‘A shocking breach’: Trump officials leak military attacks to The Atlantic | Donald Trump News

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has confirmed that a journalist from The Atlantic magazine was included on a private social media chat about upcoming attacks on the Houthi armed group in Yemen.

On Monday, The Atlantic published an article from editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, in which he describes the stunning realisation he had been added onto a group chat where high-level government officials were discussing military actions.

“The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen,” Goldberg wrote in the opening lines of his article.

“I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m.”

Goldberg explains he received a messaging request from a user named “Michael Waltz” on the encrypted messaging app Signal. At first, he doubted that this Waltz could be the real Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser.

But soon, he found himself in the midst of a conversation with 18 government officials, some of whom appeared to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance and Hegseth.

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg wrote. He ultimately notified the White House about the security breach and removed himself from the chat.

The Trump administration has confirmed the incident in a statement from the National Security Council that was shared with the press.

“At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” council spokesperson Brian Hughes said in the statement.

“The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials.”

At a news conference later on Monday, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment, referring reporters to the White House for comment.

Trump himself was pressed on the scandal during a White House event to unveil a steel mill for the automaker Hyundai in Louisiana.

“I don’t know anything about it,” Trump began, before taking a swipe at the magazine itself.

“I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic. To me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.”

He proceeded to ask reporters to give him details about the security breach.

“What were they talking about?” Trump asked. He then appeared to confuse the breach with an intentional attempt to subvert the US military operation in Yemen.

“It couldn’t have been very effective because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that,” Trump said. “I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time.”

But critics are already calling for an investigation into what occurred. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, was among those who said Congress should hold an oversight hearing and demand accountability.

“Jeffrey Goldberg’s reporting in The Atlantic calls for a prompt and thorough investigation,” Coons wrote on social media.

“If senior advisors to President Trump in fact used non-secure, non-government systems to discuss and convey detailed war plans, it’s a shocking breach of the standards for sharing classified information that could have put American servicemembers at risk.”

What happened?

The latest wave of US attacks against the Houthis came on March 15, after Trump announced on social media he had ordered the military “to launch decisive and powerful” actions against the Yemeni group.

But Goldberg’s interactions with the private Signal chat offers a glimpse at how that decision came about.

The Houthis have long been the subject of US military action, including under Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden.

Since October 2023, the Houthis have attacked Israeli vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and surrounding waterways, as a means of protesting against Israel’s war in Gaza.

Approximately 100 merchant ships have come under Houthi fire from that point onwards, and two have been sunk. However, the Houthi attacks came to halt in January, when a short-lived ceasefire took hold in Gaza.

Still, Trump announced early in his second term that he would designate the Houthis a “foreign terrorist organisation”, an action that was fulfilled earlier this month.

Then, on March 2, Israel began to block humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza, which lacks adequate food and medical supplies. In response, the Houthis warned they would attack if the blockade was not ended. The ceasefire in Gaza has since disintegrated, leading to further death and destruction in the Palestinian territory.

It was March 11 when Goldberg says he received his invitation from Waltz, the national security adviser, on Signal.

“It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me,” Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic.

“I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.”

Two days later, Goldberg instead found himself part of a private chat entitled “Houthi PC small group”. There, some of the most senior officials in US government appeared to be discussing an imminent attack on Houthi strongholds in Yemen, including the capital Sanaa.

“I had very strong doubts that this text group was real,” Goldberg explained. “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.”

The access, however, granted Goldberg a front-row seat to some of the back-room haggling unfolding in the Trump administration — and some of the policy schisms those discussions reveal.

A participant in the chat who appeared to be Vice President Vance expressed concern that attacking the Houthis would ultimately benefit European trade more than US shipping interests.

He proposed delaying the bombing campaign, in order to better gauge public opinion and the economic ramifications.

“I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself,” Vance said. “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.”

A person identified as Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth responded that a delay would “not fundamentally change the calculus”. Nevertheless, he warned against the US dragging its feet.

“Immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first — or Gaza cease fire falls apart — and we don’t get to start this on our own terms,” Hegseth wrote.

Vance appeared resigned, his concerns most focused on the benefits any strikes might have for Europe.

“If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance replied.

Hegseth again chimed in, “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”

Another official, identified as SM, appeared to chime in on behalf the president. Goldberg said he assumed this to be Stephen Miller, Trump’s homeland security adviser.

“The president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return,” SM wrote.

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

Goldberg declined to provide the operational details of the military strike that unfolded afterwards. But he did explain that the actions outlined in the group chat matched the bombs raining down in Yemen.

He also shared the jubilation that followed the military strikes: officials sharing emojis of the US flag,  flame and a flexing bicep.

“The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group,” Goldberg wrote.

He questioned the legality of US officials discussing such sensitive military action on a social media platform.

“It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action,” Goldberg explained.

“Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.”

The editor also questioned whether the officials on the chat were violating public records law. The messages in the chat were set to automatically delete after a certain period of time.

“Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved,” Goldberg wrote.

Waltz himself could be in legal jeopardy for reportedly including Goldberg in the first place — and thereby leaking national security information into the public sphere.

“The group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it,” Goldberg said. “That is the classic definition of a leak.”