National Security Breach? Trump Officials Texted Attack Timelines on Signal

A recent report has revealed that senior officials in the Trump administration used the messaging app Signal to discuss plans for airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was mistakenly included in the chat, exposed the major security lapse.

Despite assurances from top officials that no classified information was shared, messages in the group—named “Houthi PC small group”—contained specific details about attack timelines and intelligence updates. The breach has sparked serious concerns about national security and record-keeping practices within the administration.

What Happened in the Signal Chat?

On Monday, a reporter questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the incident. He responded, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

However, screenshots of the messages paint a different picture. The chat, created by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, included high-ranking officials such as:

Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense)

Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence)

John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)

Marco Rubio (Secretary of State and Acting Archivist)

J.D. Vance (Vice President)

On March 15, the day of the strike, Hegseth sent a message at 11:44 AM Eastern Time, stating:

"TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch."

He then outlined the attack timeline, including specific times for F-18 fighter jet launches, drone strikes, and Tomahawk missile launches.

At 1:48 PM, Waltz updated the group:
"VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job."

Vice President Vance, seemingly confused, replied, “What?” to which Waltz clarified:
"Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed."

Vance’s response: “Excellent.”

CIA Director Ratcliffe added, “A good start,” followed by Waltz sending a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji.

These exchanges raise serious questions about whether operational security (OPSEC) was compromised and whether such discussions should have taken place on an unsecured platform.

The Administration’s Response

During a Senate hearing, Gabbard and Ratcliffe both defended their participation in the chat. Gabbard told lawmakers, “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group.” Ratcliffe echoed her statement: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

President Trump also downplayed the significance of the chat, saying, “It wasn’t classified information.”

However, national security experts, reportedly, disagree. They argue that while the information may not have been formally classified, it was sensitive enough that its exposure could have jeopardized U.S. personnel. The Atlantic reported that Goldberg received messages about the attack two hours before the first bombs were dropped, raising concerns that such information, if leaked, could have put American pilots in danger.

The Debate Over Publishing the Messages

The Atlantic initially refrained from publishing the full text of the messages, citing concerns over military secrecy. However, following the administration’s repeated denials that classified information was shared, the magazine decided to release the Signal chat.

Before doing so, The Atlantic sought comments from the CIA, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House. While most agencies did not respond, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt eventually issued a statement:

"As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be an internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reasons—yes, we object to the release."

The CIA also requested that The Atlantic withhold the name of Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which had been mentioned in the chat. The magazine complied with this request.

What Comes Next?

The revelation of the Signal chat has prompted scrutiny over how the Trump administration handles sensitive military information. American Oversight, a government watchdog group, has filed a lawsuit seeking to recover deleted messages and ensure compliance with federal records laws.

While Trump officials insist that no classified information was compromised, the exposure of real-time military planning—on an unsecured platform, with an unintended recipient—raises serious concerns about security, transparency, and accountability.