UPDATED
By AFP
March 24, 2025
Aurélia END
The White House on Monday confirmed that a journalist was included in a group chat in which US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and other top officials discussed upcoming strikes against Yemen’s Huthi rebels.
President Donald Trump announced the strikes on March 15, but in a shocking security breach, The Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that he had hours of advance notice via the group chat on Signal.
“The message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said.
Trump meanwhile told journalists that “I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time,” also saying that “the attack was very effective” in any case.
The leak could have been highly damaging if Goldberg had publicized details of the plan in advance, but he did not do so even after the fact.
He did however write that Hegseth sent information on the strikes, including on “targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing,” to the group chat.
“According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 pm eastern time,” Goldberg wrote — a timeline that was borne out on the ground in Yemen.
Goldberg said he was added to the group chat two days earlier, and received messages from other top government officials designating representatives who would work on the issue.
– Officials ‘committed a crime’ –
On March 14, a person identified as Vance expressed doubts about carrying out the strikes, saying he hated “bailing Europe out again,” as countries there were more affected by Huthi attacks on shipping than the United States.
Group chat contributors identified as National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Hegseth both sent messages arguing only Washington had the capability to carry out the mission, with the latter official noting that he shared Vance’s “loathing of European free-loading.”
And a person identified as “S M” — possibly Trump adviser Stephen Miller — argued that “if the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
The security breach provoked outrage among Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Chris Coons, who wrote on X that “every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime.”
The Huthi rebels, who have controlled much of Yemen for more than a decade, are part of the “axis of resistance” of pro-Iran groups staunchly opposed to Israel and the United States.
They have launched scores of drone and missiles attacks at ships passing Yemen in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden during the Gaza war, claiming solidarity with the Palestinians.
The Huthis’ campaign crippled the vital route, which normally carries about 12 percent of world shipping traffic, forcing many companies into a costly detour around the tip of southern Africa.
The US began targeting the Huthis in response under the previous administration of President Joe Biden, and has launched repeated rounds of strikes on Huthi targets, some with British support.
Trump has vowed to “use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective,” citing the Huthis’ threats against Red Sea shipping, and US strikes have continued over the past 10 days.
The White House on Monday confirmed that a journalist was included in a group chat in which US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and other top officials discussed upcoming strikes against Yemen’s Huthi rebels.
President Donald Trump announced the strikes on March 15, but in a shocking security breach, The Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that he had hours of advance notice via the group chat on Signal.
“The message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said.
Trump meanwhile told journalists that “I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time,” also saying that “the attack was very effective” in any case.
The leak could have been highly damaging if Goldberg had publicized details of the plan in advance, but he did not do so even after the fact.
He did however write that Hegseth sent information on the strikes, including on “targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing,” to the group chat.
“According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 pm eastern time,” Goldberg wrote — a timeline that was borne out on the ground in Yemen.
Goldberg said he was added to the group chat two days earlier, and received messages from other top government officials designating representatives who would work on the issue.
– Officials ‘committed a crime’ –
On March 14, a person identified as Vance expressed doubts about carrying out the strikes, saying he hated “bailing Europe out again,” as countries there were more affected by Huthi attacks on shipping than the United States.
Group chat contributors identified as National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Hegseth both sent messages arguing only Washington had the capability to carry out the mission, with the latter official noting that he shared Vance’s “loathing of European free-loading.”
And a person identified as “S M” — possibly Trump adviser Stephen Miller — argued that “if the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
The security breach provoked outrage among Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Chris Coons, who wrote on X that “every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime.”
The Huthi rebels, who have controlled much of Yemen for more than a decade, are part of the “axis of resistance” of pro-Iran groups staunchly opposed to Israel and the United States.
They have launched scores of drone and missiles attacks at ships passing Yemen in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden during the Gaza war, claiming solidarity with the Palestinians.
The Huthis’ campaign crippled the vital route, which normally carries about 12 percent of world shipping traffic, forcing many companies into a costly detour around the tip of southern Africa.
The US began targeting the Huthis in response under the previous administration of President Joe Biden, and has launched repeated rounds of strikes on Huthi targets, some with British support.
Trump has vowed to “use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective,” citing the Huthis’ threats against Red Sea shipping, and US strikes have continued over the past 10 days.
Journalist stunned as defense officials inadvertently send him top-secret war plans
Brad Reed
March 24, 2025
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
Pete Hegseth, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of defense, testifies before a Senate Committee on Armed Services confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 14, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg had advance notice of a recent United States military strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen because he was inadvertently sent plans for the strike in a message from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Goldberg writes that this massive security breach began on March 11th when he received a connection request on encrypted messaging app signal from a user named Mike Waltz, which just happens to be the name of President Donald Trump's national security adviser.
After accepting the request, Goldberg was then invited to join a messaging channel called "Houthi PC small group" that appeared to show administration officials coordinating plans to attack the Houthis.
Goldberg writes that he was initially skeptical that these accounts were really Trump administration officials and he worried that he had been invited to a channel set up by a hostile foreign power to spread disinformation about American foreign policy.
"I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans," he explains. "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, Goldberg started to realize that he was dealing with the real thing after a user identified as Hegseth sent highly detailed plans for a strike in Yemen — and then watched as bombs began dropping on the country mere hours later.
Goldberg quietly left the Signal group and then sent questions to assorted Trump officials asking them why they had given him access to top-secret war plans.
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded to Goldberg and confirmed to him that the Signal messages were legitimate.
“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes informed Goldberg. “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 troops or national security.”
Pete Hegseth, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of defense, testifies before a Senate Committee on Armed Services confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 14, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg had advance notice of a recent United States military strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen because he was inadvertently sent plans for the strike in a message from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Goldberg writes that this massive security breach began on March 11th when he received a connection request on encrypted messaging app signal from a user named Mike Waltz, which just happens to be the name of President Donald Trump's national security adviser.
After accepting the request, Goldberg was then invited to join a messaging channel called "Houthi PC small group" that appeared to show administration officials coordinating plans to attack the Houthis.
Goldberg writes that he was initially skeptical that these accounts were really Trump administration officials and he worried that he had been invited to a channel set up by a hostile foreign power to spread disinformation about American foreign policy.
"I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans," he explains. "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, Goldberg started to realize that he was dealing with the real thing after a user identified as Hegseth sent highly detailed plans for a strike in Yemen — and then watched as bombs began dropping on the country mere hours later.
Goldberg quietly left the Signal group and then sent questions to assorted Trump officials asking them why they had given him access to top-secret war plans.
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded to Goldberg and confirmed to him that the Signal messages were legitimate.
“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes informed Goldberg. “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 troops or national security.”
'So bad at this': Karoline Leavitt mocked after insisting 'no war plans' sent to reporter
David Edwards
March 25, 2025
David Edwards
March 25, 2025
RAW STORY
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks to members of the media following U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House from National Harbor, after his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) annual meeting, on the South Lawn in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 22, 2025. REUTERS/Craig Hudson
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was trashed online after claiming that no "war plans" were discussed when a journalist for The Atlantic was included in a secret war-planning chat about recent strikes on Yemen.
"Jeffrey Goldberg is well-known for his sensationalist spin," Leavitt wrote Tuesday on X after Goldberg's report in the magazine, which describes war planning he was privy to on a Signal chat with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others.
"No 'war plans' were discussed," she insisted.
"No classified material was sent to the thread," Leavitt continued. "The White House Counsel's Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump's top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible."
"Thanks to the strong and decisive leadership of President Trump, and everyone in the group, the Houthi strikes were successful and effective. Terrorists were killed and that's what matters most to President Trump," she added.
Commenters responded by slamming Leavitt for spinning the facts.
"You're so bad at this," The Lincoln Project opined.
"What spin was there? He received texts about secret plans to bomb Yemen and then reported on it. It sounds like you guys are the ones trying to spin things," political commentator Brian Krassenstein pointed out.
"Normally, the focus would be on ensuring accountability and punishing those responsible for such a massive security breach, not deflecting," Ukraine pundit Akash Maniam argued.
"Cupcake, you know he can call your bluff by printing the entire chat, right?" liberal commenter @Andie00471 said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was trashed online after claiming that no "war plans" were discussed when a journalist for The Atlantic was included in a secret war-planning chat about recent strikes on Yemen.
"Jeffrey Goldberg is well-known for his sensationalist spin," Leavitt wrote Tuesday on X after Goldberg's report in the magazine, which describes war planning he was privy to on a Signal chat with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others.
"No 'war plans' were discussed," she insisted.
"No classified material was sent to the thread," Leavitt continued. "The White House Counsel's Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump's top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible."
"Thanks to the strong and decisive leadership of President Trump, and everyone in the group, the Houthi strikes were successful and effective. Terrorists were killed and that's what matters most to President Trump," she added.
Commenters responded by slamming Leavitt for spinning the facts.
"You're so bad at this," The Lincoln Project opined.
"What spin was there? He received texts about secret plans to bomb Yemen and then reported on it. It sounds like you guys are the ones trying to spin things," political commentator Brian Krassenstein pointed out.
"Normally, the focus would be on ensuring accountability and punishing those responsible for such a massive security breach, not deflecting," Ukraine pundit Akash Maniam argued.
"Cupcake, you know he can call your bluff by printing the entire chat, right?" liberal commenter @Andie00471 said.
'Not a one-off': Top Dem links war plans fiasco to Elon Musk's DOGE
Sarah K. Burris
March 25, 2025
FILE PHOTO: The seal of the Central Intelligence Agency is shown at the entrance of the CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia, U.S., September 24, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) began a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday by decrying a massive cut in the nation's critical intelligence infrastructure — a result of sweeping government staffing cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Elon Musk's DOGE has been behind upheaval and dismantling of many government agencies. Websites, grants, programs, and employees have been cut or frozen under the promise that Trump will save taxpayers trillions.
And the cuts have included intelligence positions in the government.
In his opening statement, Warner cited a bombshell report from The Atlantic that top officials in Trump's Cabinet were communicating about classified war plans in a Signal chat — and had inadvertently included a reporter.
He called it "sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information." He then connected it to the DOGE cuts. "This is not a one-off or a first-time error. Let me take a couple of minutes and review some of the other reckless choices that this administration has made regarding our national security," he said.
Warner continued, "In the first two weeks [FBI Director Kash] Patel, the administration fired several of our most experienced FBI agents, including the head of the criminal investigative division, the head of the intelligence division, the head of the counterterrorism division, the heads of the New York, Washington, and Miami field office. All individuals who were distantly and directly responsible for helping to keep America safe."
Warner also cited the irony of "the recently dismissed head of the counterterrorism division, who was involved in disrupting the ISIS attack plan for Oklahoma City and Philadelphia, and helped lead the effort to bring to justice the key planner of the bombing at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan."
Warner said he can't understand how Americans are being made "more secure by firing more than 300 staff at the National Nuclear Security Administration, including those responsible for overseeing the security and safety of the nuclear stockpile."
"Our intelligence officers, they are not interchangeable like a Twitter coder," said Warner. It's a throwback to Musk's takeover of the social media site, in which he fired nearly all staff and then re-hired some as problems arose. Warner said that the U.S., particularly those in the intelligence community, can't be as easily dismissed.
"These intelligence officers — our country makes $20,000 to $40,000 of an investment just in getting security clearance. Literally close into six figures when you take the training involved. Can anyone tell how firing probationary individuals without any consideration for merit or expertise is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?" he asked.
See the clip below or at the link here.
Sarah K. Burris
March 25, 2025
RAW STORY
FILE PHOTO: The seal of the Central Intelligence Agency is shown at the entrance of the CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia, U.S., September 24, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) began a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday by decrying a massive cut in the nation's critical intelligence infrastructure — a result of sweeping government staffing cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Elon Musk's DOGE has been behind upheaval and dismantling of many government agencies. Websites, grants, programs, and employees have been cut or frozen under the promise that Trump will save taxpayers trillions.
And the cuts have included intelligence positions in the government.
In his opening statement, Warner cited a bombshell report from The Atlantic that top officials in Trump's Cabinet were communicating about classified war plans in a Signal chat — and had inadvertently included a reporter.
He called it "sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information." He then connected it to the DOGE cuts. "This is not a one-off or a first-time error. Let me take a couple of minutes and review some of the other reckless choices that this administration has made regarding our national security," he said.
Warner continued, "In the first two weeks [FBI Director Kash] Patel, the administration fired several of our most experienced FBI agents, including the head of the criminal investigative division, the head of the intelligence division, the head of the counterterrorism division, the heads of the New York, Washington, and Miami field office. All individuals who were distantly and directly responsible for helping to keep America safe."
Warner also cited the irony of "the recently dismissed head of the counterterrorism division, who was involved in disrupting the ISIS attack plan for Oklahoma City and Philadelphia, and helped lead the effort to bring to justice the key planner of the bombing at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan."
Warner said he can't understand how Americans are being made "more secure by firing more than 300 staff at the National Nuclear Security Administration, including those responsible for overseeing the security and safety of the nuclear stockpile."
"Our intelligence officers, they are not interchangeable like a Twitter coder," said Warner. It's a throwback to Musk's takeover of the social media site, in which he fired nearly all staff and then re-hired some as problems arose. Warner said that the U.S., particularly those in the intelligence community, can't be as easily dismissed.
"These intelligence officers — our country makes $20,000 to $40,000 of an investment just in getting security clearance. Literally close into six figures when you take the training involved. Can anyone tell how firing probationary individuals without any consideration for merit or expertise is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?" he asked.
See the clip below or at the link here.
'So concerning': Expert explains why the group chat on Houthi attack plans are so worrying
REUTERS/Aleksandra Szmigiel
U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth looks on as he meets with Poland's President Andrzej Duda at the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, Poland, February 14, 2025.
REUTERS/Aleksandra Szmigiel
U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth looks on as he meets with Poland's President Andrzej Duda at the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, Poland, February 14, 2025.
March 25, 2025
A report in The Atlantic this week sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.
Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.
Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.
What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?
From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.
Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.
In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.
Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.
At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.
If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.
More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.
How are classified conversations usually conducted?
During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.
And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.
Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.
These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.
In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.
I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.
If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.
Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?
The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.
The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?
The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.
So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.
Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
A report in The Atlantic this week sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.
Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.
Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.
What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?
From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.
Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.
In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.
Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.
At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.
If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.
More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.
How are classified conversations usually conducted?
During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.
And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.
Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.
These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.
In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.
I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.
If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.
Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?
The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.
The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?
The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.
So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.
Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
‘Who exactly is running the government?’ Trump’s war plans leak denial backfires
The New Civil Rights Movement
March 24, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 24, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
President Donald Trump’s claim that he was unaware of a cabinet-level breach of classified information—an incident reportedly involving up to 18 top national security officials discussing sensitive details of a planned military strike—appears to have backfired, raising questions about his knowledge of the actions of his top officials, and, as Commander-in-Chief, his knowledge of U.S. national security and military operations.
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Monday afternoon that he inadvertently had been included in the 18-person group chat on the unclassified messaging app Signal. Experts say those discussions should never have been held over the app, but rather inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or inside multiple SCIFs.
ALSO READ: 'The Hard Reset': Here's how the U.S. is exporting terrorism around the world
On Monday afternoon at a press conference, a reporter asked the Commander-in-Chief for his reaction to the story in The Atlantic.
“I don’t know anything about it,” was Trump’s immediate response. His next response was to attack the media outlet.
“I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic, it’s, to me it’s a magazine that’s going out of business,” the President declared. “I think it’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.”
He then asked the reporter to explain to him what had been reported in The Atlantic.
“You’re saying that they had what?” “Having to do with what?” he asked twice. “What were they talking about?”
After the reporter gave him more information, Trump, seemingly still not understanding all the details, declared that the leak “couldn’t have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that.”
He again denied any knowledge of the leak.
“I don’t know anything about it,” Trump repeated. “You, you’re telling me about it for the first time.”
The White House has acknowledged the leak occurred. Axios called it a “mind-boggling security breach.” The Washington Post reported that “the disclosure raises questions about how the administration has discussed classified issues and whether anyone will be disciplined.”
“As the bombing campaign moved ahead, Hegseth’s [Signal] account shared details that Goldberg said he believed could put at risk the safety of U.S. troops or intelligence officials, especially those deployed in the Middle East,” the Post reported. “Those details, the Atlantic article says, allegedly included the specific weapons to be used and in which sequence the Houthi targets would be hit.”
Military and national security experts are stunned — not only that this massive leak occurred, but that the President was not informed until a reporter asked him about it on Monday.
“If the President is telling the truth and no one’s briefed him about this yet, that’s another story in itself. In any other administration, CoS would have been in the Oval within nanoseconds of learning about something like this, wrote The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols via social media, referring to the White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Nichols is a retired U.S. Naval War College professor who is an expert on national security, international affairs, Russia, and nuclear weapons.
“Heads need to roll for this. They have broken laws and endangered the lives of our service members with this idiocy,” commented Army veteran of 22 years, Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School.
Journalist Wajahat Ali wrote, “What’s worse is that he HAS no idea, allegedly, about the story, which makes it even worse and more terrifying. Like, bro, why don’t you know?”
“One wild thing about Trump,” observed journalist Isaac Saul, “is that he is notoriously insulated from certain information streams by his team. Absolutely believable that he went out to the podium having not been informed of this massive story bc the people who brief him on info were culpable in the leaks.”
“Here’s some insight,” offered Sophia Kinzinger, a former press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “The White House has an entire department, staffed by military professionals, dedicated to facilitating secure communications. They travel with staff, provide devices, and set up SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities) whenever and wherever needed, operating 24/7. There is absolutely no excuse for mishandling classified information, especially for someone leading the National Security Council at the White House. Their actions clearly demonstrate a lack of qualification for such a critical role. we deserve better!”
U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) added: “If it’s true that the President of the United States had no idea that his war cabinet and VP were discussing war plans on a Signal chat that included a journalist, that is astounding ignorance and profound incompetence.”
Derek Martin, who conducted supply chain counterintelligence at the National Security Agency (NSA), asked: “If Trump doesn’t know about a major incident involving his VP, Chief of Staff, NatSec Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director, then who exactly is running the government?”
U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), according to Deadline, wrote: “Every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime – even if accidentally – that would normally involve a jail sentence. We can’t trust anyone in this dangerous administration to keep Americans safe.”
In his report at The Atlantic, Goldberg noted that “coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of ‘national defense’ information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story.”
Goldberg also explained that he chose to not publish all of the texts, noting that, “if [some] had been read by an adversary of the United States, [they] could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”
Watch the video below or at this link
March 24, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 24, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
President Donald Trump’s claim that he was unaware of a cabinet-level breach of classified information—an incident reportedly involving up to 18 top national security officials discussing sensitive details of a planned military strike—appears to have backfired, raising questions about his knowledge of the actions of his top officials, and, as Commander-in-Chief, his knowledge of U.S. national security and military operations.
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Monday afternoon that he inadvertently had been included in the 18-person group chat on the unclassified messaging app Signal. Experts say those discussions should never have been held over the app, but rather inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or inside multiple SCIFs.
ALSO READ: 'The Hard Reset': Here's how the U.S. is exporting terrorism around the world
On Monday afternoon at a press conference, a reporter asked the Commander-in-Chief for his reaction to the story in The Atlantic.
“I don’t know anything about it,” was Trump’s immediate response. His next response was to attack the media outlet.
“I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic, it’s, to me it’s a magazine that’s going out of business,” the President declared. “I think it’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.”
He then asked the reporter to explain to him what had been reported in The Atlantic.
“You’re saying that they had what?” “Having to do with what?” he asked twice. “What were they talking about?”
After the reporter gave him more information, Trump, seemingly still not understanding all the details, declared that the leak “couldn’t have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that.”
He again denied any knowledge of the leak.
“I don’t know anything about it,” Trump repeated. “You, you’re telling me about it for the first time.”
The White House has acknowledged the leak occurred. Axios called it a “mind-boggling security breach.” The Washington Post reported that “the disclosure raises questions about how the administration has discussed classified issues and whether anyone will be disciplined.”
“As the bombing campaign moved ahead, Hegseth’s [Signal] account shared details that Goldberg said he believed could put at risk the safety of U.S. troops or intelligence officials, especially those deployed in the Middle East,” the Post reported. “Those details, the Atlantic article says, allegedly included the specific weapons to be used and in which sequence the Houthi targets would be hit.”
Military and national security experts are stunned — not only that this massive leak occurred, but that the President was not informed until a reporter asked him about it on Monday.
“If the President is telling the truth and no one’s briefed him about this yet, that’s another story in itself. In any other administration, CoS would have been in the Oval within nanoseconds of learning about something like this, wrote The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols via social media, referring to the White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Nichols is a retired U.S. Naval War College professor who is an expert on national security, international affairs, Russia, and nuclear weapons.
“Heads need to roll for this. They have broken laws and endangered the lives of our service members with this idiocy,” commented Army veteran of 22 years, Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School.
Journalist Wajahat Ali wrote, “What’s worse is that he HAS no idea, allegedly, about the story, which makes it even worse and more terrifying. Like, bro, why don’t you know?”
“One wild thing about Trump,” observed journalist Isaac Saul, “is that he is notoriously insulated from certain information streams by his team. Absolutely believable that he went out to the podium having not been informed of this massive story bc the people who brief him on info were culpable in the leaks.”
“Here’s some insight,” offered Sophia Kinzinger, a former press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “The White House has an entire department, staffed by military professionals, dedicated to facilitating secure communications. They travel with staff, provide devices, and set up SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities) whenever and wherever needed, operating 24/7. There is absolutely no excuse for mishandling classified information, especially for someone leading the National Security Council at the White House. Their actions clearly demonstrate a lack of qualification for such a critical role. we deserve better!”
U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) added: “If it’s true that the President of the United States had no idea that his war cabinet and VP were discussing war plans on a Signal chat that included a journalist, that is astounding ignorance and profound incompetence.”
Derek Martin, who conducted supply chain counterintelligence at the National Security Agency (NSA), asked: “If Trump doesn’t know about a major incident involving his VP, Chief of Staff, NatSec Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director, then who exactly is running the government?”
U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), according to Deadline, wrote: “Every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime – even if accidentally – that would normally involve a jail sentence. We can’t trust anyone in this dangerous administration to keep Americans safe.”
In his report at The Atlantic, Goldberg noted that “coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of ‘national defense’ information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story.”
Goldberg also explained that he chose to not publish all of the texts, noting that, “if [some] had been read by an adversary of the United States, [they] could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”
Watch the video below or at this link
'Stunning': Conservative NYT columnist says Hegseth would resign if he had 'any honor'
Erik De La Garza
March 24, 2025
Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth departs following a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 21, 2024. REUTERS/Nathan Howard TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
The fallout from The Atlantic’s stunning report that revealed top secret war plans were shared with a reporter in a Signal group chat is just beginning but the calls for Pete Hegseth to resign are already starting to flow in.
That includes conservative New York Times columnist David French, who told readers in an opinion piece on Monday that as a result of the ordeal, the Pentagon chief has “blown his credibility as a military leader.”
“I don’t know how Pete Hegseth can look service members in the eye,” French wrote. “If he had any honor at all, he would resign.”
The Times columnist said in his op-ed that the new reporting from The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was “one of the most extraordinary stories I’ve ever read.”
Goldberg’s jaw-dropping report includes his detailed account of being inadvertently included in the messaging app where classified war plans about an imminent strike on Yemen were discussed among Hegseth and other high-level Trump administration officials.
French, a former Army lawyer who also once wrote for The Atlantic, called the revelation “a stunning breach of security" as he continued to harshly criticize the former Fox News host for the blunder just weeks into his tenure as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary.
“I’ve helped investigate numerous allegations of classified information spillages, and I’ve never even heard of anything this egregious — a secretary of defense intentionally using a civilian messaging app to share sensitive war plans without even apparently noticing a journalist was in the chat,” French told readers.
He concluded that there was no “officer alive whose career would survive a security breach like that." The columnist added that “instant consequences” would normally follow such a lapse, “followed by a comprehensive investigation and, potentially, criminal charges.”
“It’s way too soon to say whether Hegseth’s incompetence is also criminal, but I raise the possibility to demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the reported mistake,” French wrote as he summed up his case in support of Hegseth's resignation. “A security breach that significant requires a thorough investigation.”
Erik De La Garza
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth departs following a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 21, 2024. REUTERS/Nathan Howard TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
The fallout from The Atlantic’s stunning report that revealed top secret war plans were shared with a reporter in a Signal group chat is just beginning but the calls for Pete Hegseth to resign are already starting to flow in.
That includes conservative New York Times columnist David French, who told readers in an opinion piece on Monday that as a result of the ordeal, the Pentagon chief has “blown his credibility as a military leader.”
“I don’t know how Pete Hegseth can look service members in the eye,” French wrote. “If he had any honor at all, he would resign.”
The Times columnist said in his op-ed that the new reporting from The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was “one of the most extraordinary stories I’ve ever read.”
Goldberg’s jaw-dropping report includes his detailed account of being inadvertently included in the messaging app where classified war plans about an imminent strike on Yemen were discussed among Hegseth and other high-level Trump administration officials.
French, a former Army lawyer who also once wrote for The Atlantic, called the revelation “a stunning breach of security" as he continued to harshly criticize the former Fox News host for the blunder just weeks into his tenure as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary.
“I’ve helped investigate numerous allegations of classified information spillages, and I’ve never even heard of anything this egregious — a secretary of defense intentionally using a civilian messaging app to share sensitive war plans without even apparently noticing a journalist was in the chat,” French told readers.
He concluded that there was no “officer alive whose career would survive a security breach like that." The columnist added that “instant consequences” would normally follow such a lapse, “followed by a comprehensive investigation and, potentially, criminal charges.”
“It’s way too soon to say whether Hegseth’s incompetence is also criminal, but I raise the possibility to demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the reported mistake,” French wrote as he summed up his case in support of Hegseth's resignation. “A security breach that significant requires a thorough investigation.”
'Hire clowns, expect a circus': Leaked chat exposes 'stupidity and recklessness'
REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz react as, U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 13, 2025.
REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz react as, U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 13, 2025.
March 25, 2025
ALTERNET
President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other MAGA Republicans are attacking The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg revealed following his bombshell revelation that he was wrongly invited to a group chat with Trump Administration officials that described plans for a military operation against Houthis in Yemen.
The invitation for the chat, which took place via the messaging app Signal, came from National Security Advisor Michael Waltz — and the participants included, among others, Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard.
In a scathing opinion column published on March 25, The Daily Beast's David Rothkopf points to the Goldberg/Yemen group chat scandal as a glaring example of how "reckless" the Trump Administration is from a national security standpoint.
"America has made its fair share of mistakes in its international relations in the post-World War 2 era — but never has an administration made a choice as bold as the Trump Administration's decision to make omnishambolic, head-up-our-butts dangerous and pernicious clusterf---ery the centerpiece of its foreign policy agenda," Rothkopf argues. "The most recent example of this commitment to disastrous policies from incompetent leaders engaged in defective processes is, of course, the revelations included in The Atlantic's blockbuster story detailing how the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was somehow added to group text thread in which the administration's leadership were sharing top secret war plans.
Rothkopf adds, "In an even more shocking twist, the White House actually acknowledged that what he wrote was true. The result is pandemonium in the national security community, not just in D.C. but in capitals around the world."
The Daily Beast columnist stresses that not only was it a major blunder to expose a prominent journalist to classified information, but also, the fact that the chat took place via Signal is deeply problematic.
"The stupidity and recklessness that had to be behind coordinating highest-level policy on a platform like Signal — which is not approved for sensitive or classified government communications — and, apparently, on personal cellphones, reaches world record levels," Rothkopf warns. "It is easy to make fun of, but is, of course, no laughing matter. As one former high-ranking top military official said to me: 'Hire clowns, expect a circus. And frankly, I've never seen a screw up on this level before. In normal times, they all should go."
David Rothkopf's full Daily Beast column is available at this link (subscription required).
ALTERNET
President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other MAGA Republicans are attacking The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg revealed following his bombshell revelation that he was wrongly invited to a group chat with Trump Administration officials that described plans for a military operation against Houthis in Yemen.
The invitation for the chat, which took place via the messaging app Signal, came from National Security Advisor Michael Waltz — and the participants included, among others, Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard.
In a scathing opinion column published on March 25, The Daily Beast's David Rothkopf points to the Goldberg/Yemen group chat scandal as a glaring example of how "reckless" the Trump Administration is from a national security standpoint.
"America has made its fair share of mistakes in its international relations in the post-World War 2 era — but never has an administration made a choice as bold as the Trump Administration's decision to make omnishambolic, head-up-our-butts dangerous and pernicious clusterf---ery the centerpiece of its foreign policy agenda," Rothkopf argues. "The most recent example of this commitment to disastrous policies from incompetent leaders engaged in defective processes is, of course, the revelations included in The Atlantic's blockbuster story detailing how the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was somehow added to group text thread in which the administration's leadership were sharing top secret war plans.
Rothkopf adds, "In an even more shocking twist, the White House actually acknowledged that what he wrote was true. The result is pandemonium in the national security community, not just in D.C. but in capitals around the world."
The Daily Beast columnist stresses that not only was it a major blunder to expose a prominent journalist to classified information, but also, the fact that the chat took place via Signal is deeply problematic.
"The stupidity and recklessness that had to be behind coordinating highest-level policy on a platform like Signal — which is not approved for sensitive or classified government communications — and, apparently, on personal cellphones, reaches world record levels," Rothkopf warns. "It is easy to make fun of, but is, of course, no laughing matter. As one former high-ranking top military official said to me: 'Hire clowns, expect a circus. And frankly, I've never seen a screw up on this level before. In normal times, they all should go."
David Rothkopf's full Daily Beast column is available at this link (subscription required).
‘Unserious’: Journalist hits back at Hegseth's attack that he 'peddles in garbage'
Erik De La Garza
March 24, 2025
Erik De La Garza
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
(Screengrab via MSNBC)
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, hit back at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moments after the Pentagon chief vigorously denied ever sharing top secret war plans via a Signal group chat that included the journalist.
“The whole thing is just a very flummoxing to me because I haven't seen this kind of unserious behavior before,” Goldberg told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki in some of his first public comments after he stunned Capitol Hill when he broke his story Monday.
He added: “And, you know, and the secretary of defense, all due respect in that presentation, seems like a person who's unserious and is trying to deflect from the fact that he participated in a conversation on an unclassified commercial messaging app that he probably shouldn't have participated in.”
The remarks followed Hegseth’s strong refutation to Goldberg’s reporting when he claimed earlier in the day: “Nobody was texting war plans.”
“So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again,” Hegseth said of Goldberg, adding that he is “a guy that peddles in garbage. This is what he does.”
But Goldberg stood by his report on Monday, agreeing with Psaki when she said "there are receipts" to back it up.
“He can say that it wasn't a war plan, but it was a was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen, organized by CentCom – central command – which is the military oversight group of the Middle East, the broader Middle East,” Goldberg said. “This is their plan. And he was taking their plan and sharing it with a bunch of civilian leaders.”
He told the MSNBC host that in the interest of being responsible, he wouldn’t “disclose the things that I read and saw,” but said he was privy to “precise detail” of the imminent attack.
“I’ve never seen a large group of national, senior-most national security officials, just kind of will-nilly put out a bunch of stuff, you know, without knowing who they're talking to.”
Watch the clip below or at this link:
(Screengrab via MSNBC)
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, hit back at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moments after the Pentagon chief vigorously denied ever sharing top secret war plans via a Signal group chat that included the journalist.
“The whole thing is just a very flummoxing to me because I haven't seen this kind of unserious behavior before,” Goldberg told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki in some of his first public comments after he stunned Capitol Hill when he broke his story Monday.
He added: “And, you know, and the secretary of defense, all due respect in that presentation, seems like a person who's unserious and is trying to deflect from the fact that he participated in a conversation on an unclassified commercial messaging app that he probably shouldn't have participated in.”
The remarks followed Hegseth’s strong refutation to Goldberg’s reporting when he claimed earlier in the day: “Nobody was texting war plans.”
“So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again,” Hegseth said of Goldberg, adding that he is “a guy that peddles in garbage. This is what he does.”
But Goldberg stood by his report on Monday, agreeing with Psaki when she said "there are receipts" to back it up.
“He can say that it wasn't a war plan, but it was a was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen, organized by CentCom – central command – which is the military oversight group of the Middle East, the broader Middle East,” Goldberg said. “This is their plan. And he was taking their plan and sharing it with a bunch of civilian leaders.”
He told the MSNBC host that in the interest of being responsible, he wouldn’t “disclose the things that I read and saw,” but said he was privy to “precise detail” of the imminent attack.
“I’ve never seen a large group of national, senior-most national security officials, just kind of will-nilly put out a bunch of stuff, you know, without knowing who they're talking to.”
Watch the clip below or at this link:
'Disaster': Hegseth's rant attacking reporter who got his war plan lights up social media
Daniel Hampton
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth closes his eyes as he stands by U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictures), in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth found himself under fire on social media as he lashed out at a journalist who appeared to be inadvertently included in a private group chat on the app Signal — and was privy to top-secret war plans.
On March 15, just hours before the U.S. launched a series of strikes, Hegseth shared operational details in a Signal group chat that mistakenly included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Goldberg wrote Monday. The leaked information contained operational details of upcoming strikes on Yemen, specifics on targets, weapons to be deployed and the sequence of attacks.
The flub prompted fierce criticism across the political landscape and raised serious concerns about the handling of sensitive national security information. Signal is not an authorized platform for government officials to exchange classified data.
While the National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the message thread and is investigating how an unintended number was included in the chat, a defiant Hegseth attacked Goldberg, telling reporters Monday evening he's a "deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist" who has made a "profession of peddling hoaxes."
Predictably, social media critics lit up at Hegseth's comments.
S.V. Dáte, White House correspondent at HuffPost, noted on the X platform: “'Hoaxes' The WH has already confirmed the authenticity of the text chain."
Jonathan Chait, writer for the Atlantic, joked on X: "This is also what I say when Jeff has notes for my drafts."
Jim LaPorta, verification producer with CBS News, noted on X: "@SecDef @PeteHegseth seems slightly annoyed in having to respond to questions about @JeffreyGoldberg reporting."
Attorney and strategist Aaron Parnas, gave a blunt assessment: "Fire Hegseth."
Fred Wellman, host of the On Democracy Podcast, urged Hegseth to get on the same page as the White House. "Hey @PeteHegseth check your email. The NSC already confirmed it’s a real conversation you f---ing liar."
Independent journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on X; "MAGA's only plays are whataboutism and attacking the messenger. Every. Time."
David Pepper, author of "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American," wrote on X: "He’s incompetent. And he’s a liar. Bad for any office. Disaster for federal cabinet post. A national security risk as SecDef. Get this unqualified blowhard out of there stat!"
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth closes his eyes as he stands by U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictures), in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth found himself under fire on social media as he lashed out at a journalist who appeared to be inadvertently included in a private group chat on the app Signal — and was privy to top-secret war plans.
On March 15, just hours before the U.S. launched a series of strikes, Hegseth shared operational details in a Signal group chat that mistakenly included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Goldberg wrote Monday. The leaked information contained operational details of upcoming strikes on Yemen, specifics on targets, weapons to be deployed and the sequence of attacks.
The flub prompted fierce criticism across the political landscape and raised serious concerns about the handling of sensitive national security information. Signal is not an authorized platform for government officials to exchange classified data.
While the National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the message thread and is investigating how an unintended number was included in the chat, a defiant Hegseth attacked Goldberg, telling reporters Monday evening he's a "deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist" who has made a "profession of peddling hoaxes."
Predictably, social media critics lit up at Hegseth's comments.
S.V. Dáte, White House correspondent at HuffPost, noted on the X platform: “'Hoaxes' The WH has already confirmed the authenticity of the text chain."
Jonathan Chait, writer for the Atlantic, joked on X: "This is also what I say when Jeff has notes for my drafts."
Jim LaPorta, verification producer with CBS News, noted on X: "@SecDef @PeteHegseth seems slightly annoyed in having to respond to questions about @JeffreyGoldberg reporting."
Attorney and strategist Aaron Parnas, gave a blunt assessment: "Fire Hegseth."
Fred Wellman, host of the On Democracy Podcast, urged Hegseth to get on the same page as the White House. "Hey @PeteHegseth check your email. The NSC already confirmed it’s a real conversation you f---ing liar."
Independent journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on X; "MAGA's only plays are whataboutism and attacking the messenger. Every. Time."
David Pepper, author of "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American," wrote on X: "He’s incompetent. And he’s a liar. Bad for any office. Disaster for federal cabinet post. A national security risk as SecDef. Get this unqualified blowhard out of there stat!"
'Shocked': Senator aghast that Trump officials mulled bomb strike as if 'ordering a pizza'
Matthew Chapman
March 24, 2025
Matthew Chapman
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz react as, U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 13, 2025.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz react as, U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 13, 2025.
REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded to the bombshell story that he accidentally shared highly classified defense plans with a reporter by slamming the journalist as "deceitful." But the Trump administration has a far bigger problem on its hands than that, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday evening.
For starters, he said, the mere fact this kind of information was being sent over a Signal group chat is astonishing: "I don't know anybody on the Intelligence Committee here that I serve on that would have done anything close to this kind of conversation."
"Speaker Johnson downplayed this. He said that they'll tighten up," said Cooper. "It doesn't seem like there's much — publicly at least — outrage by your Republican colleagues. Obviously, if this was a Democratic administration and this had been Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or anybody else, it would have been a different tune. Are you surprised? Do you expect any kind of hearings here?"
"Well, Anderson, we have a hearing tomorrow, an open hearing about worldwide threats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. And I can guarantee you that this topic is going to come up tomorrow in an open hearing," said Kelly.
"The CIA director is supposed to be there, right?" inquired Cooper.
"CIA director will be there," Kelly confirmed. "He was one of the individuals on this text chain."
"I think the other thing that I noticed is just the discussion that they were having over Signal," he added. "It was almost like they were deciding to order a pizza. And it's not the kind of conversation you would expect between the principals when they're deciding to commit troops to combat in a foreign country. So I was pretty shocked by, you know, how not — not only that, this was done on this platform on Signal, but also just shocked about the lack of depth in the discussion before sending our Navy pilots over the beach to drop bombs where there is a significant threat."
Watch the video below or at the link here.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded to the bombshell story that he accidentally shared highly classified defense plans with a reporter by slamming the journalist as "deceitful." But the Trump administration has a far bigger problem on its hands than that, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday evening.
For starters, he said, the mere fact this kind of information was being sent over a Signal group chat is astonishing: "I don't know anybody on the Intelligence Committee here that I serve on that would have done anything close to this kind of conversation."
"Speaker Johnson downplayed this. He said that they'll tighten up," said Cooper. "It doesn't seem like there's much — publicly at least — outrage by your Republican colleagues. Obviously, if this was a Democratic administration and this had been Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or anybody else, it would have been a different tune. Are you surprised? Do you expect any kind of hearings here?"
"Well, Anderson, we have a hearing tomorrow, an open hearing about worldwide threats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. And I can guarantee you that this topic is going to come up tomorrow in an open hearing," said Kelly.
"The CIA director is supposed to be there, right?" inquired Cooper.
"CIA director will be there," Kelly confirmed. "He was one of the individuals on this text chain."
"I think the other thing that I noticed is just the discussion that they were having over Signal," he added. "It was almost like they were deciding to order a pizza. And it's not the kind of conversation you would expect between the principals when they're deciding to commit troops to combat in a foreign country. So I was pretty shocked by, you know, how not — not only that, this was done on this platform on Signal, but also just shocked about the lack of depth in the discussion before sending our Navy pilots over the beach to drop bombs where there is a significant threat."
Watch the video below or at the link here.
'This will be looked into': 'Shocked' senator demands probe as Trump war plans leak
Matthew Chapman
March 24, 2025
Matthew Chapman
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stands by U.S. President Donald Trump, in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) is aghast at the Trump administration's latest national security scandal — and demanded answers Monday on CNN.
An explosive report on Monday revealed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared highly classified war strategies in an unsecured Signal group chat that includedJeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, along with several other high-ranking members of the Trump administration and the national security apparatus, none of whom apparently saw any issue with the breach of that information.
Speaking to CNN's Phil Mattingly that afternoon, Coons, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had a lot to say.
"Senator, you have posted and put out a statement about this, the revelation itself," said Mattingly. "What does it tell you about this administration?"
"Phil, if true, these allegations are just shocking," said Coons. "The idea that the Secretary of Defense shared detailed, highly classified war plans for exactly what munitions were going to be dropped on what targets, at what times, could have put American servicemembers at risk, violate some of the most basic standards for sharing highly classified military operational data, and calls for an immediate oversight hearing and investigation."
"I believe there's going to be a hearing on the Intelligence Committee publicly tomorrow, where I expect this will be looked into in detail," Coons continued. "And I'm working with colleagues right now on a follow-up letter that will demand oversight, hearings, and accountability for these actions."
Watch the video below or at the link here.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stands by U.S. President Donald Trump, in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) is aghast at the Trump administration's latest national security scandal — and demanded answers Monday on CNN.
An explosive report on Monday revealed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared highly classified war strategies in an unsecured Signal group chat that includedJeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, along with several other high-ranking members of the Trump administration and the national security apparatus, none of whom apparently saw any issue with the breach of that information.
Speaking to CNN's Phil Mattingly that afternoon, Coons, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had a lot to say.
"Senator, you have posted and put out a statement about this, the revelation itself," said Mattingly. "What does it tell you about this administration?"
"Phil, if true, these allegations are just shocking," said Coons. "The idea that the Secretary of Defense shared detailed, highly classified war plans for exactly what munitions were going to be dropped on what targets, at what times, could have put American servicemembers at risk, violate some of the most basic standards for sharing highly classified military operational data, and calls for an immediate oversight hearing and investigation."
"I believe there's going to be a hearing on the Intelligence Committee publicly tomorrow, where I expect this will be looked into in detail," Coons continued. "And I'm working with colleagues right now on a follow-up letter that will demand oversight, hearings, and accountability for these actions."
Watch the video below or at the link here.
Top Trump official recently attacked by MAGA gets blame for war plans blunder: CNN
Jennifer Bowers Bahney
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
CNN's Jeff Zeleny at the White House (CNN screenshot)
A Trump official's account on the Signal messaging app has been tagged as the one that added a journalist to a highly sensitive war plans chat involving the bombing of Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to CNN's Jeff Zeleny.
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, wrote in a shocking article of his inadvertent inclusion in a Signal messaging chat revealing war plans about an imminent strike on Yemen. Goldberg wrote that he believed top officials on the chat included National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard.
"Mike Waltz, who's the security advisor, is the one who apparently added Jeffrey Goldberg onto the thread, or someone using the Mike Waltz account," Zeleny reported Monday from the White House. "That is certainly going to be something for him to respond and answer to."
"He's, of course, a former Florida member of Congress. Many people in MAGA world are very suspicious of him anyway, so this will be very, very interesting to see the fallout from this, if there is any."
Zeleny continued that the White House did not deny the content of Goldberg's story. He read what he called a "really extraordinary" statement from the National Security Council about the blunder.
"This thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials," Zeleny read.
He continued, "But in any other administration that I've covered — and this is the fifth president that I've covered — it's done in the situation room. It is done in classified channels. It is not done over Signal."
Zeleny said that Goldberg "did the administration somewhat of a favor by dropping out of the group chat as he reported, and by also not reporting many of the operational details that he said that he saw. So, the bottom line to all of this is, it offers a window — if it's all as it seems — it offers a very interesting window into how this administration is operating, or at least had operated. The White House chief of staff is weighing in at the end of it, congratulating everyone. At no point did anyone say, 'Hey, guys, we should sort of take this offline.'"
Watch the CNN clip below.
Jennifer Bowers Bahney
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
CNN's Jeff Zeleny at the White House (CNN screenshot)
A Trump official's account on the Signal messaging app has been tagged as the one that added a journalist to a highly sensitive war plans chat involving the bombing of Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to CNN's Jeff Zeleny.
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, wrote in a shocking article of his inadvertent inclusion in a Signal messaging chat revealing war plans about an imminent strike on Yemen. Goldberg wrote that he believed top officials on the chat included National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard.
"Mike Waltz, who's the security advisor, is the one who apparently added Jeffrey Goldberg onto the thread, or someone using the Mike Waltz account," Zeleny reported Monday from the White House. "That is certainly going to be something for him to respond and answer to."
"He's, of course, a former Florida member of Congress. Many people in MAGA world are very suspicious of him anyway, so this will be very, very interesting to see the fallout from this, if there is any."
Zeleny continued that the White House did not deny the content of Goldberg's story. He read what he called a "really extraordinary" statement from the National Security Council about the blunder.
"This thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials," Zeleny read.
He continued, "But in any other administration that I've covered — and this is the fifth president that I've covered — it's done in the situation room. It is done in classified channels. It is not done over Signal."
Zeleny said that Goldberg "did the administration somewhat of a favor by dropping out of the group chat as he reported, and by also not reporting many of the operational details that he said that he saw. So, the bottom line to all of this is, it offers a window — if it's all as it seems — it offers a very interesting window into how this administration is operating, or at least had operated. The White House chief of staff is weighing in at the end of it, congratulating everyone. At no point did anyone say, 'Hey, guys, we should sort of take this offline.'"
Watch the CNN clip below.
'Furious discussion': Irate White House mulls ouster of Trump's national security adviser
Daniel Hampton
March 24, 2025
U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz looks on as he sits next to U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, while U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 13, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
A top national security adviser to Donald Trump may get pushed out of the White House following a bombshell report that he inadvertently added a journalist to a group chat on Signal, where he and other top officials discussed top-secret war plans.
On March 15, just hours before the U.S. launched a series of strikes, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth shared operational details in a group chat that mistakenly included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Goldberg said Monday. The leaked information contained operational details of upcoming strikes on Yemen, specifics on targets, weapons to be deployed, and the sequence of attacks.
Goldberg said he was added to the chat by national security adviser Mike Waltz. Following his explosive report about the serious security lapse, Waltz's future is now up in the air, according to Politico.
While nothing has been finalized, the report sparked "furious discussion" inside the White House about whether to force out Waltz, according to the report. President Donald Trump is set to make that decision within the next two days as he watches coverage of the spectacle.
A senior Trump administration official told the outlet that there are threads between staffers on how to handle Waltz. Dasha Burns, White House bureau chief at Politico, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins on "The Source" they're looking for "who's going to pay" — with some saying he ought to resign to "spare Trump."
“Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” the official told the outlet.
“It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser,” the official added.
A person close to the White House told the outlet: “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a f---ing idiot.”
March 24, 2025
RAW STORY
U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz looks on as he sits next to U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, while U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 13, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
A top national security adviser to Donald Trump may get pushed out of the White House following a bombshell report that he inadvertently added a journalist to a group chat on Signal, where he and other top officials discussed top-secret war plans.
On March 15, just hours before the U.S. launched a series of strikes, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth shared operational details in a group chat that mistakenly included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Goldberg said Monday. The leaked information contained operational details of upcoming strikes on Yemen, specifics on targets, weapons to be deployed, and the sequence of attacks.
Goldberg said he was added to the chat by national security adviser Mike Waltz. Following his explosive report about the serious security lapse, Waltz's future is now up in the air, according to Politico.
While nothing has been finalized, the report sparked "furious discussion" inside the White House about whether to force out Waltz, according to the report. President Donald Trump is set to make that decision within the next two days as he watches coverage of the spectacle.
A senior Trump administration official told the outlet that there are threads between staffers on how to handle Waltz. Dasha Burns, White House bureau chief at Politico, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins on "The Source" they're looking for "who's going to pay" — with some saying he ought to resign to "spare Trump."
“Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” the official told the outlet.
“It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser,” the official added.
A person close to the White House told the outlet: “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a f---ing idiot.”
No comments:
Post a Comment