The Signal Leak: Recklessness at the Highest Levels of US Government

The Atlantic magazine published a damning story, on March 24, whereby it was exposed that the editor in chief of the magazine had been added to a Signal group chat with high-level government officials, discussing highly sensitive operational details regarding airstrikes on Houthis in Yemen.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about his behind-the-scenes experience in the discussions between Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. The chat also includes Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (TG), her acting chief of staff Joe Kent, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller (S M), Secretary of State Marco Rubio (MAR), Ukraine and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and other senior officials.

The aim of the “Houthi PC small group” was to organise the plans for the strike on Houthi fighters on March 15 as part of efforts to take on the group that has repeatedly attacked ships in the Red Sea since the October 2023 start of conflict in Gaza. Goldberg said that the “war plans” he received in the chat mentioned “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.” Initially, knowing his involvement was a mistake, Goldberg watched from afar, trying to see how reliable the information was. However, the validity of the text messages was proven when, minutes after the attack, praise was sung throughout the group. While Goldberg was simultaneously monitoring X to watch the results of the attack live, he was receiving messages like: “amazing job,” “Good Job Pete and your team!!” and the emoji combination of a fist, an American flag, and a flame. The Houthi-controlled Yemeni health ministry stated that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, though this number has not been independently verified. This information helped Goldberg confirm that the chat group was legitimate. He subsequently removed himself before messaging all officials in the group to alert them of the severity of the situation.

In his initial article, Goldberg omitted the detailed messages about the strikes due to concerns over publishing sensitive security information. However, after persistent claims from the Trump team that no unlawful security breach had occurred, Goldberg chose to release the full-text thread in a follow-up piece. Hegseth dismissed security concerns, stating, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.” Trump denounced the report as a “witch hunt,” while Leavitt asserted on X that “these were NOT ‘war plans.’ This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.” Waltz similarly wrote on social media, “No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS.”

Despite these denials, the messages published publicly on March 26 reveal that Hegseth shared details about the timing of aircraft and drone launches, bomb drops, and expected target movements. The Atlantic defended its decision to publish the texts, arguing that “there is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in non-secure communication channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

It was Mike Walz who mistakenly added Goldberg to the Signal group chat. He has since taken “full responsibility” for the mistake. Nevertheless, he didn’t fail to call Goldberg “the bottom-scum of journalists.” This incident shows the recklessness and gross negligence of the current US leadership. While Signal is authorised as a platform for officials to communicate, it is used primarily for meeting planning and logistics, not for detailed and highly confidential discussions on pending military action. There are many other systems that the government employs to discuss military activity, such as special government equipment or specifically designed sensitive compartmented information facilities, where mobile phones are not permitted. By coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, Waltz may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act. A week earlier, NPR reported that the Pentagon warned its staff specifically against using Signal because of its security vulnerabilities. A Pentagon “OPSEC special bulletin” sent on March 18 warned that Russian hacking groups could aim to exploit the vulnerability. A final key issue of the thread is that Waltz set some of the messages to disappear after one week and some after four. This raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records laws, as texts are considered records that should be preserved.

Beyond the responses of the members involved, this incident has also incited bipartisan calls for an inquiry into the breach. Democrats were quick to respond to the incident. During an intelligence committee hearing, the Illinois Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi had an aide hold up the messages in which Hegseth shared exact details of the strikes. “This is classified information. It’s a weapon system as well as a sequence of strikes, as well as details about the operations,” Krishnamoorthi said. “This text message is clearly classified information. Secretary Hegseth has disclosed military plans and classified information. He needs to resign immediately.” The Delaware senator Chris Coons followed, writing on X that “Every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime – even if accidentally […] We can’t trust anyone in this dangerous administration to keep Americans safe.” Democrats also pointed out the hypocrisy with regard to the way the Republicans had treated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump specifically demanded that Hillary Clinton be imprisoned for using a private email server for official business when she was secretary of state. However, some Republicans broke ranks to criticise the management of the incident. “This is what happens when you don’t really have your act together,” the Alaska Republican senator Lisa Murkowski told The Hill.

The cabinet members were already violating government policy by discussing the operation over text, but the addition of an unrecognised number further escalated the security and legal risks. By including an unauthorised recipient, the group was effectively transmitting sensitive information to someone not cleared to receive it. As Goldberg pointed out, “If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests – or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media – the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds.” The leaked messages underscore how easily such breaches can endanger soldiers’ lives. Had texts like “THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP” been exposed within the two hours leading up to the attack, hundreds of American troops could have been put at risk.

The group didn’t exclusively mention the attack plans; international alliances were also discussed. “The account identified as ‘JD Vance’ addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: ‘if you think we should do it, let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.’ (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the US Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes),” Goldberg wrote. Goldberg continues: “The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: ‘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.” European leaders expressed shock and dismay at the derogatory remarks in the leaked chat; they felt “sick to their stomach,” as reported by Katya Adler from an EU official.

The leak cast doubt on the US’s reliability as a partner, prompting European diplomats to question Washington’s commitment to transatlantic alliances. It reinforced fears of a widening divide between the US and Europe, deepened by Trump’s “America First” policies, which have prioritised unilateral actions over multilateral cooperation. The breach additionally undermined intelligence-sharing and joint military operations. European officials warned that allies may become increasingly reluctant to collaborate with the US due to its apparent disregard for security protocols. Further straining relations, messages in the chat suggesting that Europe should “remunerate” the US for military actions were seen as transactional and dismissive by European leaders. In response, discussions have intensified within Europe about reducing dependence on US military support and strengthening its defense autonomy. The EU has already taken steps in this direction, launching an €800 billion initiative to enhance member states’ military capabilities.

The Signal leak has exposed serious lapses in security and judgment at the highest levels of the US government, exposing critical vulnerabilities in national security protocols and straining international alliances. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between transparency and security in the digital age. At the heart of this controversy lies the essential role of journalism in a democratic society. By bringing this breach to light, The Atlantic fulfilled its watchdog duty, ensuring that those in power are held accountable. As the fallout from this leak continues, it stands as a powerful testament to the indispensable role of the press in upholding democratic oversight and public trust.