The White House accused The Atlantic of peddling a "hoax" on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, after the magazine’s editor accessed advance details of US military strikes against Yemen's Houthis through an errant Signal group chat. The controversy erupted when The Atlantic revealed that Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg received strike timings two hours before the March 13 operation, raising serious concerns about operational security.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the report as a "sensationalist spin" by a "Trump-hater," emphasizing that no classified information had been leaked. Vice President JD Vance also chimed in, asserting that Goldberg had "oversold what he had." National Security Advisor Michael Waltz supported this, stating that no locations, sources, methods, or war plans had been shared in the group chat, adding, "Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent."
The Atlantic report accused US officials of downplaying the significance of the messages, indicating that had the information fallen into the wrong hands during that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and personnel could have faced greater danger than usual. The situation arose from Goldberg's accidental inclusion in the "Houthi PC small group" Signal chat, which included top officials such as Vance, Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
In the chat, Hegseth shared critical details about the upcoming strikes. He wrote, “Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” This communication provided precise timings for the military operation, which included information about aircraft launch times and when bombs would drop.
The Atlantic published the entire Signal chat, revealing jaw-dropping specifics that are typically kept under wraps to protect the operational security of military strikes. Hegseth’s posts included timestamps such as: “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts,” and “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP).” These details raised alarms about the potential risks involved.
Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, expressed grave concerns during a hearing, stating, "everyone here knows" that adversaries like Russia or China could have intercepted the Signal messages and passed them on to the Houthis. He warned that this could have led to altered military strategies, such as plans to "knock down planes or sink ships." Himes emphasized that it was only by the "grace of God that we're not mourning dead American pilots." He asserted that there is "only one response to a mistake of this magnitude: you apologize, you own it, and you stop everything until you know what went wrong and how to stop it in the future." However, he noted, "But that's not what happened."
The incident raised questions about the security protocols surrounding the use of Signal, an app known for encrypted communications but not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, just a day before the strikes, the Defense Department had cautioned personnel about the app's vulnerabilities, specifically mentioning that Russia was attempting to hack it. A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, elaborated that a malicious actor could monitor messages remotely if they had access to a person’s phone linked to Signal.
Despite the serious implications of the leak, White House officials maintained that no classified material was shared. However, Hegseth has not clarified whether he posted classified information onto Signal, and he has remained evasive in response to inquiries, stating he did not disclose “war plans.”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe informed members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was ultimately up to Hegseth to determine whether the information he was posting was classified. This lack of clarity has further fueled the controversy surrounding the incident.
The fallout from this incident has not only raised concerns about operational security but also about the broader implications for U.S. military strategy and international relations. As the situation develops, the administration faces increasing scrutiny over its handling of sensitive information and the protocols in place to protect national security.
Leavitt is one of three Trump administration officials facing a lawsuit from The Associated Press on First and Fifth Amendment grounds, alleging that they are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. This legal battle adds another layer of complexity to an already fraught situation, as the administration navigates the challenges of transparency and accountability in the wake of the Signal chat leak.
The implications of this incident are significant, not just for the individuals involved but for the future of U.S. military operations and the trust placed in government officials to safeguard sensitive information. As the nation grapples with the fallout, the focus remains on ensuring that such a breach does not occur again.
