How a U.S. Reporter Found Themselves in a Covert Discussion on Yemen Attack Strategies
On Monday, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, revealed that senior U.S. national security officials included him in a Signal group chat focused on a military strike against Houthi forces in Yemen. He mentioned that he learned about the air strike plan approximately two hours prior to the U.S. operation.
TroibNews 
Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, revealed on Monday that senior U.S. national security officials recently included him in a Signal group chat that was discussing a military strike against Houthi forces in Yemen. He noted that he learned about the airstrike plans approximately two hours before the U.S. operation commenced.
The handling of such sensitive information by the officials has ignited significant criticism, particularly from Democratic lawmakers and legal experts who are concerned about breaches of security protocols and the associated legal implications.
The Backstory
Goldberg provided details about the incident in an article published on the magazine’s website on Monday. He explained that on March 11, he received a connection request from a user named Michael Waltz on the Signal messaging app — the name of the U.S. national security advisor. At the time, it was uncertain whether this was indeed the official’s actual account.
Two days later, he was notified that he would be added to a group chat named "Houthi PC Small Group." A message attributed to "Michael Waltz" stated, "Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours," according to Goldberg.
He explained that the term "principals committee" typically refers to a group comprising the highest-ranking national security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and treasury, as well as the CIA director.
Goldberg expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the group chat, doubting that U.S. national security leaders would use Signal to discuss imminent military plans. Additionally, he couldn't fathom that the national security advisor to the president would be so reckless as to involve the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in such discussions that included senior U.S. officials, such as Vice President JD Vance. However, as the conversation continued, he began to recognize a high degree of authenticity.
"What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing," Goldberg remarked, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
After the airstrikes occurred as outlined in the group chat, Goldberg reached out to several U.S. officials in the chat to confirm whether the Signal thread was genuine and to inquire about his inclusion in the conversation.
"This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain," replied Brian Hughes, spokesperson for the National Security Council.
What Did Trump and Others Say?
Later that day, President Donald Trump was questioned about the incident during a White House media briefing, to which he responded that he was unaware of it. "I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time," Trump stated, adding that The Atlantic was "not much of a magazine."
The president later appeared to downplay the breach by sharing a post from Elon Musk on social media platform X that linked to a satirical article titled "4D Chess: Genius Trump Leaks War Plans to 'The Atlantic,' Where They'll Go Unnoticed."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement, saying, "President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz."
When questioned about the incident, Hegseth stated, "Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that." He also criticized Goldberg, calling him "a deceitful and highly discredited so-called 'journalist' who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again."
Criticism and Concerns
"I have never seen a breach quite like this," Goldberg wrote in his article.
Hughes downplayed the incident in his response, indicating that "the thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials" and claimed "there were no threats to troops or national security."
Nonetheless, the event has raised serious concerns and faced intense criticism.
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and 2016 presidential candidate who faced severe backlash from Republicans for using a private email server for official correspondence, tweeted a screenshot of The Atlantic article accompanied by an "eyes wide open" emoji and the message, "You have got to be kidding me."
"If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen," stated Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Military operations need to be handled with utmost discretion, using approved, secure lines of communication, because American lives are on the line. The carelessness shown by President Trump's Cabinet is stunning and dangerous. I will be seeking answers from the administration immediately," the senator added.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized the incident as "amateur behavior" and called for "a full investigation into how this happened and the damage it created."
"This kind of security breach is how people get killed. How our enemies take advantage. How our national security falls into danger. These people are clearly not up for the job," he posted on X.
Potential Legal Implications
Ironically, the breach coincides with the announcement from Hegseth's office regarding a crackdown on leaks of sensitive information.
Signal is an open-source, encrypted messaging platform used for instant messaging, voice calls, and video calls, offering enhanced privacy and security compared to conventional messaging services.
"The app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters – not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action," Goldberg stated, highlighting potential risks of hacking.
Waltz's actions in coordinating a national security-related discussion over Signal may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of "national defense" information, as noted by national security lawyers who were consulted by Goldberg’s colleague.
"All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place," Goldberg explained.
He highlighted another possible legal issue: Waltz had set some messages in the group to disappear after one week, and others after four. This raises concerns about violations of federal records law, as text messages regarding official actions are classified as records that must be retained.
"Waltz and the other Cabinet-level officials were already potentially violating government policy and the law simply by texting one another about the operation," Goldberg noted.
"But when Waltz added a journalist – presumably by mistake – to his principals committee, he created new security and legal issues. Now the group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it. That is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional," he concluded.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
The handling of such sensitive information by the officials has ignited significant criticism, particularly from Democratic lawmakers and legal experts who are concerned about breaches of security protocols and the associated legal implications.
The Backstory
Goldberg provided details about the incident in an article published on the magazine’s website on Monday. He explained that on March 11, he received a connection request from a user named Michael Waltz on the Signal messaging app — the name of the U.S. national security advisor. At the time, it was uncertain whether this was indeed the official’s actual account.
Two days later, he was notified that he would be added to a group chat named "Houthi PC Small Group." A message attributed to "Michael Waltz" stated, "Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours," according to Goldberg.
He explained that the term "principals committee" typically refers to a group comprising the highest-ranking national security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and treasury, as well as the CIA director.
Goldberg expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the group chat, doubting that U.S. national security leaders would use Signal to discuss imminent military plans. Additionally, he couldn't fathom that the national security advisor to the president would be so reckless as to involve the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in such discussions that included senior U.S. officials, such as Vice President JD Vance. However, as the conversation continued, he began to recognize a high degree of authenticity.
"What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing," Goldberg remarked, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
After the airstrikes occurred as outlined in the group chat, Goldberg reached out to several U.S. officials in the chat to confirm whether the Signal thread was genuine and to inquire about his inclusion in the conversation.
"This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain," replied Brian Hughes, spokesperson for the National Security Council.
What Did Trump and Others Say?
Later that day, President Donald Trump was questioned about the incident during a White House media briefing, to which he responded that he was unaware of it. "I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time," Trump stated, adding that The Atlantic was "not much of a magazine."
The president later appeared to downplay the breach by sharing a post from Elon Musk on social media platform X that linked to a satirical article titled "4D Chess: Genius Trump Leaks War Plans to 'The Atlantic,' Where They'll Go Unnoticed."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement, saying, "President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz."
When questioned about the incident, Hegseth stated, "Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that." He also criticized Goldberg, calling him "a deceitful and highly discredited so-called 'journalist' who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again."
Criticism and Concerns
"I have never seen a breach quite like this," Goldberg wrote in his article.
Hughes downplayed the incident in his response, indicating that "the thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials" and claimed "there were no threats to troops or national security."
Nonetheless, the event has raised serious concerns and faced intense criticism.
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and 2016 presidential candidate who faced severe backlash from Republicans for using a private email server for official correspondence, tweeted a screenshot of The Atlantic article accompanied by an "eyes wide open" emoji and the message, "You have got to be kidding me."
"If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen," stated Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Military operations need to be handled with utmost discretion, using approved, secure lines of communication, because American lives are on the line. The carelessness shown by President Trump's Cabinet is stunning and dangerous. I will be seeking answers from the administration immediately," the senator added.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized the incident as "amateur behavior" and called for "a full investigation into how this happened and the damage it created."
"This kind of security breach is how people get killed. How our enemies take advantage. How our national security falls into danger. These people are clearly not up for the job," he posted on X.
Potential Legal Implications
Ironically, the breach coincides with the announcement from Hegseth's office regarding a crackdown on leaks of sensitive information.
Signal is an open-source, encrypted messaging platform used for instant messaging, voice calls, and video calls, offering enhanced privacy and security compared to conventional messaging services.
"The app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters – not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action," Goldberg stated, highlighting potential risks of hacking.
Waltz's actions in coordinating a national security-related discussion over Signal may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of "national defense" information, as noted by national security lawyers who were consulted by Goldberg’s colleague.
"All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place," Goldberg explained.
He highlighted another possible legal issue: Waltz had set some messages in the group to disappear after one week, and others after four. This raises concerns about violations of federal records law, as text messages regarding official actions are classified as records that must be retained.
"Waltz and the other Cabinet-level officials were already potentially violating government policy and the law simply by texting one another about the operation," Goldberg noted.
"But when Waltz added a journalist – presumably by mistake – to his principals committee, he created new security and legal issues. Now the group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it. That is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional," he concluded.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
