Let’s discuss the Signal chat.
On Monday, right after releasing an article on a significant security breach during the Trump administration, a reporter questioned Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about his use of the Signal messaging app for sharing details on an impending attack in Yemen. He responded, “There were no texts containing war strategies. That’s all I can say on that.”
During a Senate hearing yesterday, both Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, were queried regarding the Signal chat. The inquiry arose when National Security Adviser Michael Waltz inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic. Gabbard informed Senate Intelligence Committee members, “No classified information was exchanged in that Signal group.”
Ratcliffe echoed a similar sentiment: “To clarify, my communications within the Signal messaging group were completely allowed and lawful, and did not contain any classified material.”
When President Donald Trump was asked about this situation yesterday afternoon, he asserted, “It wasn’t classified information.”
These declarations posed a challenge for us. In The Atlantic’s early piece on the Signal chat, dubbed the “Houthi PC small group” by Waltz, we chose not to disclose specific details related to weaponry and attack timings present in some texts. Typically, we avoid publishing operational data that might endanger U.S. personnel’s lives. Therefore, we opted to describe the nature of the information shared rather than the specifics of the attacks.
The remarks from Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—coupled with various administration officials denying our claims about the contents of the Signal texts—have led us to believe it’s essential for the public to read the texts themselves to draw their own conclusions. There is significant public interest in revealing the types of information shared by Trump’s advisors on unsecured communication platforms, especially as high-ranking administration officials are minimizing the implications of the messages that were conveyed.
Experts have consistently indicated that engaging in sensitive discussions via Signal chat may undermine national security. For example, Goldberg was notified about the imminent attacks just two hours prior to the bombings of Houthi positions. If this intelligence—particularly the precise takeoff times of U.S. aircraft bound for Yemen—had reached adversaries during this critical two-hour window, it could have put American pilots and personnel at far greater risk than usual. The Trump administration is contending that the military information within these texts wasn’t classified as is usually the case, though the president has yet to clarify how he concluded that.
Yesterday, we reached out to officials from the Trump administration to determine if they opposed our publication of the complete texts. In our communications to the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we stated: “In light of today’s declarations from multiple administration officials, including during the Senate Intelligence Committee session, indicating that the information in the Signal thread concerning the Houthi strike is not classified and does not include ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering releasing the entire Signal chain.”
We initially requested feedback from national-security officials shortly after noon and followed up in the evening when many had not responded.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt replied via email: “As we’ve repeatedly mentioned, no classified information was shared in the group chat. However, as both the CIA Director and National Security Adviser have stated today, we do not endorse the release of the conversation. This was meant to be an internal and private discussion among senior staff, and sensitive topics were addressed. For these reasons, we object to its publication.” (Leavitt’s statement did not clarify which aspects of the texts the White House deemed sensitive, or how, over a week after the initial airstrikes, their release could impact national security.)
A CIA representative requested that we keep the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff confidential, as Ratcliffe included it in the Signal chain, due to the norm of not disclosing the identities of CIA intelligence officers. Ratcliffe had previously testified that the officer was not undercover and remarked it was “entirely appropriate” to mention their name in the Signal chat. We will continue to respect the confidentiality of that officer’s name. The remainder of the messages, however, will be presented without redactions.
As we noted on Monday, much of the dialogue within the “Houthi PC small group” focused on the timings and rationale for strikes against the Houthis, with comments by Trump-administration officials about the perceived limitations of America’s European allies. However, on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the focus shifted toward operational discussions.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth sent a message in all caps to the group, stating, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The subsequent text read, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED with CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” CENTCOM, or Central Command, serves as the military’s combatant authority for the Middle East. Hegseth’s message continued:
- “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
- “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Start (Target Terrorist is at his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let us pause for a moment to emphasize an important point. This Signal message illustrates that the U.S. Secretary of Defense transmitted information to a group that included a number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the initial U.S. warplanes took off, and two hours and one minute before the window in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was anticipated to be eliminated by these American aircraft. If this message had been intercepted by someone hostile to U.S. interests—or even someone untactful with social media access—the Houthis would have had time to brace for what was intended to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The ramifications for American pilots could have been disastrous.
The Hegseth text then went on:
- “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
- “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
- “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – and also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
- “MORE TO FOLLOW (by timeline)”
- “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—referring to operational security.
- “Godspeed to our Warriors.”
Shortly afterward, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.”
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent a message containing real-time intelligence regarding conditions at an attack site, presumably in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz referred to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, Central Command’s commander; and the intelligence community. The “multiple positive ID” refers to U.S. intelligence confirming the identity of the Houthi target or targets using either human or technical resources.
Just six minutes later, the vice president, likely confused by Waltz’s message, asked, “What?”
At 2 p.m., Waltz clarified: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him entering his girlfriend’s building, and it’s now collapsed.”
Vance replied a minute later: “Excellent.” Thirty-five minutes later, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, typed, “A good start,” followed by a text from Waltz with a fist emoji, an American flag emoji, and a fire emoji. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported at least 53 casualties resulting from the strikes, a figure that hasn’t been independently verified.
Later that day, Hegseth commented, “CENTCOM was/is on point.” He then informed the group that attacks would persist. “Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide a full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and positive readings so far.”
It remains uncertain why a journalist was included in this text conversation. Waltz, who invited Goldberg into the Signal chat, remarked yesterday that he is looking into “how the heck he got into this room.”
