In an unfortunate oversight, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was mistakenly added to a Signal group chat where top U.S. officials discussed military plans concerning airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi militants.

This is like accidentally including your mom in a late-night steamy text to the wife…oops. Only in this case, the whole country knows about it the next morning.

The Incident Unfolds

On March 11th, 2025, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz created a Signal group chat named “Houthi small group” to discuss upcoming military operations. The group included high-ranking officials such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. All heavy hitters, to be sure. 

Due to an apparent oversight, Goldberg was added to this group, granting him access to discussions about the planned airstrikes. Supposedly, these conversations encompassed information, including target locations, weapons to be used, and the timing of the attacks.

 

Internal Deliberations and Disagreements

Leaked messages from the Signal group chat exposed disagreements among top U.S. officials about the timing and strategy behind planned military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.

Vice President JD Vance raised concerns about the operation’s timing, warning that it could have negative economic effects, especially on trade through the Suez Canal. He also questioned whether the President fully understood how the strikes might conflict with other messaging related to Europe and suggested delaying the operation by a month.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed back, arguing that any delay could increase the risk of leaks and weaken U.S. resolve. He stressed the importance of restoring freedom of navigation and maintaining deterrence.

Others in the chat, including Joe Kent, said the timeline was flexible, and the operation wasn’t tied to a rigid schedule. The group also discussed how to manage public messaging and concerns about operational security. In the end, the operation moved forward as planned, and a spokesperson for Vance later said he supported the administration’s foreign policy despite the concerns raised in the chat.

What Exactly is Signal?

Signal is a highly secure, open-source messaging app known for its end-to-end encryption, which ensures that only the sender and the intended recipient can read the messages. We make extensive use of it here at SOFREP for a lot of our real-time daily comms. It supports encrypted text messages, voice calls, and video calls and has become a go-to platform for privacy advocates and security-conscious users. Part of its appeal lies in features like self-destructing messages, minimal data retention, and open-source code that allows for independent audits. Users can also set conversations to disappear automatically, leaving little digital trace.

Given these capabilities, it’s not surprising that someone like Mike Waltz might turn to Signal for high-level discussions. The app is widely recognized for its strong security, advanced encryption protocols, and a firm stance on user privacy—it doesn’t collect or sell user data, and it works seamlessly across mobile and desktop devices.

But even with its impressive security features, using Signal—or any non-classified platform—to discuss sensitive military operations flirts with a dangerous line. Government officials are generally barred from using apps like Signal for official business, especially when it involves classified material. National security experts have described the use of Signal in this context as “shocking recklessness,” highlighting that no matter how encrypted the app may be, discussing state matters outside secure government channels poses serious risks—and potential legal consequences.

SECDEF Hegseth’s Response to the Incident

Following the public revelation of the incident, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the situation, stating:

“Nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”

He also criticized Goldberg, describing him as “deceitful and highly discredited.”

He accused Goldberg of making a career out of “peddling hoaxes,” referencing past controversies involving the Atlantic’s reporting.

Broader Implications and Reactions

The inadvertent inclusion of a journalist in a military government communication channel has sparked widespread concern over the administration’s handling of sensitive information. Some national security experts have suggested that discussing such operations over Signal may violate the Espionage Act and the Federal Records Act. Others write it off as a mistake that must be looked into so that it does not happen again. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for a Congressional investigation into the breach, labeling the incident “reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous.”

Looking Forward

This incident highlights the relentless challenges faced by our national security apparatus in an increasingly digital world. While the administration’s inadvertent error is regrettable, it’s crucial to recognize the immense pressure our leaders face in rapidly responding to evolving threats against American interests.

Moreover, this situation exposes the potential dangers of politically motivated leaks and the media’s eagerness to sensationalize national security matters. The focus should remain on supporting our military’s efforts to protect American lives and interests abroad, rather than exploiting isolated mistakes for partisan gain.