-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
In an extraordinary breach of national security, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, found himself in an unprecedented situation. On March 11, he was added, seemingly by mistake, to a Signal chat group involving senior national security officials from the Trump administration.
A discussion initially intended to be private and confidential would soon lay bare highly sensitive military information. This series of communications, which revolved around airstrikes targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen, was not just a casual conversation; it contained details that could jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel, affect international relations, and possibly breach numerous security protocols.
Goldberg's story began with an unexpected Signal connection request. He received a message from someone who identified themselves as Michael Waltz, who claimed to be the national security adviser for the Trump administration.
Initially, Goldberg was uncertain if the request was legitimate, so he reluctantly accepted. A couple of days later, Goldberg was added to a discussion chain called the "Houthi PC small group."
It was within this group that Goldberg, alongside senior officials of the Trump administration, would gain access to highly classified and operational information about military strikes.
The discussion revealed shocking details. From the very beginning, Goldberg was astonished by the level of informality in the chat. The group, which included some of the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. government—such as Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz—discussed everything from strategic military targets to operational specifics in an unguarded manner.
Top officials casually debated matters such as the timing of military strikes, their potential impacts on oil prices, and how global trade could be affected.
At first, Goldberg thought that the chat might have been part of a disinformation campaign, a tactic designed to discredit journalists or embarrass those in positions of authority. But as he continued reading, it became increasingly clear that the messages were authentic.
The language, tone, and depth of the discussions all matched the voices of the individuals involved. Goldberg was left to ponder: how had he been included in such a sensitive conversation, and what kind of security lapse had allowed this to happen?
What makes this situation even more alarming is the high-level nature of the officials involved. The chat included members who were directly responsible for the security and operational integrity of the U.S. government.
Waltz, Hegseth, Vance, and other senior national security figures discussed the military operation in Yemen in a manner that was, by all accounts, both reckless and highly unprofessional. The conversations contained minute details about weaponry, the precise timing of the strikes, the military targets, and even matters of military morale.
Despite the highly sensitive nature of the information being shared, the chat group operated on Signal—a messaging app widely known for its encryption but not approved for classified government communications. National security experts quickly pointed out that such discussions, especially those involving military action, should only take place over secure, government-approved channels.
Signal, while encrypted, does not meet the stringent security requirements for transmitting sensitive information related to national security.
What made this breach even more troubling was the lack of discretion demonstrated by the officials involved. Waltz, the National Security Adviser, continued to share increasingly sensitive details, including the exact weaponry that would be used in the strikes and the sequence of operations.
At no point did he appear to question why a journalist was present in the group, or whether the information he was disseminating was secure.
This lack of caution within a group of senior officials raised the question of what other, perhaps even more catastrophic, security breaches might have occurred due to the informal nature of the chat. These were not discussions among lower-level staff or aides; these were the individuals directly responsible for coordinating military operations and ensuring national security.
On March 15, mere hours after the Signal chat revealed details of the military operation, the Trump administration launched a series of air and naval strikes targeting the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Pentagon confirmed that the strikes were intended to neutralize key Houthi leaders and restore stability to the region, which is strategically important for both the U.S. and its allies.
The operation was part of a broader effort to combat Iranian-backed forces in Yemen and the surrounding area.
The striking thing about this operation was not just the speed with which it occurred but the fact that the details had been laid bare in such an informal and uncontrolled manner beforehand. Waltz appeared on ABC’s This Week, where he described the strikes as an "overwhelming response" and claimed that the U.S. was "holding Iran responsible" for the actions of the Houthis.
But the problem was that the very same information about the targets, weaponry, and the timing of the operation had already been revealed in the Signal chat.
This breach of security became even more consequential when considering the specific details that were shared. The chat messages included precise information about military tactics, the weaponry involved, and the targets selected.
Such revelations could have had catastrophic consequences had they been exposed to adversaries, including Iranian forces or hostile groups in the region. Military personnel's lives could have been at risk, and the operation's success could have been undermined by the premature disclosure of sensitive details.
The national security implications of this breach are not just theoretical. National security lawyers and experts pointed out that the use of apps like Signal to discuss active military operations is a direct violation of established protocols.
Communication about military operations should occur only through secure, government-approved systems, yet the officials involved in the Houthi airstrikes chose to use an unsecured app that is not compliant with federal security standards.
The fact that these conversations were not conducted on secure, approved platforms speaks to a dangerous disregard for established protocols. And while Signal may offer encryption, it does not offer the level of security required for discussions about military operations and national security.
Goldberg, upon realizing the extraordinary nature of the situation, eventually removed himself from the Signal group. However, there was no immediate reaction from the other members of the chat.
It wasn’t until Goldberg published his article in The Atlantic, detailing the story of the accidental leak, that the National Security Council was forced to address the situation publicly.
Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, confirmed the authenticity of the chat, though he described it as a “demonstration of deep and thoughtful policy coordination.” However, he also acknowledged that an “inadvertent number” had been added to the chat, inadvertently including Goldberg in the conversation.
The Trump administration, predictably, responded defensively. A spokesperson for Vice President JD Vance emphasized that the Vice President continued to support the administration's foreign policy despite the controversial nature of the leak.
Legal experts, however, have pointed out that this breach could have serious consequences for both national security and the integrity of military operations moving forward.
As the investigation into the leak unfolds, questions surrounding the use of unsecured communication platforms, the accountability of senior officials, and the integrity of military planning will take center stage. The public disclosure of such critical information underscores the critical need for more stringent security measures, especially when it comes to the planning and execution of military operations.
