Trump Administration Verifies Journalists’ Access to Private Military Conversations Amid Scandal Over Security Breach

Concern was raised when Trump administration officials unintentionally included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in a conversation about military operations in Yemen.

A journalist from The Atlantic magazine was part of a secret social media conversation concerning impending assaults on the Houthi armed organization in Yemen, according to confirmation from the US administration of US President Donald Trump.

Editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a piece for The Atlantic on Monday detailing his startling discovery that he had been admitted to a group conversation where senior government officials were debating military operations.

Goldberg’s article’s opening lines read, “On March 15, just before 2 p.m. eastern time [18:00 GMT], the world learned that the United States was bombing Houthi targets throughout Yemen.”

However, I was aware that the attack might occur two hours prior to the first bombs detonating. I was aware of this because, at 11:44 a.m. and 15:44 GMT, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth texted me the battle plan.

According to Goldberg, he got a message request on the encrypted messaging software Signal from a user going by the name “Michael Waltz.”

He initially questioned whether this Waltz was indeed Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz.

However, he quickly found himself in the middle of a discussion with eighteen government officials, including Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“This breach is unlike any I have ever seen,” Goldberg stated. In the end, he left the chat and informed the White House about the security violation.

In a National Security Council statement released to the public, the Trump administration verified the occurrence.

In the statement, council spokesperson Brian Hughes stated, “At this point, the reported message thread seems to be genuine, and we are investigating how an accidental number was added to the chain.”

“The thread is an example of senior officials’ careful and profound policy coordination.”

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce referred reporters to the White House and declined to comment during a press conference later Monday.

During a White House event to introduce a steel factory for the manufacturer Hyundai in Louisiana, Trump was also questioned about the controversy.

Trump started off by saying, “I don’t know anything about it,” before criticizing the magazine.

“The Atlantic doesn’t really appeal to me. It seems to me that the publication is going out of business. Although I don’t know much about it, I don’t think it’s much of a magazine.

He then requested information regarding the security breach from reporters.

“What were they discussing?” Trump enquired.

Then, he seemed to mistake the breach for a deliberate effort to undermine the US military’s presence in Yemen.

Given how successful the attack was, it couldn’t have been that effective. That’s all I can tell you,” Trump remarked. “I have no knowledge of that. This is the first time you’ve told me about it.

However, detractors are immediately demanding that what happened be looked into. Among those who advocated for Congress to convene an oversight hearing and demand accountability was Delaware Democrat Senator Chris Coons.

Coons posted on social media that “Jeffrey Goldberg’s reporting in The Atlantic calls for a prompt and thorough investigation.”

“It is a startling violation of the rules for exchanging classified information that could have endangered American service members if senior advisors to President Trump actually discussed and communicated intricate war plans using insecure, non-government platforms.”

On March 15, following Trump’s social media announcement that he had directed the military “to launch decisive and powerful” actions against the Yemeni organization, the United States launched its most recent round of attacks against the Houthis.

However, Goldberg’s exchanges with the Signal private conversation provide insight into the process of making that choice.

US military activity against the Houthis has been ongoing for a long time, including under Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden.

The Houthis have been attacking Israeli boats and commercial ships in the Red Sea and nearby waterways since October 2023 in protest of Israel’s conflict in Gaza.

Since then, Houthi fire has targeted about 100 cargo ships, two of which have been sunk. But when a brief ceasefire was established in Gaza in January, the Houthi strikes stopped.

Nevertheless, earlier this month, Trump fulfilled his pledge to label the Houthis a “foreign terrorist organization,” which he made early in his second term.

Israel then started preventing humanitarian aid from getting to Gaza on March 2, which is in dire need of food and medical supplies. The Houthis responded by threatening to launch an attack if the blockade was not lifted. Since then, the ceasefire in Gaza has broken down, resulting in more deaths and devastation throughout the Palestinian territory.

Goldberg claimed that Waltz, the national security adviser, sent him the invitation on Signal on March 11.

“I thought right away that someone might be pretending to be Waltz to trick me in some way,” Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic.

“In the hopes that this was the real national security adviser and that he wanted to talk about Iran, Ukraine, or some other significant issue, I accepted the connection request.”

Instead, Goldberg joined a secret conversation called “Houthi PC small group” two days later. Senior US government officials there seemed to be debating an impending assault on Houthi strongholds in Yemen, including the capital city of Sanaa.

According to Goldberg, “I had very strong doubts that this text group was real.” “I also found it inconceivable that the president’s national security adviser would be so careless as to involve The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief in such conversations with high-ranking U.S. officials, including the vice president.”

The access, however, gave Goldberg a front-row seat to some of the policy schisms and backroom wrangling that are taking place in the Trump administration.

“I’m worried that attacking the Houthis will ultimately benefit European trade more than US shipping interests,” said a conversation member who seemed to be Vice President Vance.

In order to better assess public sentiment and the potential economic effects, he suggested postponing the bombing campaign.

Vance stated, “I am prepared to support the team’s consensus and keep these concerns to myself.” “However, there is a compelling case for postponing this for a month in order to complete the messaging regarding the importance of these issues, assess the state of the economy, etc.”

According to a source claiming to be Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a postponement would “not fundamentally change the calculus.” However, he cautioned against the United States taking too long.

Hegseth wrote, “There are immediate risks to waiting: 1) this leaks and we appear unsure, 2) Israel acts first or the ceasefire in Gaza collapses and we are unable to begin this on our own terms.”

Vance seemed resigned, and his main worries were about the potential advantages of any strikes for Europe.

“Let’s go if you think we should. Vance answered, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

“VP, I completely share your loathing of European freeloading,” Hegseth added once more. It’s PATHETIC. On our side of the ledger, however, Mike is right—we are the only people on the globe who are capable of doing this.

The president seemed to be represented by another person who went by the name of SM. According to Goldberg, he thought this was Trump’s homeland security adviser Stephen Miller.

“We quickly made clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return, but the president was clear, green light,” SM added.

“There must be some additional economic benefit extracted in return if the United States is successful in restoring freedom of navigation at a significant cost.”

The operational facts of the subsequent military action were not disclosed by Goldberg. He did clarify, however, that the activities described in the group chat corresponded with the bombs falling in Yemen.

He also revealed the celebration that erupted after the military attacks, with authorities posting emojis of a flame, a flexing bicep, and the US flag.

I came to the conclusion that the Signal chat group was most likely authentic. I left the Signal group after realizing this, which had seemed very impossible just hours earlier,” Goldberg stated.

He questioned if it was appropriate for US officials to discuss such delicate military matters on social media.

National security personnel frequently use Signal for communication. However, Goldberg clarified that the app is not used for in-depth and extremely private conversations about an impending military strike, but rather for meeting planning and other logistical issues.

“There would have been a serious risk to national security if they had misplaced or stolen their phones.”

Additionally, the editor wondered if the chat officials were breaking any laws pertaining to public records.

The chat’s messages were programmed to expire automatically after a predetermined amount of time.

According to Goldberg, “text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.”

Waltz may face legal repercussions for allegedly letting Goldberg in the first place and exposing sensitive national security secrets.

According to Goldberg, “the group was transmitting information to someone who was not authorized to receive it.” “That is how a leak is traditionally defined.”