The Trump administration’s plans for military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen were inadvertently shared with a journalist after he was mistakenly added to a high-level Signal group chat involving top U.S. national security officials. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, revealed that he received classified details about the operation, including target specifics, weapon deployments, and timing, hours before the bombs began falling on March 15.

This is possibly the most insane national security story in the last 50 years. Includes a massive text chain between senior members of the Trump admin gaming out foreign policy and war plans on Signal, and they accidentally added a reporter to the group chat. https://t.co/9mrYzQkOFp pic.twitter.com/thu7jlFtnv

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 24, 2025

Goldberg first became aware of the discussions when he received a Signal connection request on March 11 from an account identifying itself as Michael Waltz, President Trump’s national security adviser. Though skeptical—given the administration’s adversarial stance toward journalists—he accepted the request. Two days later, he was added to a group labeled the “Houthi PC small group,” which included cabinet members such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The exchanges, which discussed imminent military action, were strikingly detailed, raising concerns about operational security and potential legal violations.

???????????? Wow… The Trump administration accidentally dropped The Atlantic’s editor into a Signal group chat—then Pete Hegseth sent him classified info about U.S. strikes on Yemen hours before they happened… pic.twitter.com/LiEBEsRHmp

— MAKS 24 ???????????? (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) March 24, 2025

The group’s deliberations revealed internal divisions, particularly over the timing of the strikes and their implications for U.S. relations with Europe. Vice President Vance expressed reservations, arguing that the public might not understand the necessity of the operation, given that only 3% of U.S. trade passes through the Suez Canal, compared to 40% of Europe’s. “I hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance wrote, reflecting the administration’s frustration with European allies benefiting from U.S. military protection without sufficient financial contributions. Defense Secretary Hegseth countered that delaying the strikes risked leaks or preemptive action by Israel, emphasizing the need to reestablish deterrence against Iran-backed Houthi attacks.

The conversation took a decisive turn when an account believed to belong to Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, intervened, stressing that Europe and Egypt should compensate the U.S. for securing shipping lanes. “If the U.S. successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost, there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return,” the message read. Shortly after, operational details were shared in the group, including precise strike timelines. Goldberg, realizing the authenticity of the chat when explosions were reported in Yemen, later withdrew from the group without being questioned about his presence.

The incident raises serious legal and security concerns. National security lawyers consulted by The Atlantic noted that using an unsecured messaging app like Signal to discuss classified military operations may violate the Espionage Act and federal records laws. While officials could argue they had declassified the information, transmitting it via an unauthorized platform remains problematic. The administration’s reliance on Signal—typically used for logistical coordination, not sensitive war planning—also exposed vulnerabilities, as phones could be hacked by foreign adversaries.

A National Security Council spokesperson confirmed the group’s authenticity but downplayed risks, stating the operation’s success proved no harm to national security. Vance’s office insisted he fully supported the strikes despite his earlier objections, claiming his concerns were part of ensuring thorough deliberation. The episode underscores the administration’s unorthodox approach to secure communications, contrasting sharply with Trump’s past criticisms of Hillary Clinton’s private email use.

The breach highlights broader tensions between the U.S. and Europe, particularly over burden-sharing in global security. As the administration weighs further actions, the accidental inclusion of a journalist in top-secret discussions may prompt scrutiny over whether proper protocols were followed—or deliberately bypassed.