Journalist Stunned to Find Himself in Trump Cabinet War Planning Chat
A journalist was astonished to be included in a group message involving key members of Donald Trump’s cabinet as they discussed military strategies. The conversation took an unexpected turn when JD Vance questioned the then-president’s approach.
The Accidental Inclusion
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, revealed the startling incident on Monday, recounting how he was inadvertently added to a Signal conversation, a secure messaging application favored for private communications.
The chat, initiated by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, included individuals identified as Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a CIA representative, Trump advisor Stephen Miller, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
Details of War Plans Revealed
Speaking to CNN, Goldberg disclosed that the chat contained discussions of “attack plans,” target locations and identities, and the “sequence” of strikes against the Houthis. This revelation directly contradicted Hegseth’s denials of the story’s veracity.
Goldberg expressed particular interest in Vance’s comments, noting that he dissented from Trump’s stance and raised concerns about the president’s understanding of the situation.
JD Vance’s Doubts
According to messages from the Vance account within the chat, Vance expressed skepticism: “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices,” Vance purportedly wrote.
The Vance user continued, “There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
Goldberg, in his CNN interview, highlighted the significance of these remarks: “He’s basically just told the entire cabinet that he disagrees with the president’s decision and not only that, that he doesn’t think the president understands.”
“That’s pretty heavy, he doesn’t think the president understands the consequences and ramifications. That was very revealing and interesting,” Goldberg added.
Concerns Over Timing and Public Understanding
Vance further suggested a more cautious approach: “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.”
Recklessness and Security Breach
Goldberg remarked on the apparent lack of scrutiny within the group, noting that no one questioned his presence or contacted him when he left the chat. He described it as “a level of incuriosity, I guess that’s the nice way of saying it, a level of recklessness that I have not seen in many years of national security reporting.”
Hegseth’s Denial and Counter-Attack
Defense Secretary Hegseth vehemently denied Goldberg’s account, echoing President Trump’s past criticisms of The Atlantic and labeling Goldberg a “serial liar.”
Hegseth attacked Goldberg’s journalistic integrity, referencing previous Atlantic stories concerning Trump’s alleged Russia connections, the Charlottesville “very fine people” remarks, and the “suckers and losers” controversy related to fallen soldiers.
“So you are talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who has made a profession of peddling hoaxes, time and time again,” Hegseth stated.
“This is a guy who peddles in garbage. This is what he does,” Hegseth added, while praising American forces and criticizing the Biden administration.
Questions Over Signal Use
When questioned about the use of Signal for such sensitive discussions, Hegseth responded, “I’ve heard how it was characterized. Nobody was texting war plans and that’s all I have to say about that.”
The Pentagon offered limited comment, with a spokesman stating, “We do not have anything to offer beyond the Secretary’s remarks.”
Goldberg Refutes Hegseth’s Claims
Goldberg directly refuted Hegseth’s denial in the CNN interview, asserting, “No, that’s a lie. He was texting war plans, he was texting attack plans. When targets were gonna be targeted, how they were gonna be targeted, who was at the targets, when the next sequence of attacks were happening.”
He further mentioned withholding more sensitive information, explaining, “because it was too consequential, too technical and I worry that sharing that information in public could be harmful to American military personnel.”
Surreal Scene and Security Concerns
Goldberg described the unusual setting in which he observed these events unfold: “They were running a war plan on a messaging app and didn’t even know who was in the conversation, it’s an obvious, ridiculous, security breach and if you notice, he didn’t actually answer the question.”
“They’re supposed to keep all those conversations on the high side, the classified side, that’s why they have that,” he added, emphasizing the security protocols that were seemingly disregarded.
Unclear Invitation and Accidental Inclusion
The editor stated he was unsure who had invited him to the chat or whom they intended to include. “How could you possibly invite the editor of The Atlantic into your chat? What are the chances of that?” he questioned.
Goldberg expressed “real anxiety and anger” regarding the “sloppiness” displayed by those involved, especially given the real-world implications for American service members.
“Remember, American service people were involved directly in this attack. It wasn’t just standoff weapons fired from a thousand miles away. You know, you can’t just put out this kind of information and hope for the best.”
He sarcastically remarked on the potential for even greater mishap: “lucky they didn’t send this to a Houthi by mistake or a foreign diplomat or somebody who could be in their phones, I guess they could count that as a kind of luck.”
Goldberg’s Prior Experience and Shock
Highlighting the unprecedented nature of the event, Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic, “It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.”
Focus on Hegseth
The incident has placed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, under scrutiny for the apparent security lapse.
Goldberg mentioned that “Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m.” and that “The bombs started dropping in Yemen around 2 p.m.”
Trump’s Dismissal
President Trump told reporters he was unfamiliar with The Atlantic story, stating, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic. It’s to me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business.”
When pressed regarding the Signal chat, Trump commented, “It couldn’t have been very effective, because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time.”
Goldberg’s Initial Disbelief
Goldberg described his initial reaction to the text chain, explaining his disbelief and subsequent realization of its authenticity when “the bombs started falling.”
He admitted his astonishment that the National Security Advisor “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.”
Mistaken Identity Theory
Within the chat, Goldberg was identified as “JG.” Speculation arose that Mike Waltz intended to add Jamieson Greer, the former US Trade Representative, who shares the same initials.
Limited Disclosure for Security
Goldberg refrained from disclosing all details of the chat, citing national security concerns.
White House Confidence in Waltz
The White House has expressed support for National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”
Confirmation of Authenticity
The National Security Council has confirmed the authenticity of the Signal chat.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce deferred comment to the White House, stating, “We will not comment, and you should contact the White House.”
The incident is considered a significant security breach if the details are accurate.
Context of the Strikes
Trump authorized the strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen as a message to Tehran. The Houthi rebels had been targeting ships in the Red Sea linked to Israel, the U.S., and the UK.
Waltz initiated the Signal group to coordinate actions, naming it “Houthi PC small group.”
Initial Doubts and Verification
Goldberg initially suspected the chat could be a “disinformation operation.”
However, the content sounded genuine, and certain details corroborated known events. For example, the Vance account mentioned a Michigan economic event, which aligned with the Vice President’s schedule.
It was within this context that Vance voiced his reservations about the operation, specifically warning of potential oil price increases.
Vance’s Concerns and Hegseth’s Response
Vance’s account expressed concerns about the timing, prompting Hegseth to respond: “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what.”
Following discussion, Vance conceded, “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”
Unnoticed Presence
Goldberg noted his “mystified” feeling that his presence in the group went unnoticed.
Sensitive Information Withheld
Goldberg also disclosed that he withheld information from a lengthy message by Hegseth, deeming it potentially harmful to U.S. military and intelligence personnel if disclosed to adversaries.
“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,” Goldberg reiterated.
Reactions to the Strikes
Other participants in the chat responded to Hegseth’s messages. Vance reportedly wrote, “I will say a prayer for victory,” followed by prayer emojis from two other users, according to Goldberg.
Confirmation of Strikes
Goldberg recounted waiting in his car to see if the threats were real: “If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.”
Upon returning to the chat, Goldberg witnessed celebratory emojis and messages. Waltz responded with a fist, an American flag, and fire emojis. Susie Wiles wrote: “Kudos to all – most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.” Steve Witkoff added prayer hands, a flexed bicep, and American flags emojis.
Post-Chat Actions
Goldberg stated he voluntarily exited the group chat and subsequently contacted participants to inquire about the incident.
Brian Hughes, spokesperson for the National Security Council, confirmed the chat’s authenticity to Goldberg. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote. “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.”