Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief and investigative reporter for The Atlantic, was added to a group chat on the public messaging app Signal. Little did he know, he would be exposed to unfiltered and sensitive information about ongoing military actions in the Middle East. Goldberg wrote about what he was informed of in his article, “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.” Goldberg was unintentionally made privy to information about bombings against Houthis in Yemen before they happened. This scandal was then given the moniker of “Signalgate,” and is now sparking controversy about whether actions taken by members of this group violated American policy.
What is signal?
Signal is a messaging app that is public and available to download on most devices. Similar to WhatsApp, Signal is a platform where individuals and groups can communicate and has become popular among journalists and activists as it features encrypted messaging, making it more secure. Despite its encryption, Signal is not an approved platform for government officials to discuss ongoing classified matters, as it has been deemed not secure enough to handle sensitive information.
who are the houthis?
The Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah (meaning partisans of God), are a militant political and religious movement originating from Yemen. The group is primarily made up of Zaidi Shia Muslims and was founded in the 1990s by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi (the origin of their namesake) as a response to political and economic instability in Yemen.
Over time, the Houthis have expanded their influence, eventually taking control of the capital, Sanaa, in 2014, and plunging Yemen into a civil war that has attracted regional powers, including a Saudi-led coalition supporting the Yemeni government. The Houthis claim to fight for the rights of marginalized groups, as well as to protect Yemen’s sovereignty against foreign influence. The Houthis are also supported by Iran, who have a tense relationship with the United States.
The Houthis have been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the American government. They have been accused of smuggling weapons, recruiting Yemenis to fight for Russia against Ukraine, and have taken responsibility for attacks on Saudi Arabian oil and military facilities, attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and targeted missiles at Israeli targets in solidarity with Hamas.
Recently, the Trump Administration has taken opposition to the group, imposing sanctions on militant leaders and associated institutions.
What was discussed?
On Thursday, March 13, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was added to a Signal group chat named “Houthi PC small group.”
The group was created by an account belonging to Michael Waltz, National Security Advisor of the United States. He first messaged the group, stating that he was “establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly over the next 72 hours.” A principles committee is a group of the most senior national security officials, typically including secretaries of defense, state and treasury, and the director of the CIA.
Following the initial message from Waltz, multiple responses were sent from accounts belonging to Marco Rubio (Secretary of State), JD Vance (Vice President of the United States), Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence), Scott Bessent (Treasury Secretary), Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense), John Ratcliffe (Director of the CIA), and others left unidentified by Goldberg. However, the writers and recipients of each message are a bit murky. For example, the first message sent from Marco Rubio’s account was “Mike Needham for State,” seemingly identifying that Mike Needham (who is a political advisor for the State Department) was representing Rubio. There has been no official confirmation from the officials mentioned above about whether they sent messages in the chat directly or if they had delegates (such as advisors, staffers, or aides), further raising concerns that people without proper security clearance could have had access to sensitive information.
Goldberg initially thought that he was added to this chat to start a disinformation campaign (intuitionally misleading people) from either a foreign intelligence service or a media organization that can embarrass journalists. He was doubtful that the national security advisor to the president (Mike Waltz) could have been so reckless and included a journalist in confidential discussions.
Michael Waltz messaged on Friday at 8:05 a.m. “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the President’s guidance this morning in your high side inboxes,” meaning they should have received conclusions and tasks to complete from the President to their classified email inboxes.
JD Vance’s account sent a message shortly thereafter, expressing worry that “we are making a mistake,” as 3% of US trade runs through the Suez Canal but 40% of Europe’s trade does, and the current administration has been critical of Europe’s contribution to international security measures, as they have expressed frustration that Europe benefits from the U.S Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes. He also states that the public may not understand why they are going to attack the Houthis and why it’s necessary, but Vance says that POTUS wants to send a message. He also says that he is concerned that the President is unaware of how inconsistent attacks on the Houthis will be received, considering previous remarks about intervention in international affairs in Europe and Asia, and there could possibly be spikes in oil prices here as a consequence. He does conclude that he believes delaying action for a month should be considered, but “is willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself.”
This is a notable assertion coming from Vance, considering he has not publicly deviated from the President’s position on any issues since becoming his Vice President.
Others in the group agreed that future attacks are not time-sensitive and can be delayed, and also shared disdain at “bailing Europe out again” and “European free-loading.”
On Saturday, March 15 at 11:44 a.m., the Pete Hegseth account sent a “TEAM UPDATE,” where Goldberg does not directly quote any messages, as he states that the information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.” JD Vance responded, “I will say a prayer for victory.”
Hegseth allegedly initially stated that the first detonation in Yemen would begin in ~2 hours, so around 1:45 p.m. Goldberg was waiting to hear anything about strikes in Yemen on Houthi targets.
“I didn’t think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling.”
Jeffrey Goldberg, ‘The Atlantic”
At 1:55 p.m., Goldberg checked X (formerly Twitter) and saw that explosions were being heard across the capital city of Yemen, Sanaa.
Goldberg went back to the Signal Chat and saw that at 1:48 p.m. Waltz had provided another update, and John Ratcliffe responded with “A good start,” with other group members replying with similar positive messages, including a now infamous message from Michael Waltz with a fist emoji, American flag emoji, and fire emoji.
The congratulations messages concluded with discussions of damage inflicted and the assumed death of multiple Houthi targets. The Yemeni Health Ministry stated that 53 died in the attacks.
Following the realization that the group chat was most likely real, Goldberg removed himself from the group. Though this would have notified the chat’s creator (Michael Waltz) that Goldberg left, no one contacted him asking why he was there in the first place, or who he was. Goldberg emailed Waltz, Hegseth, Ratcliffe, Gabbard and other officials, asking if the chat was real. This was confirmed by the spokesman of the National Security Council, who stated, “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.”
A spokesperson for the Vice President also commented that the Vice President is fully aligned with the President and “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.”
What happens now?
Though this may seem like a blatant breach of security, the Trump administration had not taken full accountability for Signalgate. There have been no consequences for the parties involved in disclosing sensitive information in an encrypted platform unsanctioned by the government. Even worse, Donald Trump and US intelligence chiefs have downplayed the leak.
Mike Waltz has “[taken] full responsibility” for creating the group and leaving the government assets, plans, and military personnel vulnerable, calling it “embarrassing.” However, Democrats and Republicans have called for an investigation into the breach, with some calling for the resignation of Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth. Waltz did not explain how Goldberg inadvertently ended up in the chat but did say that one of his other contacts should have been there in Goldberg’s place. Waltz also stated, “I can tell you for 100% I don’t know this guy,” and is trying to figure out how this happened, even calling on Elon Musk to decipher what went wrong.
However, President Trump has downplayed the significance of the chat, describing the incident as a “minor glitch” with “no impact at all” on operations in Yemen and insisting that the leak “turned out not to be serious.” Trump, alongside members in the chat and other cabinet and security officials, has maintained that “communications in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.” Other senators, representatives, and some of the general public find it hard to believe that none of the information was classified and that there should be serious consequences for potentially putting the lives of Americans at risk.
When the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked if they objected to the release of the full messages, Leavitt said, “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reasons [sic] — yes, we object to the release.”
Goldberg was seemingly frustrated at the lack of accountability and how the controversy was handled, as he released another article titled “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal” on March 26. Goldberg released more messages from the chat. Though conflicted at the thought of exposing more messages because he believes the information is sensitive, Goldberg ultimately chose to focus on reporting key details of the chat that were already public, understanding that the information was deemed not classified by the administration and leaving the determination of its significance up to the judgment of the public. He recognized the potential risks of releasing the full conversation but still felt compelled to provide transparency on the significant security lapse. Experts consulted by Goldberg have stated that using Signal to discuss matters such as attacks on Houthis poses a major security risk. If the information, specifically the times that American aircrafts were departing for Yemen, had fallen into the hands of adversaries, lives easily could have been lost.
In a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing investigating Signalgate, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, and Pete Hegseth stood firm that no information shared was classified after being grilled by lawmakers on their involvement in Signalgate. Though not acknowledging their participation at first, Gabbard and Ratcliffe admitted to being in the chat. After repeating that nothing confidential was divulged on the chat, some called for the messages to be made public if they weren’t sensitive. Gabbard deferred that question to the National Security Council, causing the Vice Chairman, Senator Mark Warner of the committee to say, “None of this was classified, but we can’t talk about it here?” “You can’t have it both ways.”
The committee also asked Gabbard and Ratcliffe if they were in other countries when the chat was ongoing in the Signal app. Gabbard said she was overseas, further questioning the security and accessibility of the communications, especially given the sensitive nature of the discussions and the implications of using unsecured platforms for high-level government planning.
Though legal action is unlikely due to the partisanship in Congress, many lawmakers have called for serious repercussions. There are arguments that Signalgate violated security protocols that government officials with security clearances are expected to follow. Experts have also stated that if any of the information in the group chat were to have been classified, it would have violated the Espionage Act, which has serious punishments of imprisonment, fines, or the loss of security clearances if convicted. Other experts have also highlighted that some of the messages sent in the group chat were programmed to be deleted after a period of time, which is a violation of federal records retention laws, as government officials are required to preserve official communications for accountability, oversight, and legal compliance.
Signalgate has sparked significant controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s handling of sensitive information. Despite the severity of the breach, there have been minimal consequences, and key figures involved have downplayed the incident. The use of unsecured platforms like Signal for high-level government communication raises critical security concerns, particularly in the context of national defense and international relations. While some experts argue the breach was not classified, the incident highlights the need for stricter protocols and greater accountability to prevent future security lapses that could jeopardize both personnel and national interests.