Trump officials mistakenly added The Atlantic‘s editor to a private Signal chat discussing classified U.S. military operations in Yemen.
Jeffrey Goldberg, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, detailed the surprising incident in an article, revealing that he unintentionally gained access to classified discussions about bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen. The White House has since confirmed the breach, sparking concerns over national security protocols and the handling of classified information.
Goldberg explained that on March 11, he received a Signal message request from someone using the name “Michael Waltz,” who he initially doubted was the actual national security adviser. However, he soon realized he had been added to a chat with 18 high-ranking officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. In the chat, they openly discussed upcoming military strikes, leaving Goldberg stunned by the unprecedented security lapse.
By March 15, the U.S. launched airstrikes against Houthi positions in Yemen.
Goldberg, however, had been aware of the attack nearly two hours before it occurred. He described receiving a war plan from Hegseth at 11:44 a.m., which detailed the upcoming strikes. This revelation raises significant concerns about the security measures surrounding sensitive military operations and whether such discussions should take place on a non-secure messaging app.
Goldberg noted that he immediately recognized the severity of the situation and promptly notified the White House about the breach. He then removed himself from the chat to avoid further exposure to classified information. According to Goldberg, the administration’s use of Signal for such discussions could pose serious risks, especially if any of the participants lost their devices or had them stolen.
The National Security Council later issued a statement confirming the authenticity of the chat. Spokesperson Brian Hughes stated that the administration was reviewing how an unauthorized number had been added to the discussion. He also framed the chat as an example of robust policy coordination between senior officials, though critics have questioned whether this method of communication was appropriate.
During a news conference, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment, instead referring journalists to the White House. Meanwhile, Trump, speaking at an event in Louisiana, dismissed the controversy, claiming ignorance about the situation. He then took aim at The Atlantic, calling it a failing magazine and expressing skepticism about the report. However, when pressed for details, Trump seemed to confuse the breach with a deliberate attempt to undermine the military operation.
Calls for an investigation into the incident have emerged, with Democratic Senator Chris Coons demanding congressional oversight.
He expressed alarm over the possibility that senior Trump advisors used non-secure systems to discuss classified military actions. Coons emphasized that such breaches could endanger American service members and undermine national security, requiring immediate scrutiny.
The attack on Houthi targets was part of an ongoing U.S. military campaign against the group. Since October 2023, the Houthis have targeted Israeli and commercial ships in the Red Sea, protesting against Israel’s war in Gaza. Trump, early in his second term, had re-designated the Houthis as a terrorist organization, intensifying U.S. operations against them. Recent escalations, including Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza, had prompted renewed Houthi threats, adding urgency to the U.S. decision to strike.
Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat provided rare insight into the internal debates of Trump’s senior officials.
Vice President Vance voiced concerns about the economic impact of attacking the Houthis, particularly how it would benefit European trade interests more than the U.S. He suggested delaying the strikes to assess public opinion and economic conditions. However, Hegseth opposed waiting, arguing that leaks or unforeseen geopolitical events could undermine the operation.
Another chat participant, identified as “SM” and presumed to be Trump’s homeland security adviser Stephen Miller, weighed in on behalf of the president. He reiterated Trump’s directive to proceed with the attack but insisted that the U.S. should demand economic concessions from Egypt and Europe in return. The conversation revealed strategic considerations beyond national security, including economic and geopolitical calculations.
As the attack unfolded, Goldberg refrained from disclosing operational specifics but confirmed that the actions discussed in the chat closely matched the strikes. Afterward, officials in the chat celebrated with emojis of U.S. flags, flames, and flexing muscles, reinforcing the impression that the chat was authentic. Goldberg’s realization of the chat’s legitimacy led him to exit the conversation and question the administration’s handling of classified communications.
Goldberg raised legal concerns regarding whether these discussions violated public records laws.
Signal messages in the chat were set to auto-delete, which could conflict with regulations requiring officials to preserve records of official government actions. Additionally, Waltz’s decision to include a journalist in the chat inadvertently turned the conversation into a national security leak.
Ultimately, this shocking breach of protocol raises serious concerns about how the Trump administration managed sensitive military discussions. The use of an encrypted messaging app, the apparent lack of security vetting, and the inclusion of an unauthorized participant highlight potential vulnerabilities in the government’s handling of classified information. As calls for an investigation grow, the implications of this incident could have lasting consequences for national security protocols.