The next day, March 14, Goldberg reports Waltz sent another message to the group, informing them a memo about the operation was in their “high side inboxes” – referring to a classified computer system.
The user called JD Vance then suggested the administration was “making a mistake” by proceeding with the Houthi strikes. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance told the group, according to Goldberg’s account.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance.Credit: AP
“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.”
Hegseth then argued against a delay, saying that it was a core national interest to protect freedom of navigation at sea. Further debate ensued, including from a member called “SM” – presumed to be White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller.
Goldberg reports that the comments seemed to realistically reflect the way each person would normally talk but that he remained wary it could be a “disinformation operation”.
President Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting in the White House on Monday with Secretary of State Marco Rubio (centre, right), Attorney-General Pam Bondi (right) and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins (left)Credit: AP
“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 US officials, up to and including the vice president,” Goldberg writes.
But the next day, March 15, that changed. Goldberg writes that Hegseth posted operational details of the imminent strikes on Yemen, “including information about targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. Goldberg did not publish the details in his report.
Goldberg waited to see if the bombings unfolded as described, and they did. Minutes afterwards, members of the Signal group chat congratulated each other on the attack, including Waltz, who posted that it was an “amazing job”. The Atlantic’s story includes screenshots of these messages.
Loading
Goldberg says he then realised he had almost certainly been included in a genuine group chat involving the most senior Trump administration officials planning a sensitive military operation. He contacted officials and had this confirmed by National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes.
In a separate statement to this masthead, Hughes said: “This appears to be an authentic message chain, 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 troops or national security.”
Regarding Vance’s apparent disagreements about the operation, his communications director, William Martin, said in a statement: “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations.
“Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”
Trump was questioned about the report during an event at the White House on Monday afternoon, local time, and indicated he had not been briefed.
“I don’t know anything about it … You’re telling me about it for the first time,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic … I think it’s not much of a magazine.”
The national security implications of the incident were playing out in Washington on Monday afternoon as stunned officials and observers grappled with the magnitude of the error.
Former defence secretary Leon Panetta, who served under Barack Obama, told CNN that the incident could violate espionage laws and undermine US national security.
“Somebody on The Atlantic got the most sensitive emails you can imagine. That is a serious blunder, it has to be investigated, and somebody, quite frankly, needs to get fired,” he said.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
