In a stunning breach of operational security, senior officials in the Trump administration inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, in a Signal group chat where they openly discussed sensitive military plans for airstrikes in Yemen.
The incident, which Goldberg detailed in a report published on March 24, 2025, has raised serious questions about the administration’s handling of classified information and its reliance on commercial messaging platforms for high-stakes national security discussions.
A Signal Misstep with Global Implications
The group chat, titled “Houthi PC small group,” was reportedly created by National Security Advisor Michael Waltz to coordinate plans for strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Participants included some of the most senior figures in the Trump administration, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Goldberg, who was mistakenly added to the chat, initially believed the messages might be part of a disinformation campaign. However, as the discussions unfolded and matched real-time events, it became clear that the group was authentic.
The Signal chat revealed detailed deliberations about the timing, targets, and strategic rationale for the strikes. Hegseth reportedly shared precise operational details, including weapons packages and attack sequencing, just hours before the strikes were carried out on March 15. Goldberg, who remained in the group for several days, observed the discussions in disbelief, later confirming their authenticity when explosions in Yemen aligned with the timeline shared in the chat.
A Breach of Trust—and Security
The National Security Council has since confirmed the authenticity of the Signal group, with spokesperson Brian Hughes stating, “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.” Hughes defended the administration’s actions, claiming that the operation’s success demonstrated there were “no threats to troops or national security.” However, this explanation has done little to quell criticism from national security experts and lawmakers.
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and Secretary of Defense, called the incident a “serious blunder” that could have jeopardized lives and violated federal laws governing the handling of classified information. “The use of a commercial messaging app for such sensitive discussions is reckless,” Panetta said in an interview with CNN. “This is not just a lapse in judgment; it’s a systemic failure that undermines our national security.”
Internal Divisions Exposed
Beyond the operational details, the Signal chat also revealed significant policy disagreements within the administration. Vice President Vance expressed reservations about the timing of the strikes, citing potential economic fallout and inconsistencies with the administration’s messaging on Europe. “There’s a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” Vance reportedly wrote. Despite his concerns, he ultimately deferred to the consensus of the group, stating, “If you think we should do it, let’s go.”
Hegseth, in contrast, argued for immediate action, emphasizing the need to “restore freedom of navigation” and “reestablish deterrence” against Iran. “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus,” he wrote, warning that delays could make the administration appear indecisive or allow other actors, such as Israel, to act first.
The Risks of Digital Diplomacy
The incident has reignited debates about the use of encrypted messaging apps like Signal for government communications. While these platforms offer robust encryption, their use for discussing classified information raises serious legal and ethical questions. Experts warn that such practices could violate the Espionage Act and federal records laws, which require the preservation of official communications.
“This is amateur hour at the highest levels of government,” said Susan Hennessey, a former National Security Agency attorney. “The reliance on Signal for such sensitive discussions not only risks leaks but also undermines public trust in the administration’s ability to manage national security responsibly.”
A Wake-Up Call for Washington
The fallout from this incident is likely to be far-reaching. Members of Congress, including Representative Pat Ryan, have called for immediate hearings to investigate how such a breach occurred and to ensure it does not happen again. “If House Republicans won’t hold a hearing on how this happened IMMEDIATELY, I’ll do it myself,” Ryan tweeted.
For the Trump administration, the episode is a stark reminder of the perils of digital communication in an era of heightened geopolitical tensions. As the U.S. navigates complex challenges in the Middle East and beyond, the need for secure and disciplined communication has never been more critical. Whether this incident will lead to meaningful reforms—or simply fade into the chaos of Washington’s news cycle—remains to be seen.
In the meantime, the world is left to grapple with the implications of a government that, in its pursuit of swift action, may have sacrificed the very security it seeks to protect.