In a stunning breach of national security, the White House inadvertently shared highly sensitive Yemen war plans with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, via a Signal messaging group chat.
This unprecedented blunder involved top Trump administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance, discussing military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.
The incident, which unfolded just hours before the U.S. launched airstrikes on March 15, 2025, has sparked outrage, calls for resignations, and a broader debate about the administration’s handling of classified information.
What began as a routine operational discussion spiraled into a public relations and security nightmare, exposing vulnerabilities in the administration’s communication protocols and raising questions about accountability at the highest levels.
The incident came to light on March 25, 2025, when Goldberg published a detailed account in The Atlantic, revealing how he was accidentally added to a group chat named “Houthi PC Small Group.” The chat included key figures like National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who initiated the conversation, alongside other cabinet members such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
According to Goldberg, the messages contained operational specifics—targets, weapons, and attack timelines—details that should have remained strictly confidential. The White House has since confirmed the authenticity of the chat, launching an investigation into how such a critical error occurred.
How the Leak Happened
The chain of events began on March 11, when Goldberg received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as “Michael Waltz.”
Initially skeptical, Goldberg assumed it might be a prank or disinformation attempt, given the Trump administration’s fraught relationship with the press. However, his doubts dissipated as the chat evolved into a serious discussion about military action against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The Houthis, who have disrupted international shipping in the Red Sea, had been a growing concern for U.S. policymakers, prompting the planned strikes.
Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat appears to have been a simple human error—Waltz likely mistyped or misselected a contact. Yet, the consequences were profound. By March 13, the group was actively debating the strikes, with Hegseth reportedly sending a lengthy message outlining the operation’s specifics. Two days later, at 1:45 p.m.
Eastern Time on March 15, the U.S. military began bombing Houthi targets, precisely as described in the chat. Goldberg watched in real-time as the plans he’d glimpsed unfolded, later describing his reaction as one of disbelief at the “massive security breach” he’d stumbled upon.
White House Mistakenly Shares Yemen War Plans with Journalist
The revelation that the White House mistakenly shared Yemen war plans with a journalist has sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond. The Signal app, while encrypted, is not a classified platform, and its use for such sensitive discussions has drawn sharp criticism. Legal experts have suggested that the incident could violate laws governing the handling of national defense information, though it’s unclear if criminal charges will follow.
The chat’s automatic deletion settings, intended to erase messages after a set period, have also raised concerns about compliance with federal record-keeping laws.
Democratic lawmakers wasted no time condemning the administration. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it “a breach of U.S. national security and a violation of law that must be investigated by Congress.” Senator Chuck Schumer labeled it “amateur hour,” demanding accountability from Hegseth and Waltz. Even some Republicans expressed unease, with Senator Lindsey Graham calling for a “full briefing” on the incident. The bipartisan outrage underscores the gravity of the situation—a rare instance where political divides have blurred in the face of a shared concern over national security.
President Donald Trump, however, downplayed the incident. Speaking to reporters on March 24, he claimed, “I don’t know anything about it.
You’re telling me about it for the first time.” He dismissed The Atlantic as “not much of a magazine” and suggested the leak hadn’t compromised the operation, noting, “The attack was very effective.” Trump’s nonchalance has only fueled critics’ arguments that his administration lacks the discipline required to safeguard sensitive information.
Fallout and Finger-Pointing
The fallout has been swift and chaotic. Hegseth, a former Fox News host with no prior experience managing a sprawling organization like the Pentagon, has borne the brunt of the blame. In a heated exchange with reporters in Hawaii on March 24, he denied texting war plans, calling Goldberg “a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist” known for “peddling hoaxes.”
Yet, he offered no substantive rebuttal to The Atlantic’s detailed account, which included screenshots of the chat. Goldberg fired back on CNN, insisting, “No, that’s a lie. He was texting war plans,” further escalating the public spat.
Calls for Hegseth’s resignation have grown louder, with The New York Times editorial board declaring, “If Pete Hegseth Had Any Honor, He Would Resign.” Critics argue that his lack of expertise and cavalier attitude—evident in his past critiques of the Biden administration’s handling of classified documents—make him unfit for the role.
Waltz, a combat-decorated Green Beret, has also faced scrutiny for initiating the chat, though his reputation as a seasoned military figure has softened some of the blowback.
The White House has attempted damage control. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement asserting Trump’s “utmost confidence” in his national security team, while the National Security Council announced an investigation into how Goldberg’s number was added to the chat.
NSC spokesperson John Hughes confirmed the thread “appears to be authentic,” a rare admission that has only deepened the administration’s predicament.
International Implications
Beyond domestic fallout, the leak has international ramifications. The Yemen strikes targeted Houthi positions linked to Iran, part of a broader U.S. strategy to counter Tehran’s influence in the region. Goldberg’s article revealed cabinet members disparaging European allies as “free-loading” and “pathetic,” comments that could strain transatlantic relations at a time when unity against Iran is critical. Neither Yemen, Iran, nor the European Union has officially responded, but the exposure of such candid remarks risks diplomatic backlash.
The timing of the leak—hours before the strikes—also raises questions about whether adversaries could have acted on the information. Military analysts suggest the short window likely prevented any significant countermeasures, but the incident underscores the potential dangers of such breaches. “In 25 years of covering national security, I’ve never seen a story like this,” wrote Shane Harris, a veteran reporter now with The Atlantic, highlighting the unprecedented nature of the lapse.
Public Reaction and Media Frenzy
Public reaction has been a mix of outrage, disbelief, and dark humor. On X, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—who faced Trump’s relentless criticism over her private email server—posted Goldberg’s article with a succinct, “You have got to be kidding me.”
Elon Musk, a Trump adviser, took a lighter approach, quipping that the leak was a stroke of “4D chess” since “no one reads The Atlantic.” The quip, amplified by Trump on Truth Social, reflects the administration’s attempt to deflect through mockery, though it’s done little to quell the controversy.
Media coverage has been relentless. CNN described the chat as evidence of “a lax national security process and incompetence,” while NBC News emphasized the bipartisan calls for investigation. Fox News, where Hegseth once worked, offered a more sympathetic take, framing Goldberg as an unreliable narrator with a history of anti-Trump bias. The BBC, reporting from a global perspective, noted the incident’s potential to undermine U.S. credibility abroad. The New York Times, meanwhile, focused on the legal implications, questioning whether the use of Signal violated federal protocols.
What Happens Next?
The path forward remains uncertain. Congressional hearings loom, with Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe scheduled to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 26. Lawmakers will likely press for details on how the administration plans to prevent future breaches and whether disciplinary action is forthcoming. The investigation’s outcome could determine Hegseth’s and Waltz’s fates, though Trump’s loyalty to his appointees suggests he may resist calls for their removal.
For now, the incident stands as a stark reminder of the stakes involved in handling classified information. It’s a tale of human error, technological overreach, and political hubris—a perfect storm that has left the Trump administration scrambling to regain control of the narrative. As the dust settles, the question lingers: how could such a critical mistake happen at the highest levels of government?
Focus Keywords: White House Yemen war plans, Jeffrey Goldberg The Atlantic, Trump administration leak, Houthi strikes, national security breach
