Trump Advisers Accidentally Sent Journalist Top Secret War Plans

Everyone knows what it’s like to be unwillingly added to a group chat—but it’s not usually a threat to national security. 

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, reported Monday that earlier this month, he’d been dropped into a Signal group chat with several high-ranking members of Donald Trump’s administration, where they plotted a bombing campaign in Yemen. 

The 18 members of the group chat called “Houthi PC small group” appeared to include senior Trump officials and Cabinet members such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. 

Goldberg said that he had been inexplicably added to the group chat on March 11 by a user called Michael Waltz, whom Goldberg determined to be Trump’s national security adviser. 

There, in full view of the head of a publication Trump recently called a “Third Rate Magazine,” senior-most officials hatched what appears to be a moneymaking scheme to bomb a foreign country. The latest round of strikes last week killed more than 50 people so far, and injured 100 more, according to Al Jazeera.  

On March 13, Waltz wrote that he was creating a “principles group,” or principals committee of senior officials, to discuss national security plans. 

Waltz requested points of contact from the group’s many high-ranking members, and the names seemed to be reasonably real. For instance, Vance said his point of contact would be Andy Baker, his national security adviser, and Rubio said the State Department’s would be Mike Needham, Rubio’s counselor and chief of staff. 

The next day, a signal user identified as “JD Vance” aired his hesitations about moving forward with bombing Yemen. The alleged Vance claimed that it would be a “mistake” to defend trade in the Suez Canal because that would mostly benefit Europe, which sees 40 percent of its trade travel through that route. Meanwhile, the U.S. only ships 3 percent of trade through the Suez Canal. 

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.,” Vance wrote. 

A user called “Pete Hegseth” said that Vance should raise his concerns with the president. “I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what—nobody knows who the Houthis are—which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.” He pushed for them to proceed with the campaign in case Israel took action first or the plans leaked.

“This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered,” the user called Hegseth wrote. 

Waltz also pushed that they move forward with strikes, reminding members that the president had directed the Defense and State departments to “compile the costs associated and levy them on Europeans.” 

Later that day, the alleged Vance agreed with alleged Hegseth, writing, “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” 

The possible DOD head replied, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

One user, called “S M,” who Goldberg believed could be Stephen Miller, said that the U.S. should seek remuneration for the strikes in Yemen from Europe and Egypt, and figure out a way to “enforce such a requirement.”

“If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return,” the user “S M”  wrote. 

Goldberg wrote that the next day, March 15, Hegseth sent lengthy messages that could not be repeated. “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility,” Goldberg said.

To confirm that the group chat was legitimate, Goldberg said he waited for the first round of detonations to hit Sanaa, and they did, exactly when the user identified as “Pete Hegseth” said they would. A round of congratulatory messages were sent in the chat. Goldberg, having concluded that the conversation was real, exited the group chat, and received no follow-up from Waltz. 

Goldberg’s surreal experience among the decision-makers of the Trump administration comes amid promises to crack down on leakers within the government. 

Just hours before the U.S. began strikes on Yemen, Gabbard warned that the Trump administration would be aggressively pursuing leakers from within the intelligence community. By including Goldberg in the conversation, Waltz has made himself the classic definition of a leaker. But it may be worse than that.

“Every single one of the government officials on this text chain [has] now committed a crime—even if accidentally. We can’t trust anyone in this dangerous administration to keep Americans safe,” wrote Delaware Senator Chris Coons in a post on X Monday. 

The Atlantic reported that several national security experts surmised that Waltz’s use of Signal had likely violated the Espionage Act, because he had discussed information related to national defense. Typically, discussing military activity requires officials to enter a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, where cell phones are not allowed. “Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe,” Goldberg wrote. 

Signal is also not an approved venue for sensitive information, and because Waltz had set some of the messages to automatically disappear after a few weeks, it seems that the group chat likely violated federal rules about keeping records of official acts.

National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed Monday that the group chat was legitimate.

“At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our servicemembers or our national security,” he said.