Self-egos and secret bogeymen These are the three strangest aspects of the chat scandal

What is actually secret - and what isn't? Who is really in charge in the White House? And why are the Republicans adding fuel to the fire? These three points about the chat scandal stand out.

The chat scandal in the USA continues to unfold. The fact that the whole thing is slowly building up to a national affair is also down to the government itself. Three points stand out in the incident.

It could have been so simple: The cabinet members admit a mistake and promise that something like this won't happen again. But the ministers and advisors have obviously learned from their boss: Donald Trump never admits he was wrong.

Signals scandal in the USA"Waltz is a f***ing idiot" - now the Trump administration is seething

Instead, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attacks Jeffrey Goldberg as a "deceitful and discredited so-called journalist", even though the two spoke to each other before the scandal was made public.

This is despite the fact that intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard assured the House of Representatives that the information in the chat was not classified. This statement in turn prompted Goldberg to publish further parts of the chat, which clearly show the US military's attack plans.

Speaking of which, there is also a lot of hype about the choice of words. Government representatives repeat mantra-like that no "war plans" were published in the chat. Goldberg's headline above his follow-up article is therefore: "Here are the attack plans that Trump's advisers shared on Signal".

The White House press secretary celebrates the fact that Goldberg does not write about "war plans" as in the first article as a great success. "The Atlantic has folded", writes Karoline Leavitt on X - and therefore brands the entire investigation a "hoax". Goldberg describes the 27-year-old as a Trump hater who is only interested in sensationalism.

This also fits the picture: the Republicans are not attacking the colleagues who messed up, but the journalist who was dragged into the affair. Want a taste? In the video above, security adviser Michael Waltz first says he's responsible for the mess.

When "Fox News" woman Laura Ingraham asks how this could have happened, Waltz gives a somewhat adventurous explanation, in the course of which he says: "Of course I didn't see that this loser was in the group." He now wants to check whether Goldberg "deliberately" joined the group.

For which he himself was responsible.

The fact that the Republicans are measuring with two yardsticks when comparing their current reaction with previous demands made after data mishaps by the Democratic government should not even be an issue now.

Something else stands out - if you compare the chat scandal with another case: it concerns Judge James Boasberg, who issued an injunction stopping the deportation flights of Venezuelans. The government nevertheless allowed the planes to take off.

Initially, there was only an oral ruling, it was explained. By the time the written order had been issued, the planes had already left US airspace. When Boasberg demanded the take-off protocols, the US government waved them off. That was a state secret. Boasberg is forced to admit that the case is now closed.

And now the chat scandal is shaking Washington: cabinet members are talking their way out of it by claiming that the content of the group conversation is not secret at all. This is the only reason why "The Atlantic", after consulting with lawyers, dares to disclose further details that probably speak for themselves.

Why the flight data of deportation flights is a state secret, but the details of an attack by the US military are not, remains the secret of the Republicans. However, Boasberg's ban on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act remains in place: A corresponding appeal by the government has failed before the Court of Appeal.

Incidentally, a court will now also deal with the chat scandal - and on March 26, the case went to a judge whose removal Trump has already called for: It is James Boasbaerg. The US President is seething with rage.

Here's some background: Donald Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to force deportations initially caused a lot of criticism. And then a lot of confusion.

Because the President suddenly claims to have had nothing to do with the matter: "I don't know who signed it, because I didn't sign it," the Independent quotes the 78-year-old as saying. "Other people took care of it."

And who was it then? "Marco Rubio did a great job. He wanted [the migrants] gone, and we agree with that. We want to get criminals out of our country." The problem: the president's decree is only legally binding if he signs it himself.

USA under Donald TrumpCuba accuses crew of motorboat from Florida of "terrorist intentions"

The chat scandal also raises the question of who is actually at the helm: Its highest-ranking participant is JD Vance. The vice president doubts that the attack is in his boss's interests because it could drive up oil prices. However, he is "prepared to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to himself".

Unless everyone else backs his argument, so he doesn't have to confront Trump alone on the matter. However, the discussion is then cut short - by an advisor to the president. "As I understood it, the president was clear: green light."

This gives the impression that Trump had little involvement in the planning of the attack: does the New Yorker really have his government under control? "The real problem with the Signal chat leak is that it shows systematic dishonesty," concludes the Guardian.