The administration under United States President Donald Trump has acknowledged that a journalist from The Atlantic magazine was part of a private social media conversation regarding forthcoming military actions against the Houthi armed group in Yemen.
On Monday, The Atlantic released an article from editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, where he shared the surprising realization that he had been included in a group chat comprised of high-ranking government officials discussing military strategies.
“The world learned just before 2 p.m. Eastern Time [18:00 GMT] on March 15 that the United States was conducting airstrikes on Houthi targets throughout Yemen,” Goldberg recounted in the article’s opening lines.
“However, I was aware two hours prior to the initial bombs dropping that an attack could be imminent. This awareness stemmed from receiving the war plan text from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at 11:44 a.m [15:44 GMT].”
Goldberg noted that he got a messaging request from an individual named “Michael Waltz” on the encrypted app Signal. Initially skeptical, he was unsure whether this was indeed Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser.
Before long, he found himself among 18 government officials, including individuals resembling Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and Hegseth.
“I have not witnessed a breach of this nature before,” Goldberg mentioned. Ultimately, he alerted the White House about the security lapse and opted to leave the chat.
The Trump administration confirmed the event through a statement from the National Security Council that was shared with the press.
“Currently, the reported message thread appears to be legitimate, and we are investigating how a non-verified number was added to the chain,” stated council spokesperson Brian Hughes.
“This thread illustrates the profound and considerate policy coordination among senior officials.”
During a news conference later that day, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce refrained from commenting, directing reporters to consult the White House.
Trump faced questions about the scandal during a White House event aimed at unveiling a new steel mill for Hyundai in Louisiana.
“I don’t know anything about it,” Trump stated but then criticized the magazine directly.
“I’m not particularly fond of The Atlantic. It strikes me as a publication that’s heading towards closure. I don’t hold it in high regard, but I’m unaware of the specifics.”
He then prompted reporters for additional information regarding the security breach.
“What were they discussing?” Trump inquired, seemingly confusing the breach with a deliberate act to disrupt the US military operation in Yemen.
“It couldn’t have been very effective because the attack succeeded remarkably. I can assure you of that,” Trump commented. “I’m learning about this for the first time through you.”
Nevertheless, critics are already demanding an investigation into the situation. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, is among those advocating for Congress to hold oversight hearings and ensure accountability.
“Jeffrey Goldberg’s reporting in The Atlantic warrants a swift and comprehensive investigation,” Coons stated on social media.
“If senior advisors under President Trump actually employed non-secure, non-government platforms to discuss and disseminate detailed military plans, it represents a startling violation of the standards for managing classified data, potentially endangering American servicemembers.”
What transpired?
The latest series of US strikes against the Houthis began on March 15, following Trump’s announcement on social media that he had instructed the military to conduct “decisive and powerful” actions against the Yemeni group.
However, Goldberg’s engagement with the private Signal chat sheds light on how that decision took shape.
For years, the Houthis have been the target of US military operations, even during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden.
Since October 2023, the Houthis have carried out attacks on Israeli vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and adjacent routes, protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Around 100 merchant vessels have been targeted by Houthi fire during this period, resulting in the sinking of two. That said, the Houthi attacks ceased in January when a short-lived ceasefire took effect in Gaza.
Despite that, Trump announced early in his second term that he would designate the Houthis as a “foreign terrorist organization,” a commitment fulfilled earlier this month.
On March 2, Israel commenced blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has been lacking essential food and medical supplies. In retaliation, the Houthis threatened to launch attacks if the blockade was not lifted. The ceasefire in Gaza has since collapsed, leading to further devastation in the Palestinian territory.
Goldberg mentioned that it was on March 11 when he first received an invitation from Waltz, the national security adviser, on Signal.
“Immediately, I entertained the possibility that someone could be impersonating Waltz to entrap me,” Goldberg detailed in The Atlantic.
“I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the genuine national security adviser wanting to discuss Ukraine, Iran, or other significant issues.”
Instead, just two days later, Goldberg found himself in a private chat titled “Houthi PC small group.” Within it, some of the highest officials in the US government appeared to be deliberating an imminent attack on Houthi strongholds in Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa.
“I held substantial doubts about the authenticity of this text group,” Goldberg explained. “I also found it hard to believe that the president’s national security adviser would be so careless as to involve the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with high-ranking U.S. officials, including the vice president.”
This unexpected access granted Goldberg a close-up view of the back-channel negotiations occurring within the Trump administration, along with the policy divides they revealed.
A participant in the chat, believed to be Vice President Vance, expressed worry that attacking the Houthis would only favor European trade rather than the interests of U.S. shipping.
He suggested postponing the bombing campaign to better assess public sentiment and economic consequences.
“I am prepared to back the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself,” Vance said. “However, there is a compelling argument for delaying this by a month, allowing for better communication on its importance and evaluating economic circumstances, etc.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded, noting that a delay would “not fundamentally alter the calculus.” Nonetheless, he cautioned against procrastination by the US.
“Immediate dangers of waiting: 1) this leaks, and we appear indecisive; 2) Israel may take action first – or the Gaza ceasefire may collapse – and we lose the initiative,” Hegseth expressed.
Vance appeared resigned, primarily concerned about the implications of any strikes for Europe.
“If you believe we should proceed, then let’s do it. I just detest bailing Europe out once more,” Vance replied.
Hegseth reiterated, “VP: I completely share your disdain for European free-loading. It’s ABSURD. But Mike is correct; we are the only ones positioned to undertake this.”
Another participant, identified as SM, likely representing the president, contributed to the conversation. Goldberg assumed this to be Stephen Miller, Trump’s homeland security adviser.
“The president has made it clear: green light, but we need to soon clarify our expectations to Egypt and Europe in return,” SM wrote.
“If the US succeeds in restoring freedom of navigation at significant cost, we must extract some economic benefits in return.”
Goldberg opted not to disclose the operational specifics of the military strike that followed. However, he noted that the plans discussed in the group chat aligned with the bombing campaigns targeting Yemen.
He also recounted the enthusiasm that ensued following the military actions: officials sharing emojis representing the US flag, a flame, and a flexed muscle.
“I concluded that the Signal chat group was almost certainly genuine. With this realization, one that seemed inconceivable hours earlier, I decided to exit the Signal group,” Goldberg wrote.
He raised concerns regarding the legality of US officials discussing such sensitive military maneuvers on a social media application.
“While it is not uncommon for national-security personnel to communicate via Signal, the platform is typically utilized for logistical discussions and meeting arrangements, not for detailed and highly confidential exchanges concerning impending military operations,” Goldberg explained.
“If they had lost their devices, or if they had been compromised, the potential danger to national security would have been significant.”
The editor also questioned whether the officials in the chat were breaching public records laws, noting that messages were set to delete automatically after a set duration.
“Text messages about official actions are classified as records that should be retained,” Goldberg pointed out.
Waltz may find himself in legal peril for reportedly including Goldberg in the first place – effectively leaking national security information to an unauthorized recipient.
“The group was conveying information to an individual not authorized to receive it,” Goldberg stated. “That quintessentially describes a leak.”
