Which Republican members of intelligence committees publicly requested classified briefings or IG reviews after the Signal/DIA leaks?
Executive summary
Roger Wicker — the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee — explicitly joined a bipartisan request for an expedited inspector general review and said the panel would seek a classified briefing on the Signal/DIA leaks [1] [2] [3]. Several other Senate Republicans signaled they would pursue classified questions or private questioning about the leaks (not always full public calls for IG reviews), including Senators Mike Rounds and Todd Young, who said they would raise the matter in the classified portions of intelligence hearings [4].
1. The clearest public demand: Roger Wicker pressed for an IG review and a classified briefing
Senator Roger Wicker publicly signed a bipartisan letter asking the acting Department of Defense inspector general for an inquiry into officials’ use of Signal and said the Armed Services Committee would request a classified hearing to follow up — a discrete, documented call for both an IG review and a classified briefing from a senior Republican committee chair [1] [2] [3].
2. Republicans who said they would ask questions in classified settings, rather than demand public probes
Republican senators Mike Rounds and Todd Young told reporters they intended to raise the Signal leak in the classified portion of committee hearings, signaling interest in oversight through closed-door questioning rather than publicly demanding an IG inquiry [4]. Reporting indicates several other Republican lawmakers on intelligence-related panels expressed willingness to see classified material or pursue private questioning, even while publicly aligning with administration assurances that nothing classified was shared [5] [6].
3. Republicans who publicly hedged, resisted or declined to join explicit IG requests
Some Republican intelligence-committee members publicly dampened calls for aggressive action: Sen. Tom Cotton gave no sign he would join calls for an investigation or briefing, and Sen. James Lankford rejected calls for resignations even if messages were classified — both examples of GOP restraint or reluctance to press IG probes in public comments [1] [5]. Other Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham said facts needed to be established and the committee would evaluate whether the messages met the legal definition of classified material, a stance framed publicly as open-ended scrutiny rather than an explicit demand for an IG review [5].
4. Additional Republican voices: questions about Signal’s security, not necessarily IG demands
Former House Intelligence chair Mike Turner and Sen. Mike Risch publicly warned about the risks of using Signal for sensitive matters and said the issue warranted investigation or committee attention, but their comments focused on app security and the need for congressional review rather than announcing specific, formal requests for classified briefings or IG probes [7] [8]. News outlets aggregated GOP statements as a mix of calls for access to more information and defenses of administration officials, rather than a unified Republican call for inspector-general action [7] [9].
5. What the public record supports — and where reporting is silent
The sourced reporting clearly documents Wicker’s public, formal request for an inspector general review and for a classified briefing [1] [2] [3]; it also records that Senators Mike Rounds and Todd Young said they would pursue questions in classified sessions [4]. Multiple other Republican committee members publicly expressed concern, caution, or skepticism about the leaks and said oversight mechanisms would be used, but the available sources do not show a broad roll call of Republicans explicitly filing IG requests or collectively demanding classified briefings beyond Wicker’s documented action [5] [7] [8]. If an exhaustive list of formal written requests exists beyond what these outlets reported, it is not present in the cited reporting.