On March 15, a significant security lapse occurred when senior officials from the Trump administration added prominent journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic to a Signal text chain. The chain discussed plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen, and Goldberg learned of the operation two hours before it became public.
Goldberg, who Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser, added to the Signal thread on March 11, initially didn’t find it unusual. He assumed that someone might be masquerading as Waltz or trying to entrap him, but as time went on, Goldberg became increasingly convinced the messages were authentic.
According to his article, Goldberg first learned about the attack when Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense<, sent him specific details about the military plan at 11:44 a.m. on March 15. This included information on the weapons packages, targets, and timing of the attack. The first bombings began shortly after, at around 2 p.m. Eastern time.
The text chain, labeled “Houthi PC small group,” included various high-level officials, including Vice President JD Vance and other key figures. Goldberg described the conversations as revealing operational military details and stated that they should not have been shared on such an insecure platform, especially with a journalist included in the discussion.
Goldberg raised concerns about the use of Signal, an encrypted messaging app, for discussing sensitive military operations. He pointed out that users typically use Signal for logistical planning and unclassified information, not for highly confidential matters like military actions. Sharing such information on an app not officially authorized for handling national security data could violate US law, including provisions under the Espionage Act.
Additionally, using a disappearing message feature on Signal also raises issues related to federal records law, which governs the preservation of documents related to national defense.
Goldberg described the situation as a “shocking recklessness,” as the military operation’s details were shared in an unsecured environment. He noted that had adversaries intercepted the information, it could have put US military personnel and intelligence operations at risk, particularly in the Middle East.
The Signal chat continued after the attack, with members of the group congratulating each other on the successful operation. Despite the disturbing nature of the leak, Goldberg ultimately concluded that the chat was likely real. He removed himself from the group and alerted administration officials about the security breach.
The National Security Council (NSC) responded to the incident, confirming the authenticity of the messages and stating that an inadvertent number had been added to the chain. The NSC emphasized that the success of the operation showed no threats to US troops or national security. A spokesperson for Vice President Vance also expressed support for the administration’s policies, asserting that Vance and the President were in full agreement on the issue.
Goldberg’s article included comments from former US officials, who revealed that they used Signal for unclassified communications but avoided sharing sensitive information for fear of hacking by foreign intelligence services. Goldberg described this incident as unprecedented, noting that while national security officials often use Signal for certain purposes, sharing plans for military strikes in this chat was highly unusual for such a platform.