In an unexpected turn of events, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, found himself accidentally added to a secret conversation involving some of the highest-ranking members of Donald Trump’s cabinet.
This group, communicating on the encrypted messaging app Signal, was discussing military strategies, including plans to strike targets in Yemen.
It was a discovery that left Goldberg both stunned and troubled by the reckless nature of the communication.
The Group Chat That Shouldn’t Have Happened
The chat was initiated by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and included key figures such as Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Other individuals in the conversation included Trump adviser Stephen Miller, a CIA representative, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
According to Goldberg, the chat included highly sensitive information—attack plans, target locations, identities, and the specific sequence of strikes.
He was quick to respond to Pete Hegseth’s dismissal of the story, calling his denial a “lie” and asserting that the defense secretary had indeed been texting war plans.
Hegseth’s Denial and His Backlash
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who had just arrived in Hawaii, strongly rejected the claims, slamming Goldberg as a “deceitful and highly discredited journalist.”
He accused The Atlantic of publishing hoaxes in the past, such as the infamous “very fine people” comment following the Charlottesville riots.
Hegseth defended the military’s actions in Yemen and criticized the Biden administration’s performance.
When questioned about the details shared on Signal, Hegseth simply brushed it off, saying, “Nobody was texting war plans.”
Goldberg, however, stood by his claims, revealing that some details he had not published were even more sensitive.
He explained that he chose not to release the full scope of information out of concern for the safety of U.S. military personnel, as it could have been harmful if exposed.
Goldberg found himself watching the chat unfold from a supermarket parking lot, shocked by the apparent breach of security.
The Unseen Recklessness
Goldberg admitted that he was puzzled at first, questioning whether the entire conversation was part of a disinformation operation.
However, as the messages continued, it became clear that the chat was real, with the participants unaware that Goldberg had been added by mistake.
He described the entire situation as a “security breach” and pointed out that such sensitive discussions should never take place over an unsecured platform like Signal.
What was even more alarming to him was the lack of curiosity from anyone in the chat about his presence.
It revealed a level of carelessness and recklessness he hadn’t seen in years of reporting on national security.
JD Vance’s Surprising Break from Trump
As the conversation unfolded, another surprising moment came when JD Vance, a member of the group, broke from President Trump’s stance and questioned the wisdom of the proposed operation.
Vance expressed concerns about the timing of the attack, fearing it could lead to a spike in oil prices.
Hegseth, while acknowledging Vance’s concerns, reassured him that the situation was difficult to predict, with many factors at play.
Vance ultimately agreed to support the consensus, even though he disagreed with the decision.
Goldberg found this exchange particularly revealing.
It showed that not everyone in the administration was on the same page, with Vance openly doubting Trump’s understanding of the potential consequences.
It was a rare moment of disagreement among senior figures in the cabinet.
The Security Breach That Could Have Had Dire Consequences
As the war plans were being discussed in real-time, Goldberg couldn’t help but feel a growing sense of anxiety.
He wondered how such a significant breach of security could occur, especially with the lives of American service members on the line.
At one point, Goldberg watched as the planned strikes against Yemen began, confirming that the chat’s details were legitimate.
He described how explosions were heard in the capital city of Sanaa just moments after the plans were discussed in the group chat.
He also noticed the emojis and congratulatory messages that followed the attacks, further deepening his disbelief at the casual tone of the conversation.
Goldberg, feeling uneasy about the situation, voluntarily left the chat and immediately reached out to those involved for clarification.
The National Security Council later confirmed that the chat was indeed authentic, though they suggested it was an “inadvertent” mistake to add Goldberg to the conversation.
The Pentagon’s Response and Ongoing Concerns
Despite the Pentagon’s assurances that there was no immediate threat to national security, Goldberg remained unsettled by the event.
The White House expressed confidence in Waltz’s leadership, citing the success of the operation.
However, the incident raised serious questions about the security of sensitive military operations and the potential risks of using unsecured communication channels for such discussions.
In the aftermath, Goldberg reflected on the surreal nature of the experience, describing how he was accidentally thrust into a national security conversation he never should have been part of.
The entire episode serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding classified information and the potential consequences of careless handling in the digital age.