‘A shocking breach’: Trump officials leak military attacks to The Atlantic

A journalist from The Atlantic magazine was reportedly a part of a private social media conversation about upcoming attacks on the Houthi armed group in Yemen, according to the administration of US President Donald Trump.

On Monday, The Atlantic published an article from editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, in which he described the stunning realisation that he had been added to a group chat where high-level government officials were discussing military actions.

In the opening lines of his article, Goldberg wrote that “the world discovered shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time]18:00 GMT] on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.

However, I was aware of the threat of the attack two hours before the first bombs detonated. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11: 44 a. m]15: 44 GMT]”.

On the encrypted messaging app Signal, a user named “Michael Waltz” requested a message from Goldberg. He initially had doubts about whether this Waltz could actually be Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz.

But soon, he found himself in the midst of a conversation with 18 government officials, some of whom appeared to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance and Hegseth.

A breach this large, Goldberg wrote, “has never been seen before.” In the end, he removed himself from the conversation and informed the White House of the security breach.

The Trump administration has confirmed the incident in a statement from the National Security Council that was shared with the media.

Council spokesman Brian Hughes said in the statement that “the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic at this time and that we are looking into how an unintentional number was added to the chain.”

The thread demonstrates how thoughtfully and thoughtful senior officials collaborate on policy.

At a news conference later on Monday, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment, referring reporters to the White House.

Trump addressed the controversy at a White House press conference that included the unveiling of a Hyundai steel mill in Louisiana.

Trump began, “I don’t know anything about it,” before slamming the magazine itself.

“I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. It seems to me like the magazine is closing down. Although I have no knowledge of it, I don’t think it’s very much of a magazine.

He proceeded to ask reporters to give him details about the security breach.

What were they referring to? Trump posed a question. He then appeared to confuse the breach with an intentional attempt to subvert the US military operation in Yemen.

Because of how effective the attack was, it couldn’t have been very effective. Trump said, “I can tell you that.” “I don’t know anything about it. You’re the first to inform me of it.

However, some critics are already requesting an investigation into the incident. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, was among those who said Congress should hold an oversight hearing and demand accountability.

According to Coons on social media, “Jeffrey Goldberg’s reporting in The Atlantic calls for a quick and thorough investigation.”

It is a shocking violation of the rules for sharing classified information that could have put American servicemembers in danger if senior advisors to President Trump actually discussed and communicated detailed war plans in non-secure, non-government systems.

What transpired?

On March 15, Trump announced on social media that he had ordered the military to “launch decisive and powerful” operations against the Yemeni group, leading to the most recent wave of US attacks against the Houthis.

But Goldberg’s interactions with the private Signal chat offer a glimpse at how that decision came about.

Under Trump’s Democratic nemesis, Joe Biden, the Houthis have frequently been the target of US military action.

In a show of force against Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the Houthis have attacked Israeli ships and commercial ships in the Red Sea and nearby waterways since October 2023.

Approximately 100 merchant ships have come under Houthi fire from that point onwards, and two have been sunk. In January, a brief-lived ceasefire brought the Houthi attacks to an end in Gaza.

Trump made the announcement to designate the Houthis a “foreign terrorist organization” at the beginning of his second term, which was confirmed earlier this month.

Then, on March 2, Israel began to block humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza, which lacks adequate food and medical supplies. If the blockade wasn’t broken, the Houthis retaliated by saying they would attack. Since the ceasefire ended, more people have died and were destroyed in the Palestinian territory as a result of it.

It was March 11 when Goldberg said he received his invitation from Waltz, the national security adviser, on Signal.

In The Atlantic, Goldberg wrote, “It immediately crossed my mind that someone might be trying to trick me into believing they are Waltz.”

I consented to the connection request, pleading that he wanted to talk about Ukraine, Iran, or some other pressing issues.

Two days later, Goldberg instead found himself part of a private chat entitled, “Houthi PC small group”. Some of the US government’s most senior officials there appeared to be discussing an upcoming attack on Houthi strongholds in Yemen, including Sanaa, the country’s capital.

Goldberg remarked, “I had a lot of doubts about whether this text group was real.” “I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U. S. officials, up to and including the vice president”.

However, the access gave Goldberg a first-hand look at some of the policy schisms that the discussions about in the Trump administration uncovered.

A conversation involving Vice President Vance and a participant who appeared to be Vice President Vance expressed concern that attacking the Houthis would ultimately benefit European trade more than US shipping interests.

He proposed delaying the bombing campaign, in order to better gauge public opinion and the economic ramifications.

Vance said, “I’m willing to support the team’s consensus and keep these issues to myself.” However, there is a compelling argument to postpone this for a month, conduct research on why this matters, assess the state of the economy, etc.

A person identified as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded that a delay would “not fundamentally change the calculus”. He did, however, warn against the US from dragging its feet.

Hegseth wrote, “There are two immediate risks to waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes action first; or, “Gaza ceasefire breaks;” and we don’t get to start this on our own terms.

Vance appeared to be resigning, and his concerns were primarily centered on the potential benefits of strikes on Europe.

Let’s leave if you think we should do it, please. I just hate bailing Europe out again”, Vance replied.

Hegseth once more retorted, “VP: I completely detest your dislike of European free-loading. It is PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this”.

Another official, identified as SM, made an appearance to speak out in the president’s place. According to Goldberg, this is Stephen Miller, Trump’s adviser on homeland security.

“The president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return”, SM wrote.

“There needs to be some additional economic gain extracted in return if the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at a great cost.”

The military strike that broke out afterwards was not disclosed by Goldberg. But he did explain that the actions outlined in the group chat matched the bombs raining down in Yemen.

He also shared the cheer that followed the military strikes, with officials posing with flames, a flag, and a bicep in jubilation.

I came to the conclusion that the Signal chat group was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group”, Goldberg wrote.

He questioned whether US officials were allowed to discuss such contentious military action on social media.

“National security officials communicate via Signal frequently.” But 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 explained.

The potential threat to national security would have been significant if they had lost their phones, or had they been stolen.

The chat’s hosts also raised the question of whether the officials were breaking the law governing public records. The messages in the chat were set to automatically delete after a certain period of time.

According to Goldberg, “Text messages about official documents are regarded as records that ought to be preserved.”

Waltz himself could face legal repercussions if he allegedly included Goldberg in the first place, leaking national security information into the general public.

Source: Aljazeera