Signalgate scandal.

HEGSETH

Quibbling about ‘war plans’

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who shared some of the most specific information about the attack in the chat, has mostly faulted The Atlantic for the way it described the operational details he posted.

He came out swinging on Monday after The Atlantic published a story with a headline saying the administration texted Goldberg “war plans.” Hegseth told reporters during a visit to Hawaii that “nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”

Hegseth reiterated his response after The Atlantic published more messages from the exchange showing that Hegseth had shared the timetable for the attack and the weapons systems the Pentagon planned to use in the strike. The headline on that story used the phrase “attack plans.”

“This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan,’” Hegseth posted Wednesday on X. “We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes.”

But former and current officials familiar with the kind of information Hegseth shared told POLITICO that it was highly sensitive and could have compromised the safety of servicemembers had it fallen in the wrong hands. They also said details of the strike were likely classified at the time he posted them in the chat.

Hegseth has also reposted other Trump administration officials’ jabs at Goldberg.

RATCLIFFE

Shifting focus to CIA policies and Hegseth

CIA Director John Ratcliffe was forced to address the chat this week in previously scheduled congressional hearings on threats to the nation.

In those hearings, Ratcliffe was defiant and at times combative. He sought to put the responsibility for secure use of devices on his agency, stressing that Signal had been deemed suitable for use in certain instances by the CIA.

According to the text chain published by The Atlantic, Ratcliffe was the first to post highly sensitive information when he said that the agency was “mobilizing assets” to support the mission against the Houthis and that a delay to the operation would give them additional time to “identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership.”

Ratcliffe tread cautiously on the question of whether any classified information was shared in the chats. He was careful to say that he didn’t post any classified information. When pressed by senators, he punted the ball to Hegseth’s court as to whether his message detailing strike plans could be considered classified.

”The secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for determining whether something is classified or not,” Ratcliffe said. “The secretary of Defense has said that the information was not classified.”

Ratcliffe also took a swipe at Goldberg, describing his characterization of the chat as “deliberately false and misleading.”

GABBARD

Convenient forgetting

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was one of the less-active officials in the chat itself, but she also found herself having to justify the conversation alongside Ratcliffe at hearings this week.

Gabbard sought to say as little as possible about the matter, blaming her inability to remember parts of the chat as she sidestepped questions.

In the first hearing, on Tuesday, Gabbard said she didn’t recall any specific weapons systems or timing being mentioned. When she was pressed on this the next day after the full texts of the chats were released, Gabbard said her answer had been “based on my recollection, or the lack thereof on the details that were posted there.”

Gabbard struggled to stick to a singular narrative, initially declining to confirm her participation in the chat before later stating on multiple occasions that it contained no classified information.

On at least two occasions, she redirected senators’ questions towards the secretary of Defense.

She also repeatedly referred to an ongoing National Security Council investigation, putting it back in national security adviser Mike Waltz’s court.

VANCE

Full blame on the journalist, silence on his own posts

Vice President JD Vance has been going on the attack, focusing most of his comments on Goldberg.

Vance also went out of his way to defend Ratcliffe over accusations he breached policy by disclosing the name of a career CIA officer who serves as his chief of staff, issuing a post where he accused Goldberg of having “oversold what he had” about the nation’s spy chief. He has not reposted any defenses of Hegseth or national security adviser Mike Waltz.

But Vance hasn’t personally addressed his own potential misstep — dissenting from Trump’s view about the benefits of striking the Houthis and the apparent help it would provide “free-loading” European allies. At one point, Vance also questioned whether the strike should go forward that week.

Vance’s spokesperson, William Martin, did do some damage control, telling POLITICO when reports emerged about the chat that the vice president “unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy.”

“The vice president’s first priority is always making sure that the president’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations,” Martin said, adding that Vance and Trump “had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”

Waltz

Taking his knocks and fighting for his life

Waltz is taking a different approach as he fights for his political survival.

Waltz, who created the Signal chat and mistakenly added Goldberg, told Fox News he took “full responsibility” for the lapse, making him one of the only Trump administration officials to admit to a mistake.

But Waltz also deflected questions about how he even had Goldberg’s number in his phone.

“Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number?” Waltz asked Fox host Laura Ingraham. When she asked again how he ended up on Waltz’s phone, Waltz suggested that Goldberg used dirty tactics and somehow “got on somebody’s contact” and was then “sucked into this group.”

Waltz also implied that some of the security issues raised by using Signal were the fault of the bad technology options with which the incoming Trump administration had been saddled. He has also focused his ire on Goldberg and The Atlantic, accusing them of sensationalism. Waltz has called Goldberg “the bottom scum” and on Wednesday joined the chorus of Trump officials lambasting The Atlantic for changing its description of the conversation from “war plans” to “attack plans.”

RUBIO

Staying (mostly) above the fray

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has largely avoided the food fight in Washington, and has weighed his words carefully when asked about the chat by reporters.

Rubio barely posted in the chat, only voicing praise that the strike was successful and noting that State Department chief of staff and counselor Michael Needham would represent the department as part of the “tiger team” being assembled by deputy national security adviser Alex Wong.

While on a trip to visit Caribbean allies this week, Rubio was asked by a reporter whether the administration should own up to the snafu. Rubio didn’t attack Goldberg or point the finger at any member of the Trump team. Instead, he framed the whole situation as a misunderstanding about the intent of the chat. He said the original purpose of the chat was for coordination of communication about the attack.

“This thing was set up for purposes of coordinating how everyone was going to call. You know, when these things happen, I need to call foreign ministers, especially of our close allies. We need to notify members of Congress. Other members of the team have different people they need to notify as well. And that was the purpose why it was set up,” Rubio said. “Obviously, someone made a mistake. Someone made a big mistake and added a journalist. Nothing against journalists, but you ain’t supposed to be on that thing. So they got on there, and this happens.”

Kent

Defending Gabbard and broadening the media critique

Trump’s nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, also reposted some criticism of Goldberg. But notably, he has also posted clips of Gabbard, who he is working for as an adviser while he awaits Senate confirmation, in which she insisted there was no classified information. He has also posted video clips of lawmakers standing behind Hegseth and Waltz.

Kent spoke very minimally in the chat, simply telling the group that if they wished to delay the strikes that there would be another window to proceed in the next month.

He has not limited his anger at the media to attacks on Goldberg. On Wednesday, Kent also reposted criticisms of a CNN reporter who has long been pilloried by figures on the right for her coverage of an incident involving a laptop which belonged to Hunter Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign. That reporter wrote a piece Wednesday quoting former officials saying the contents of Hegseth’s messages detailing the strike were likely classified.

Witkoff

Complaining about the Wall Street Journal

Special envoy Steve Witkoff has largely avoided commenting on the debacle. After all, he only texted once in the chat, sending some emojis to celebrate the successful completion of the strike.

But there’s one exception: He responded to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal that accused him of participating in the Signal chat on a personal device while he was in Russia. He argued he was only using government devices in Russia and did not engage with the chat until he left Russia that same day, pointing to CBS reports about his presence in Russia at the time of the conversation.

“Maybe it is time for media outlets like the Journal to acknowledge when some of their people make serious reporting mistakes like this,” Witkoff wrote on X.

Miller

Lashing back at Democrats

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has also largely avoided commenting on the scandal. Most of his recent posts of X over the past week have been about immigration.

Miller only posted a few times in the chat, mainly to restate the president’s desire to see the strike through. He also offered praise of the strike’s success.

On Wednesday, Miller did repost a conservative commentator accusing Democrats of hypocrisy for turning a blind eye to the Biden administration’s failures of Afghanistan while unfairly calling for Hegseth’s resignation.

BESSENT

Playing the age card

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent only posted once in the chat, identifying that his chief of staff Dan Katz would be a part of Wong’s tiger team.

But he was asked about the chat in a Fox News interview Wednesday. Bessent played it by the book, saying that he’ll “leave all of that to the legal experts.” That statement tracks with his proactive approach to pending litigation about the chat — NOTUS reported Thursday that Bessent already moved to preserve his phone data in the face of a lawsuit filed this week.

He also sprinkled some humor in to dodge the question, playing on the fact that many of his colleagues in Trump’s Cabinet are younger than him.

“I will say one of the few advantages of being one of the older people in the cabinet is that I still like to pick up the phone and call people,” Bessent said, prompting a laugh from the Fox host.

Goldberg

Blaming the administration writ large

Goldberg has not laid low since the first article was published on Monday. In media interviews, he has pushed back on the White House’s efforts to downplay the significance of the information shared in the Signal chat.

“If Karoline Leavitt is arguing that it’s not a war because Congress didn’t declare war on Yemen. OK, fine. She wants to play a semantic game,” Goldberg said Wednesday on MSNBC, referring to the White House press secretary. “But this is operational details about a forthcoming attack on an enemy that has anti-aircraft capabilities. They’ve allegedly shot down our drones before.”

“So why you would tell anyone in the world on a messaging app that American pilots are about to fly into a — sorry for the expression — warzone? That’s an interesting question,” he said.

Staying radio silent

A number of the Signal group chat members have stayed relatively quiet about the incident. Those include Wong, Needham, Katz, National Security Council senior director Walker Barrett, National Security Council Chief of Staff Brian McCormick and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Many of them either lack personal X accounts or seldom post on their accounts, and a number of them didn’t post at all in the chat. Many also haven’t been in situations where they’d be peppered with questions from reporters and lawmakers.

Wiles was the only one of this group who messaged in the chat about the strike itself, and it was to offer praise after the fact.

Only Wong has faced criticism for his presence in the chat. That criticism has largely centered around far-right conspiracy theories that Wong, whose parents emigrated from China, is a secret agent of the Chinese government. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the unsubstantiated allegations, although prominent White House allies have come to Wong’s defense.

Robbie Gramer contributed to this report.