“RECKLESS BEYOND BELIEF”: Top Trump Officials Openly Discussed Secret Yemen Strike Plans On Chat With Journalist


In an astonishing breach of national security, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that he was mistakenly added to a private Signal group chat where top Trump administration officials openly discussed imminent U.S. military strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. The revelation has ignited a firestorm of criticism, raising serious concerns about how high-level war planning was casually conducted over a messaging app, seemingly without any security protocols in place.

Goldberg recounted his shock upon receiving the unexpected invitation to a chat labeled “Houthi PC small group” on March 13. At first, he assumed it was a hoax. The idea that the most senior national security officials in the United States would be discussing classified war plans on Signal seemed too reckless to be real. But two days later, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth casually announced in the group that U.S. strikes on Yemen would begin in exactly two hours, Goldberg realized that the chat was, in fact, authentic. Right on schedule, American fighter jets carried out the attacks, proving that what he had witnessed was not some elaborate ruse but a real-time glimpse into the highest levels of military decision-making.

The group chat reportedly included National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who initially invited Goldberg by mistake, as well as Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Throughout the conversation, top officials debated the strategic and political implications of the operation, with Vance initially pushing back against the strikes, arguing that they were unnecessary and that the American public might not understand their purpose. He warned that attacking the Houthis could create economic instability and raise oil prices, expressing frustration over the United States once again stepping in to protect European trade interests.

Hegseth, however, dismissed these concerns outright. He insisted that messaging would be difficult no matter what and that the administration should focus on two simple talking points: “Biden failed” and “Iran funded.” He argued that failing to strike would make the administration look weak and indecisive. In the end, Vance capitulated, agreeing to go forward with the plan but expressing disdain for what he called European “free-loading.”

As the conversation continued, Goldberg read in disbelief as Hegseth provided the group with operational details of the planned strikes, including the weapons to be used, specific targets, and the attack sequence. Though Goldberg refrained from publishing those specifics for security reasons, his account paints a picture of an administration conducting highly sensitive military planning over an unencrypted app, with no safeguards against leaks or foreign surveillance.

The White House has scrambled to contain the fallout. National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed the authenticity of the chat but attempted to downplay the severity of the breach, calling it a demonstration of “deep and thoughtful policy coordination.”

That explanation has done little to calm the outrage, with critics from across the political spectrum blasting the administration’s carelessness. A former senior intelligence official described the situation as “reckless beyond belief,” pointing out that while Trump and his allies spent years attacking Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server, they themselves were now discussing classified military operations in a group chat that included a journalist.

Former Obama spokesman Matthew Miller pointed out the hypocrisy, saying that in any other administration, there would already be an FBI investigation. Others have noted the irony of Trump and his allies repeatedly calling for Clinton’s imprisonment while they were engaging in behavior that posed an even greater security risk. A former Pentagon official was blunt in his assessment, calling it a staggering level of incompetence and questioning why no one in the administration seemed to understand the magnitude of what had occurred.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)



9 Responses

  1. Was this editor astonished or offended when secret plans were openly leaked to the press with regularity by previous administrations, including those of our allies? Or when classified documents were hidden in garages and bathroom servers or private emails and blackberries? Or is it only because it is Trump?
    Is Yemen the type of place where military plans even need be secret? Will them knowing anything change the dynamics?

    I am more offended that closing the shipping lanes adds to inflation, and no one did anything about it globally.

  2. Private email server was not encrypted but this chat was encrypted besides for the accidental invite it was safe.
    So it took 2 misjudgements to get access.
    While private email server was basically available for any hacker.

  3. Usual yellow-journalism by YWN headline writers.
    It was “RECKLESS BEYOND BELIEF” to have mistakenly added the wrong individual to a secure chat?

  4. the headline is misleading. no one openly discussed secrets with a journalist. and revealing *anything* from a private chat is a major breach of ethics as far as i’m concerned. even something as simple as congratulatory chitchat – it’s not his to reveal, any more than the contents of a fax sent to the wrong machine.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts