Journalist accidentally added to secret chat of US officials discussing attack on Yemen
The Trump administration confirmed on Monday, March 24, that it mistakenly sent confidential information about US military plans to a civilian newspaper reporter, writes Cbs austin. The details of this anecdotal story were told by its direct participant, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the publication. The Atlantic.
Image generated by Microsoft Bing
Jeffrey Goldberg said he was accidentally added to a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal that included users named JD Vance, Pete Hegseth and Michael Waltz. The chat participants discussed plans to attack the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen.
The National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the text messages released by Goldberg.
“These emails are indeed authentic, and we are investigating how an unrelated number was accidentally added,” the statement said. “This chain of messages demonstrates the depth and sophistication of the coordination policy between senior officials. The ongoing success of the operation against the Houthis confirms that there was no threat to troops or national security.”
On the subject: US Stops All Cyber Attacks on Russia
The White House said: "The Vice President's priority is to ensure that the President's advisers keep him fully and promptly informed of the substance of their internal deliberations. Vice President Vance fully supports this Administration's foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have discussed this issue and are in full agreement."
On March 24, President Donald Trump commented on the publication by The Atlantic's editor-in-chief at a press conference, expressing doubt about its veracity.
“I don’t know anything about it,” Trump said. “I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. I think it’s a magazine that’s going to close down. I don’t think it’s a very good magazine. But I don’t know anything about it. Are you saying they had something?”
"I don't know anything about it," he repeated. "This is the first time you've told me about it."
The anecdote of the situation is also that the top officials added to the secret chat not just a journalist, but the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine. This monthly magazine, known for its analytical articles on politics, culture, economics and science, was founded in 1857 in Boston and has since become one of the most influential and respected publications in the United States. The Atlantic is considered one of the venerable publications of American journalism.
In 2017, Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs' widow, acquired a controlling stake in the publication. This gave her the opportunity to influence the editorial policy and strategy of the publication. Laurene Jobs is a close friend of Kamala Harris. It is not hard to guess why Trump called The Atlantic "not a very good magazine" that "will soon close."
Now it's time to turn the floor over to Jeffrey Goldberg, the magazine's editor-in-chief. We present his story with slight abbreviations.
"Creating a group at the management level"
"The story technically begins shortly after the Hamas invasion of southern Israel in October 2023. The Houthis are an Iranian-backed terrorist organization whose motto is 'God is great, death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews, victory to Islam.' They soon began attacking Israel and international shipping, destabilizing global trade. As 2024 progressed, the Biden administration failed to effectively counter these Houthi attacks, and the incoming Trump administration promised a tougher response.
This is where Pete Hegseth and I enter the story.
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a contact request on Signal from a user named Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and those seeking more privacy than other text messaging services can provide. I assumed he was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. But I wasn’t sure if the request was actually from Michael Waltz. I’ve met him in the past, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he wanted to contact me. But it struck me as a little unusual, given the Trump administration’s fraught relationship with journalists and Trump’s occasional personal fixation on me. My immediate thought was that someone might be impersonating Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It’s not uncommon these days for adversaries to try to coerce journalists into sharing information that could be used against them.
I accepted the contact request hoping that he really was the National Security Advisor and wanted to talk about important issues like Ukraine or Iran.
Two days later at 16:28 PM I received a notification that I had been added to a Signal group chat called Houthi PC small group.
A message in the group from Michael Waltz read: 'Team, creating a leadership-level group to coordinate on the Houthis, specifically for the next 72 hours. My deputy, Alex Wong, is assembling a task force at the deputy and agency chiefs of staff level to implement the decisions made in this morning's Situation Room meeting and will send out an update later this evening.'
Goldberg goes on to describe how the chat participants proposed candidates for responsible representatives. The journalist suggests that the nicknames of the chat participants can be deciphered as follows: MAR — Marco Antonio Rubio, head of the State Department, TG — presumably Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, Scott B — probably Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. And who the users Pete Hegseth and JD Vance could be — it’s not hard to guess.
"There were 18 members in the group in total, including various National Security Council officials, President Trump's Middle East and Ukraine negotiator Steve Witkoff, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and a person identified only as SM, which I assumed stood for Stephen Miller. On my screen, I showed up only as JG."
Disinformation campaign?
“After receiving the message from Waltz related to the Houthi PC small group, I consulted with several colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these messages were part of a disinformation campaign, either initiated by a foreign intelligence agency or, more likely, by some kind of provocative media group – one of those groups that tries to embarrass journalists and sometimes succeeds. I had serious doubts about the authenticity of this group. I could not believe that the US national security leadership would discuss plans for a war that was about to begin on Signal. I could not believe that the president’s national security adviser would be so foolish as to include the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior US officials, all the way up to the vice president.
The next day the situation became even stranger.
On Friday, March 14, at 8:05 a.m., Michael Waltz sent a message to the group: 'Team, you should have a statement of findings with instructions as directed by the President this morning in your secure inboxes. State and Defense, we have prepared suggested notification lists for regional allies and partners. The Joint Staff is sending a more detailed plan for the sequence of events for the coming days this morning, and we will work with Defense to brief the Chief of Staff, the Vice President, and the President.'
An interesting political discussion ensued. A user named JD Vance responded at 8:16 a.m.: 'Team, I'm off duty today, attending an economics event in Michigan. But I think we're making a mistake.' (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.)
The same report went on to say: '3% of US trade goes through Suez. Forty percent of Europe's trade goes through it. There is a real risk that the public does not understand this and does not understand why this is necessary. The most compelling reason for this move is, as the president said, that we must send a message.'
The same account then makes a remarkable statement, given that the vice president has almost never publicly deviated from Trump's position: "I'm not sure the president realizes how much this is inconsistent with his current messaging on Europe. There is also the risk of a modest to significant increase in oil prices. I'm willing to support the team's overall decision to keep those concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for holding off for a month, doing some outreach on why this is important, seeing where the economy is, etc."
A person identified as Joe Kent (Trump's nominee for director of the National Counterterrorism Center has the same name) wrote at 8:22 a.m.: "There is nothing urgent that dictates this timeline. We will have the same options in a month."
Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message from John Ratcliffe appeared in my Signal app. It contained information that could be interpreted as relating to real, ongoing intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a message came from the Pete Hegseth account: 'VP: I understand your concerns and fully support your desire to discuss them with the president. Important issues, most of which are hard to predict (economy, peace in Ukraine, Gaza, etc.). I think public relations will be difficult anyway - no one knows who the Houthis are - so we need to focus on two points: 1) Biden has failed; 2) the funding is coming from Iran.'
The post continued: 'Waiting a few weeks or a month doesn't fundamentally change the balance. The two immediate risks of delaying this are: 1) if this leaks, we'll look indecisive; 2) Israel might act first - or the Gaza ceasefire might break down - and then we won't be able to launch on our terms. Both of these risks are manageable. We're ready to execute, and if it were up to me, I'd give it the green light. This isn't about the Houthis. I see two things here: 1) restoring freedom of navigation as a core national interest; 2) restoring the deterrence that Biden has destroyed. But we can easily pause. And if we do, I'll do everything I can to ensure 100% OPSEC [operational security]. I'll consider other views.'
"I just hate being back in"to save Europe"
"Minutes later, the Michael Waltz account sent out a lengthy message about trade figures and the limited capabilities of European navies: 'Whether it's now or in a few weeks, it's still the United States that will have to open the shipping lanes. At the President's request, we are working with the Department of Defense and the State Department to determine the cost of the operation and assign it to the Europeans.'
The JD Vance account wrote to Pete Hegseth at 8:45 a.m.: 'If you think we should do it, go ahead. I just hate bailing out Europe again.' [The administration has argued that America's European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy's protection of international trade routes.]
A user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: 'VP: I fully share your disdain for European dependency. It's a DISGRACE. But Mike is right, we are the only ones on the planet (among our allies) who can do this. No one else is even close. It's a question of timing. I think now is as good a time as any, given the president's directive to open shipping lanes. I think we should go ahead, but the president has 24 hours to make a final decision.'
At this point, the previously silent SM entered the dialogue: 'As I understand it, the president was clear: green light, but we must soon make it clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We need to determine how to enforce this demand. For example, if Europe does not compensate for the costs, then what? If the US restores freedom of navigation at a huge cost, there must be a corresponding economic benefit.'
This message from SM (presumably Stephen Miller, Trump confidant and White House deputy chief of staff, or someone posing as him) effectively ended the discussion.
The last message of the day came from Pete Hegseth at 9:46: 'Agreed.'
Confirmation of authenticity – strikes on Houthi targets
“When I read the conversation, I realized that the discussion had a high degree of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and argumentation, sounded as if they had actually been written by those who claimed to have sent them, or by some particularly clever AI-powered text generator. However, I still feared that this might be a disinformation operation or some kind of simulation. And I still couldn’t understand why no one in the group seemed to notice my presence. But if it was a hoax, the level of mimicry and the depth of understanding of foreign policy issues was impressive.
The next morning, Saturday, March 15, was when this story took a truly bizarre turn.
At 11:44 a.m., an account identified as Pete Hegseth posted a 'TEAM UPDATE' on Signal. I won't quote that update or some of the subsequent messages. The information in them, if read by an adversary of the United States, could be used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East region, Central Command's area of responsibility. I will say only that, to illustrate the shocking nonchalance of this Signal conversation, Hegseth's message contained operational details of the upcoming strikes in Yemen, including the targets, the types of weapons to be used, and the sequence of attack.
The only person to respond to Hegseth's update was a user identified as the vice president. "I'll say a prayer for victory," Vance wrote. (Two other users later added prayer emojis.)
According to Hegseth’s long text, the first explosions in Yemen were scheduled to occur two hours later, at 13:45 p.m. [March 15] ET. So I stayed in my car in the supermarket parking lot. If the Signal chat was real, I reasoned, strikes on Houthi targets would soon follow. At about 13:55 p.m., I checked X and searched for news about Yemen. Explosions were reportedly already being heard throughout the capital, Sanaa.
I looked at the Signal channel again. At 13:48 PM, Michael Waltz wrote an update to the group. Again, I won't quote this text, except to say that he described the operation as 'awesome work.' A few minutes later, John Ratcliffe wrote: 'Good start.'
Shortly after, Volz responded with three emojis: a fist, an American flag, and fire. Others then chimed in, including MAR, who wrote, 'Great job Pete and your team!!' and Susie Wiles, who sent the message, 'Congrats to everyone - especially those on the ground and at Central Command! Really great. God bless.'
Steve Witkoff responded with five emojis: two hands clasped in prayer, a flexed bicep, and two American flags. TG wrote: 'Great job and result!'
Post-operation discussions included damage estimates, including possible individual deaths. Yemen's Houthi-controlled Health Ministry said the strikes killed at least 53 people, though that figure has not been independently confirmed.
On Sunday, March 16, Volz appeared on ABC's "This Week" and compared the strikes to the Biden administration's more cautious approach. "These weren't just random, targeted attacks that ultimately didn't work. This was a robust response that actually targeted and took out several Houthi leaders," he said.
I came to the conclusion that the Signal group was obviously legitimate. With this realization (something that seemed impossible just a few hours earlier), I left the Signal group, knowing that doing so would automatically notify its creator, Michael Waltz, that I had left. No one in the chat seemed to notice that I was there. And after that, I received no questions about why I had left, or, more importantly, who I was.
A flagrant breach of security
“I emailed Volz and wrote to him on Signal. I also reached out to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In the email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the ‘Houthi PC small group’ a legitimate Signal chat? Did any of them know I was added to the group? Was I intentionally (even accidentally) added there? If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I left the group? Are senior Trump administration officials using Signal for sensitive discussions? Do they understand that using such a channel could put American service members at risk?
Two hours later, Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the National Security Council, responded to me, confirming the authenticity of the Signal group. “This appears to be a legitimate message chain, and we are investigating how it was accidentally entered into by an unrelated number,” Hughes wrote. “This conversation demonstrates the depth and sophistication of policy coordination among senior officials. The ongoing success of the operation against the Houthis confirms that there was no threat to troops or national security.”
…I’ve never seen a security breach like this. National security officials often use Signal. But the app is primarily used for scheduling meetings and other organizational matters, not for detailed discussions of classified military operations. And I’ve certainly never heard of a journalist accidentally gaining access to such discussions.
In theory, by hosting the national security discussion on Signal, Volz could have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of "national defense" information, according to several national security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris.
You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York
The lawyers explained that a US official should not create a Signal chat for such discussions. Information about an ongoing operation likely fell under the law’s definition of “national defense information.” Signal is not a government-approved means of sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that. If officials want to discuss military operations, they must do so in a specially designated room, known as a classified information facility (SCIF), or use only approved government equipment. Cellphones are typically prohibited in such areas.
So when Waltz added the journalist to this chat (likely by mistake), he created new security and legal problems. The group was now leaking information to someone who had no authority to do so. This is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was accidental and even if the recipient did not initially believe it was a leak.
Read also on ForumDaily:
White House Wants to Punish Immigration Lawyers for Suing the Government
All CIA employees were sent letters asking them to resign.
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google NewsDo you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.
Editor's Choice
