Found an error?
Report now
Trump between his ministers Rubio (left) and Hegseth (right).
dpa
An embarrassing - and significant - mishap in the White House: a senior editor is accidentally added to a group chat of Trump's cabinet. He reads live how bomb attacks are planned.
A planned airstrike in the Middle East, a government group chat and a journalist who reads everything - an explosive security breach is causing a stir in the USA. The editor-in-chief of the US magazine "The Atlantic" was inadvertently included in a secret US government group chat in which highly sensitive military plans were apparently discussed.
A spokesman for the National Security Council, Brian Hughes, confirmed that the chat was most likely authentic. He announced an internal review.
In an article that has only just been published, "Atlantic" editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg describes in detail how he quietly witnessed an explosive conversation in mid-March via the encrypted messenger app Signal: In the group chat, leading members of US President Donald Trump's administration were apparently discussing concrete attack plans against the Iran-backed Huthi militia in Yemen.
According to Goldberg, the first contact was made on March 11: A Signal user with the name of Trump's National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, sent him a contact request, the journalist writes. He was initially suspicious. He suspected that it was not really the government representative. Nevertheless, he accepted the request in the hope that he was actually dealing with Waltz.
Two days later, he was invited to the group chat in question. Other users gradually joined: some with real names, others with abbreviations that suggested they were members of the US government.
At this point, Goldberg said he was still far from convinced that it was genuine government communication. The idea that the National Security Advisor of the United States would invite him of all people - the editor-in-chief of a US magazine - to such a chat seemed absurd to him.
"I had strong doubts about the authenticity of this group chat," writes Goldberg. He also found it hard to believe "that the leading security forces of the United States would communicate their imminent war plans via Signal".
He considered it more likely that it could be a deliberate deception by a foreign intelligence agency. While Goldberg was still puzzling over the origin of the messages, however, things continued to develop on his cell phone screen: the members of the group began to talk openly about a planned military strike in Yemen.
In his article, Goldberg describes the exchanges between the participants in detail - with exact times, original quotes and a sometimes informal tone. Waltz, for example, used emojis to signal agreement and a fighting spirit: a clenched fist, a US flag and a flame symbol.
Among the group members were Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other cabinet members and high-ranking government officials. Both military tactics and political communication surrounding the planned strike against the Huthi were discussed.
Particularly explosive: two hours before the start of the attacks on March 15, Hegseth himself posted detailed information on targets, weapon systems and the timing of the operation in the chat. Shortly afterwards, air strikes actually began against Houthi positions in Yemen. The USA had reclassified the militia as a foreign terrorist organization shortly beforehand.
When the first explosions were reported, Goldberg said he was finally convinced that the conversation was real - and not a fake. He left shortly afterwards without being asked. According to his report, there were no questions about his presence.
The case raises a lot of questions. How can such a dramatic mishap even happen? How can it be that the top echelons of the government - and the national security leadership team at that - accidentally invite a journalist to an internal group chat? How can it be that nobody notices this for days? But how does this leadership team even come up with the idea of discussing active military planning in this way?
Normally, there are strict regulations on how the government should handle confidential and top-secret information relating to national security. This is all the more true when it comes to active planning for a military strike abroad. According to the Atlantic, the Signal app is generally not approved by the US government for the exchange of confidential information. And particularly strict regulations apply to information on specific plans for military action.
Have cabinet members possibly even made themselves liable to prosecution through their actions? Trump himself has felt the effects of the strict regulations on the subject: He was prosecuted and charged for improperly storing classified government documents in his private residence after his first term in office - the case was later dropped.
And what does the case say overall about the handling of highly sensitive information in the Trump administration? In any case, there is a great deal of excitement and Trump's team can be sure of some ridicule - including from abroad. The US President himself initially declared that he knew nothing about the matter. When asked about the report, the Republican replied that it was the first time he had heard about it - and that he was "not a big fan" of the magazine.
National Security Council spokesman Hughes attempted to reinterpret the mishap, arguing that the incident was "evidence of intense and thoughtful political coordination between senior government officials". It is unlikely that this interpretation will prevail.
24.03.2025, 20:51
24.03.2025, 22:31
