The magazine The Atlantic The American attack plan was accidentally revealed to his journalist when Trump’s team included him in the participants in a conversation on the Signal network where he was discussing war plans for the attack of US military forces in Yemen.
In his article, The Atlantic Magazine writes in his article:
“Well, about this Signal conversation. On Monday, shortly after the report was published on a massive security breach of the Trump government, a journalist asked the Minister of Defense, Pete Hegsethbecause he had shared plans for an impending attack on Yemen in the messaging application Signal. He replied: “No one was sending messages to war plans. And that’s all I have to say about it. “
At a hearing of the Senate on Tuesday (25/03/25), the Director of the National Intelligence Service, Tulsi Gabbard, and the Director of the Central Information Service, John Ratcliffewere both asked about the Signal Conversation, in which the Jeffrey Goldberg, The editor -in -chief of The Atlantic, invited inadvertently by the National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. “There was no graded material that was notified to this Signal Group”Gabbard told the members of the Senate Information Committee.
Ratclifh said about the same: “My communications, in order to be clear, in the Signal messaging group were absolutely permissible and legal and did not include classified information.”
President Donald Trump, asked on Tuesday afternoon (25/03/25) on the same issue, said: ‘Were not classified information’.
So the magazine reveals through this report exactly what was discussed in a Chat, a platform by Donald Trump’s leading partners.
“These statements have been confronted with a dilemma. In The Atlantic’s original story about the conversation on Signal – the “small PC Houthi team”, as it was called by Waltz – we have concealed specific information about the weapons and timetable of the attacks we found in some texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if this information could potentially endanger the life of US staff. That is why we have chosen to characterize the nature of the information they share, not specific details of the attacks. “
But as they say: “The statements of Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe and Trump – in conjunction with the claims of many government officials that we are lying about the content of Signal’s messages – led us to believe that citizens must see the texts to come to their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in revealing the type of information that Trump’s advisers have included in unsafe communication channels, especially because senior government officials are trying to downplay the importance of messages shared. “
And they continue: “Our experts have repeatedly told us that the use of a signal conversation about such sensitive discussions is a threat to national security. For example, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of the Houthi positions. If this information – especially the exact times when US aircraft took off for Yemen – had fallen into the wrong hands on this crucial two -hour, US pilots and other US staff could be exposed to even greater risk than they would normally face. The Trump government argues that the military information contained in these texts were not secret – as it would usually – though the president did not explain how he came to this conclusion. Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump government if they had objected to publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Service, the office of the Director of the National Intelligence Service, the National Security Council, the Ministry of Defense and the White House, we wrote in part: “In the light of statements today by many government officials, including the Information Committee. And that it does not contain “war plans”.
The many questions raised by The Atlantic did not answer and only late yesterday (25/03/25), the White House spokesman Karoline Leavitt sent an email answer: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information broadcast on the group. However, as both the CIA Director and the National Security Advisor have expressed today, this does not mean that we are encouraging the publication of the conversation. It was to be an internal and private discussion between senior senior officials and sensitive information was discussed. Thus, for this reason [sic] – Yes, we are opposed to publication. ” (The statement Leavitt did not mention what elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive or how, more than a week after the initial air raids, their publication could have an impact on national security).
Also, as the article writes: “A CIA spokesman asked us to hide the name of his staff leader John Ratcliffe, which Ratcliffe had been shared in the Signal chain, because CIA information officers are traditionally not publicly recognized. Ratcliff had testified earlier yesterday that the officer was not a secret and said it was “absolutely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to hide the name of the officer. “
Much of the discussion in ‘Small Houthi PC group’ It concerned the timetable and rationale for the attacks on Houthi and contained observations of Trump government officials on the alleged shortages of European allies of America. But on the day of the attack – on Saturday, March 15 – the debate turned to the business.
At 11:44 am East time, Hegseth posted in the conversation, “Team Update:”
The text below it wrote: “The weather is favorable. Once confirmed W / Centcom We are a GO for the start of the mission. Centcom, or central administration, is the Army’s combat administration for the Middle East.
Hegseth’s text continues:
“1215et: F-18s (1st impact package)”
“1345:” Trigger Based “F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ known location, so it has to be in its time-also Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let’s stop here for a while to underline a point. This message shows that the US Secretary of Defense sent a message to a group that included a phone number unknown to him – Goldberg’s mobile phone – at 11:44 am This happened 31 minutes before taking off the first US war aircraft and two hours and one minute before the start of a period during which a primary target, Houthi’s “terrorist target”, was expected to be killed by these US aircraft. If this text had been taken by a hostile to American interests – or someone merely inquisitive, and with access to social media – Houthi would have time to prepare for what was intended to be a surprise attack on their forts. The consequences for American pilots could be devastating.
Hegseth’s text continued:
“1410: take off more F-18 (2nd impact package)”
“1415: Hit drones on the target (one thing is that the first bombs will surely fall, pending previous targets“ Trigger Based ”)”)
“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts-Also, the first tomahawks are launched.”
“MORE TO FOLLOW (EVERY TIME)”
“At the moment we are clean in OPEN” – that is, business security.
“May God guard our warriors.”
Shortly afterwards, Vice President JD Vance sent a message to the team: “I will say a prayer for victory.”
At 1:48 pm, Waltz sent the following text, which contained real -time information about the conditions at an attack point, apparently in Sanaa (Yemen):
“VP. The building collapsed. I had multiple positive identifiers. Pit, Kourila, IC, amazing work.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth. General Michael E. Kurilla, Commander of the Central Administration. and the intelligence services community, or ic. The reference to “multiple positive identity” suggests that US secret services had ascertained the identity of the goal or goals of Houthi, using either human or technical means.
Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused with Waltz’s message, wrote: “What?”
At 2 pm, Waltz replied: “Typing very quickly. The first target – their top missile – we had a positive recognition that seemed to enter his girlfriend building and has now collapsed. “
Vance replied a minute later: “excellent”. Thirty -five minutes after that, Ratclifh, the CIA director, wrote: “A good start”, which Waltz followed with a text containing an emoji punch, an American flag emoji and an emoji fire. The Yemeni Ministry of Health, managed by Houthi, said at least 53 people were killed in the attacks, a number that has not been verified independently.
It is not yet clear why a journalist was added to the exchange of messages. Waltz, who invited Goldberg to Signal’s conversation, said yesterday that he was investigating “how he got into this room”.