Politics
The Trump
Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
U.S.
national-security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military
strikes in Yemen. I didn’t think it could be real. Then the bombs started
falling.
By Jeffrey
Goldberg
A photo of
Mike Waltz, JD Vance, and Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office
Andrew
Harnik / Getty
March 24,
2025, 12:06 PM ET
The world
found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States
was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however,
knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming.
The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had
texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information
about weapons packages, targets, and timing.
This is
going to require some explaining.
The story
technically begins shortly after the Hamas invasion of southern Israel, in
October 2023. The Houthis—an Iran-backed terrorist organization whose motto is
“God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to
Islam”—soon launched attacks on Israel and on international shipping, creating
havoc for global trade. Throughout 2024, the Biden administration was
ineffective in countering these Houthi attacks; the incoming Trump
administration promised a tougher response.
This is
where Pete Hegseth and I come in.
On Tuesday,
March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as
Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular
with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging
services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in
question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not
assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met
him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might
be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump
administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic
fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could
be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all
uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share
information that could be used against them.
I accepted
the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security
adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other
important matter.
Two days
later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a
Signal chat group. It was called the “Houthi PC small group.”
A message to
the group, from “Michael Waltz,” read as follows: “Team – establishing a
principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the
next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at
deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit
Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this
evening.”
The message
continued, “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate
with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.”
The term
principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most
national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and
the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without
saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House
principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on
national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a
commercial messaging app.
One minute
later, a person identified only as “MAR”—the secretary of state is Marco
Antonio Rubio—wrote, “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the
current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same
moment, a Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, “Andy baker for VP.” One
minute after that, “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national
intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, “Joe Kent for DNI.” Nine
minutes later, “Scott B”—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or
someone spoofing his identity, wrote, “Dan Katz for Treasury.” At 4:53 p.m., a
user called “Pete Hegseth” wrote, “Dan Caldwell for DoD.” And at 6:34 p.m.,
“Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” One more person responded: “John
Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in
the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active
intelligence officer.
The
principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as
members of this group, including various National Security Council officials;
Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie
Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as “S M,”
which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as
“JG.”
That was the
end of the Thursday text chain.
After
receiving the Waltz text related to the “Houthi PC small group,” I consulted a
number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part
of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence
service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that
attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes
succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I
could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States
would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe
that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to
include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior
U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
The next
day, things got even stranger.
At 8:05 a.m.
on Friday, March 14, “Michael Waltz” texted the group: “Team, you should have a
statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning
in your high side inboxes.” (High side, in government parlance, refers to
classified computer and communications systems.) “State and DOD, we developed
suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is
sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we
will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed.”
At this
point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled “JD
Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event
in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in
Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade
runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk
that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest
reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
The Vance
account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice
president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any
issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his
message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to
severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team
and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying
this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the
economy is, etc.”
A person
identified in Signal as “Joe Kent” (Trump’s nominee to run the National
Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, “There is nothing
time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a
month.”
Then, at
8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.”
The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to
actual and current intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a
message arrived from the “Pete Hegseth” account. “VP: I understand your
concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations,
most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace,
Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody
knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1)
Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”
The Hegseth
message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not
fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks,
and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire
falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage
both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I
believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1)
Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish
deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I
will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC”—operations security. “I welcome other
thoughts.”
A few
minutes later, the “Michael Waltz” account posted a lengthy note about trade
figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. “Whether it’s now or
several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these
shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State
to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the
Europeans.”
The account
identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you
think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The
administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically
from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user
identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your
loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are
the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody
else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any,
given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS
still retains 24 hours of decision space.”
At this
point, the previously silent “S M” joined the conversation. “As I heard it, the
president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe
what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a
requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US
successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be
some further economic gain extracted in return.”
.That
message from “S M”—presumably President Trump’s confidant Stephen Miller, the
deputy White House chief of staff, or someone playing Stephen
Miller—effectively shut down the conversation. The last text of the day came
from “Pete Hegseth,” who wrote at 9:46 a.m., “Agree.”
After
reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree
of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if
they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly
adept AI text generator. I was still concerned that this could be a
disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained
mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if
it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight
were impressive.
It was the
next morning, Saturday, March 15, when this story became truly bizarre.
At 11:44
a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I
will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The
information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the
United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and
intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central
Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the
shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post
contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including
information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack
sequencing.
The only
person to reply to the update from Hegseth was the person identified as the
vice president. “I will say a prayer for victory,” Vance wrote. (Two other
users subsequently added prayer emoji.)
According to
the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two
hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket
parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would
soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were
then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
I went back
to the Signal channel. At 1:48, “Michael Waltz” had provided the group an
update. Again, I won’t quote from this text, except to note that he described
the operation as an “amazing job.” A few minutes later, “John Ratcliffe” wrote,
“A good start.” Not long after, Waltz responded with three emoji: a fist, an
American flag, and fire. Others soon joined in, including “MAR,” who wrote,
“Good Job Pete and your team!!,” and “Susie Wiles,” who texted, “Kudos to all –
most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.”
“Steve Witkoff” responded with five emoji: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep,
and two American flags. “TG” responded, “Great work and effects!” The
after-action discussion included assessments of damage done, including the
likely death of a specific individual. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry
reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has
not been independently verified.
On Sunday,
Waltz appeared on ABC’s This Week and contrasted the strikes with the Biden
administration’s more hesitant approach. “These were not kind of pinprick,
back-and-forth—what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks,” he said. “This
was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and
took them out.”
The Signal
chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this
realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed
myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an
automatic notification to the group’s creator, “Michael Waltz,” that I had
left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received
no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.
Earlier
today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I also
wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In
an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the “Houthi PC small group” a
genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was included in this group? Was I
(on the off chance) included on purpose? If not, who did they think I was? Did
anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I removed myself from the
group? Do senior Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for
sensitive discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel
could endanger American personnel?
Brian
Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours
later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an
authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was
added to the chain,” Hughes wrote. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep
and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing
success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to
troops or national security.”
William
Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by
the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president. “The Vice
President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers
are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations,”
he said. “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s
foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent
conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”
I have never
seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security
officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting
planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential
discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of
an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.
Conceivably,
Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have
violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of
“national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers
interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to
consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a
Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet
officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual
Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário