CIA Dir. Ratcliffe: Signal “Loaded on My Computer Day One — Permissible Work Use”; Gabbard: Border Crossings Down 85%

A March 2025 compilation featured CIA Director John Ratcliffe testifying before the Senate that Signal “was loaded onto my computer at the CIA” on his first day, that it was “a permissible work use” dating back to the Biden administration, and that he had “not participated in any Signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all.” DNI Tulsi Gabbard gave identical testimony. Separately, Gabbard revealed that border apprehensions had dropped 85% since January 2024, and Trump greeted Medal of Honor recipients at the White House, telling them “I feel brave among you people.”

Ratcliffe: Signal Was Pre-Loaded

Ratcliffe opened his testimony by establishing the factual foundation that undermined the media narrative about the Signal messaging controversy.

“One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA — as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe said.

He then explained the institutional context: “One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is.”

The critical detail: “That is a practice that preceded the current administration — to the Biden administration.”

This testimony established three key facts. First, Signal was not a rogue application chosen by the Trump administration; it was standard software installed on CIA computers. Second, the CIA’s own records management officials had briefed Ratcliffe that Signal was a permissible work communication tool. Third, the practice of using Signal for work communications dated to the Biden administration, meaning the previous administration had authorized the same tool that was now being treated as a scandal.

The Exchange with Senator Bennet

The most contentious moment came during an exchange with Senator Michael Bennet that highlighted the gap between the media narrative and the testimony.

“I don’t know if you use Signal messaging app,” Ratcliffe said to Bennet.

“I do,” Bennet replied.

Ratcliffe continued: “I do not for classified information. Not for targeting.”

“Neither do I, Senator,” Ratcliffe said.

Bennet pressed: “That’s what your testimony is today.”

Ratcliffe pushed back: “It absolutely is not, Senator. Were you not listening at the beginning? When I said that I was using it as permitted, it is permissible to use.”

The exchange revealed the dynamic. Bennet was attempting to create a soundbite suggesting Ratcliffe had been caught in something improper. Ratcliffe was pointing out that the senator was either not listening to his testimony or deliberately mischaracterizing it. Signal was a permitted work tool; Ratcliffe used it for permitted purposes; no classified information was shared.

Ratcliffe then provided the definitive statement: “To be clear, I haven’t participated in any Signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all.”

He elaborated on the rules governing Signal use: “It is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes, provided that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels. So those were procedures that were implemented. My staff implemented those processes, followed those processes, complied with those processes.”

His conclusion: “So my communications, to be clear, in a Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

Gabbard: Same Answer

DNI Tulsi Gabbard provided identical testimony when asked.

“Senator, I have the same answer,” Gabbard said. “I have not participated in any Signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information.”

The parallel testimony from both the CIA director and the Director of National Intelligence — the two officials with the broadest access to classified information in the intelligence community — definitively addressed the core allegation. Neither had used Signal for classified communications. Both had used it for the permissible work coordination purposes that the CIA’s own records management policies authorized.

The media controversy that had dominated coverage for days was, according to the sworn testimony of the two most senior intelligence officials, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Signal was used within the government.

Border Apprehensions: Down 85%

Gabbard separately provided intelligence community data on the border situation.

“Heightened U.S. border security enforcement and deportations under the Trump administration are proving to serve as a deterrent for migrants seeking to illegally cross U.S. borders,” Gabbard said. “U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions along the Southwest border in January 2025 dropped 85% from the same period in 2024.”

The 85% decline was one of the most dramatic single-year changes in border security history. The number confirmed what Trump had described anecdotally — the border plaza that was “literally empty” — with hard data from the intelligence community. The enforcement-as-deterrence model was working: when potential migrants believed they would be caught and deported, they did not attempt the crossing.

The data was particularly significant because it came from the intelligence community rather than from DHS or the White House communications office. The DNI’s assessment carried the weight of an institutional intelligence judgment, not a political talking point.

Medal of Honor Day

Trump greeted Medal of Honor recipients at the White House in a separate segment that provided a moment of lighter tone.

“I like to do it. I feel good. I feel brave among you people,” Trump said to the Medal of Honor recipients. “You have more bravery than anybody.”

He looked at the assembled heroes: “Look at that. You have some of these guys that are beautiful.”

The self-deprecating humor — the president admitting he “felt brave” simply by standing near genuine combat heroes — was a quality that Medal of Honor recipients and military audiences consistently responded to. Trump was not claiming to share their valor; he was honoring it by acknowledging the distance between his own experience and theirs.

Senator Lankford: “Thank You”

Senator James Lankford provided the closing note, addressing the intelligence officials directly.

“Thank you to all of you. Your service to the country — it matters,” Lankford said. “There are a lot of citizens of our country right now that have much greater security in their life because of the work that you do and the people that are working around you do.”

He added: “I just want to say I appreciate that. For the folks in Oklahoma, they would definitely want me to be able to say thank you for your service.”

Lankford’s statement was a reminder that amid the Signal controversy and political theater, the intelligence community was conducting operations that protected American lives — from the Houthi strikes to the border deterrence to counterterrorism operations worldwide.

Key Takeaways

• CIA Director Ratcliffe testified Signal was “loaded onto my computer” day one, was “a permissible work use” under CIA policies dating to the Biden administration.
• He stated under oath: “I haven’t participated in any Signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all.”
• DNI Gabbard gave identical testimony: “I have not participated in any Signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information.”
• Gabbard cited intelligence data: Southwest border apprehensions dropped 85% from January 2024 to January 2025 under Trump’s enforcement policies.
• Trump greeted Medal of Honor recipients: “I feel brave among you people. You have more bravery than anybody.”