The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine disclosed in a Monday article that officials from the Trump administration provided him with significant military information regarding the United States’ air strikes on Houthi rebel targets in Yemen on March 15, just hours before the operation commenced.
Jeffrey Goldberg, an experienced journalist, indicated that US government officials inadvertently included him in a text channel where the strike was being discussed.
The US government has confirmed the authenticity of the message thread. This incident has led critics of the Trump administration to accuse senior officials of a serious breach of security.
Here’s an overview of the events, what was disclosed, the response from US officials, and what lies ahead:
What transpired?
Goldberg began his article for The Atlantic by stating, “The world learned shortly before 2 PM Eastern time [18:00 GMT] on March 15 that the United States was targeting Houthi sites throughout Yemen.”
“However, I was aware two hours prior to the first bombs dropping that the attack might occur, as Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had reached out to me with the war plan at 11:44 AM [15:44 GMT].”
This is what unfolded.
On March 11, Goldberg received a connection request from someone named Michael Waltz on Signal, an encrypted messaging platform. Michael “Mike” Waltz serves as the US national security adviser.
Goldberg admitted that at first, he doubted whether this was really Waltz trying to contact him, suspecting it could be someone impersonating him to acquire information.
Nonetheless, the editor noted that he had previously met Waltz. “While it didn’t seem entirely unusual for him to reach out, considering the contentious relationship between the Trump administration and journalists, it felt a bit odd,” Goldberg mentioned.
Goldberg proceeded to accept the request, still hoping it was indeed Waltz.
On March 13, Goldberg found himself added to a messaging group on Signal titled “Houthi PC small group.” Based on his reporting experience with the US government, Goldberg interpreted PC to mean Principals Committee – an assembly of key cabinet leaders typically involved with security matters.
Who participated in the group chat?
Goldberg noted that the group comprised 18 members. Besides Waltz, the following individuals were also part of the correspondence:
- Someone labeled MAR, whom Goldberg presumed to be Secretary of State Marco “Antonio” Rubio.
- An individual identified as JD Vance, who is Trump’s vice president.
- Someone referred to as TG, which Goldberg inferred to be US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
- A user named Scott B, presumed to be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent “or someone impersonating him,” according to Goldberg.
- A user named Pete Hegseth, presumably the US defense secretary.
- Another participant named John Ratcliffe, likely the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
- A user named Brian. Goldberg did not clarify who this might be. It could be Brian Hughes, National Security Council spokesman, or Brian McCormack, Waltz’s chief of staff. The identity of the Brian in the group remains uncertain.
- Someone abbreviated as “SM,” whom Goldberg assumed to be Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller.
- An individual labeled Joe Kent, recognized as Trump’s nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.
What did the military chat disclose?
The chat commenced on March 13 with Waltz briefing the group that this was a team formed for “coordination on Houthis,” adding that his deputy was organizing “a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level based on action items discussed in the Sit Room earlier that day, and that would be sent out later that evening.” The Sit Room, or Situation Room, is a central intelligence management facility in the White House where the latest military or political information is relayed.
Waltz subsequently requested group members to designate a point of contact from their respective teams to liaise with his team over the coming days, which led to various individuals being named.
At 8:05 AM (12:05 GMT) on March 14, Waltz remarked: “Team, you should have received a conclusion statement with tasks per the President’s guidance this morning in your high-side inboxes.” A high-side inbox pertains to classified communication channels.
The messages indicated that Vance disagreed with the strategy towards Yemen being advocated by Hegseth and Waltz. “I think we are making a mistake,” the account identified as Vance commented on March 14.
“Three percent of US trade traverses the Suez Canal. Forty percent of European trade does,” the Vance account wrote.
The account added: “I am unsure if the President is aware how inconsistent this course of action is with his message to Europe right now… there is a compelling argument for postponing this for a month.”
Goldberg further noted that the group received messages from Ratcliffe that could be considered related to active intelligence operations.
Hegseth acknowledged Vance’s concerns, indicating he understood them, but contended that delaying the operation posed risks such as “1) the information leaks, and we appear indecisive; 2) Israel acts first – or a ceasefire in Gaza collapses – leading to us not being able to initiate this on our own terms.”
Hegseth added: “We can manage both. We are ready to execute, and if it were up to me, I would approve the action.”
Waltz contributed with a message regarding trade statistics and the limited capacities of European navies.
The Vance account replied, asserting, “If you believe this is the course of action we should take, then let’s proceed. I just dislike bailing Europe out yet again.” In response, the Hegseth account stated, “VP: I completely share your disdain for European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC.”
On March 15 at 11:44 AM (8:44 GMT), the Hegseth account shared a “TEAM UPDATE.” Goldberg refrained from disclosing specifics of this update in his article, indicating that exposing such details could put American military and intelligence personnel at risk.
Nonetheless, Goldberg noted that the Hegseth message contained operational specifics of the March 15 strikes in Yemen, including the targeted locations – individuals included – the weaponry to be utilized, and the sequence of events that were to follow.
Goldberg waited in his car at a supermarket parking area to confirm whether the strikes indeed occurred at the time Hegseth specified. They did, in the Yemeni capital Sanaa; Goldberg remarked he was informed through X.
The airstrikes resulted in the deaths of at least 53 individuals, including children, with many others injured.
What actions did Goldberg take?
Goldberg exited the group chat and reached out to Waltz via Signal, and sent an email to several US officials inquiring whether the group was legitimate and if they were aware of Goldberg’s inclusion.
Goldberg mentioned that Vance’s spokesperson, William Martin, clarified that despite the implications of the messages, Vance was fully aligned with Trump. “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy,” stated Martin, as reported in Goldberg’s article.
What has been the response from US government officials?
National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes commented in a statement: “This appears to be an authentic message thread, and we are looking into how an unintended number was added to it.”
“The thread reflects the thorough and deliberate policy coordination among senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation indicates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
Hegseth remarked to reporters on Monday: “I’ve heard how it was characterized. Nobody was texting war plans. That’s all I have to say.”
US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce opted not to comment on the issue during a news conference on Monday.
Trump was also questioned about the incident at a White House event in Louisiana on Monday. “I don’t know anything about it,” Trump responded, adding that he was not particularly fond of The Atlantic. He seemed to conflate the breach with an attempt to undermine the US attack on Yemen.
Could this constitute a breach of the Espionage Act?
Goldberg asserted that Waltz might have violated the Espionage Act, a claim supported by several national security attorneys interviewed by The Atlantic.
This federal statute, established in 1917, criminalizes the act of disseminating information that is intended to obstruct US armed forces operations. Goldberg lacks the security clearance to access classified information.
Democrats have demanded an investigation into this matter.
“If House Republicans are genuinely committed to keeping America safe, they must collaborate with Democrats on a swift, thorough, and meaningful investigation into this unacceptable and reckless breach of national security,” stated US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Delaware Senator Chris Coons expressed on his X account: “There must be an oversight hearing and accountability regarding these actions.”
Jeffrey Goldberg’s reporting in The Atlantic calls for a prompt and thorough investigation. If senior advisors to President Trump in fact used non-secure, non-government systems to discuss and convey detailed war plans, it’s a shocking breach of the standards for sharing…
— Senator Chris Coons (@ChrisCoons) March 24, 2025
