In a stunning breach of national security protocol, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was unintentionally included in a group chat on the encrypted messaging platform Signal, where high-level officials from the Trump administration discussed military strikes planned against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The preliminary communication was initiated by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, raising serious concerns over the coordination and confidentiality of military operations.
Goldberg's account, published in a revealing article on March 24, details how on March 11, 2025, he received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Unbeknownst to Goldberg, this was indeed the actual National Security Adviser. Just two days later, he was invited to the group chat titled the “Houthi PC small group,” which included other notable figures such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
On March 15, at 11:44 a.m., just two hours before the strikes began, Hegseth disclosed sensitive information regarding military actions scheduled against the Houthi militant group, including specifics about weapons, targets, and timing. This coincidence raises alarms about the operational security practices followed by senior officials in Trump’s cabinet.
Goldberg initially expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the chat, stating, “I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans.” Following the group's interaction, he was taken aback when the bombing actually began at 1:45 p.m. Eastern Time, aligning precisely with the information relayed in the chat.
The embryonic plan involved a calculated military strike aimed at mitigating the Houthi rebels' impact on important maritime routes, notably the Red Sea, which has seen ongoing violence. Hegseth mentioned that these attacks, which were intended to be expansive over three days, were part of a sustained campaign to counteract any assaults on vessels associated with U.S. interests.
National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed the authenticity of the messaging thread and stated, “We are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain… The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.” However, Hughes's remarks did little to calm the rising tension and concern surrounding the disclosure of classified information.
The incident did not go unnoticed in political spheres: leaders from both parties have criticized the administration's handling of such sensitive discussions. Senate Armed Services Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.), condemned the leak as “one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen.” He emphasized the dangerous nature of carelessly sharing crucial military discussions outside of secure channels.
Further resentment arose when Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) demanded accountability, labeling the incompetence displayed by officials as potentially life-threatening. “There is no world in which this information should have been shared in non-secure channels,” Moulton asserted. He urged that Defense Secretary Hegseth needs to explain this oversight directly to Congress.
The disappointment was echoed by some Republican lawmakers as well, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who commented, “It sounds like a huge screw-up. I mean, is there any other way to describe it?”
This unprecedented revelation shines a light on the broader context of coordination within the defense establishment. Critically, it raises questions about the application of secure communication structures during military operations. The nature of the discussions within Signal, which is typically reserved for logistical communication, is troubling, as operational discussions were treated the same way as simple planning sessions.
Moreover, the inconsistency of Trump's national security strategy, reiterated by Vance, who cautioned against acting hastily in light of public perception, indicates a political landscape fraught with evolving challenges. Vance noted during discussions that “the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary.”
As military operations draw complex ties among political expectations, especially surrounding European dependencies regarding U.S. actions, the interactions among officials in this chat signaled a deeper dissatisfaction within their ranks.
Trump’s overall commitment to using assertive military force against the Houthis, amidst the shifting dynamics of international relations, reflects a broader agenda to reassert U.S. interests at sea. Trump replied dismissively to inquiries about the incident, asserting, “I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time,” further distancing his administration from the controversy.
The fallout from this event remains to be seen, as sources emphasize the need for strict reviews of the incident. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have called for inquiries into how a journalist was included in discussions over military operations: a critical oversight that could undermine the United States’ approach to its enemies. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta emphasized this sentiment, stating that the inclusion of Goldberg in such sensitive discussions is not only a mistake but potentially violates national security protocols.
As military operations continue against the Houthis amidst growing tensions, the significance of operational security and the integrity of military communications will undoubtedly take center stage in future dialogues concerning U.S. military strategy. The incident becomes a cautionary tale on the necessity for better safeguarding of sensitive information amid military operations, reinforcing that breaches can have extensive implications for national security.
