The group chat's revelations, first covered by The Atlantic on Wednesday, caused an escalation in the already contentious atmosphere surrounding leaked Signal communications of senior officials in the Trump administration. These chat conversations concerned U.S. attack plans for Yemen.
The leak, which occurred after the editor of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly placed in the Signal group chat, has led to charges of a gross lapse in security. While the administration claimed that nothing classified was discussed, the newly revealed messages contained indications of U.S. bombings, drone launches, targeting information, and even which weaponry would be employed in strikes against Houthi militia actors.
The correspondences, which included individuals such as Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, intelligence officials, and Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, also discussed weather, timing of attacks, and confirmation of a "target terrorist" being killed. The use of casual emojis has raised concerns about the administration's conduct about sensitive military operations.
Goldberg argued that the follow-up was published because, in his view, the texts should be released in the public interest as Trump officials had dismissed the significance of the information.
“There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared,” the magazine said.
Before publishing, his team contacted the US agencies involved in the group chat, some of whom objected to the release.
The Signal chat reportedly began at 11:44 AM EDT on March 15, just 31 minutes before the first warplanes were dropping ordnance. Hegseth had called out an incoming update, followed by mentions of weapons, target, and location. Then followed another message with further details on weapons and timings of the attack at 1:48 PM EDT, where Waltz was sharing real-time intelligence on the US attack in Yemen, making chat members indulge in a deluge of positive replies. An update from Hegseth was posted later that same afternoon, affirming that attacks would be carried out into the night.
Just yesterday, in its first report, The Atlantic said it had refused to compromise on national security on the issue. But many members of the Trump administration have said in response to the scandal that none of the information in the Signal chat chain was "classified information," not operational details of the US strike against the Houthi militia in Yemen that had been attacking ships in the Red Sea, as The Atlantic has characterized it.
The White House continued to minimize the severity of the leak. Both National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who also took part in the chat, reiterated that the messages did not contain classified information. U.S. Representative Mike Waltz and some Trump allies have dismissed the uproar, saying in a post this morning on X after the Atlantic dropped another round of messaging: "No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests."
Vice-President JD Vance also replied to the messages, stating that Goldberg "oversold what he had." But something "really stands out" in the latest article, Vance said, adding: "Remember when he was attacking [CIA chief John] Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe supplied nothing but names of his chief of staff."
Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, has called the most recent piece in the Atlantic "another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well known for his sensationalist spin”. In an article on X, Leavitt had said that the article actually affirms that the contents of the discussion were not war plans.
The leaked Signal messages have created serious security, legal, and political problems for the Trump administration. As investigations continue, the incident highlights the need for stricter communication rules, especially when handling national security matters. Whether people see it as a hoax or a real threat, this event is likely to have lasting effects on the government.
No comments yet.