‘This can’t be real’: How The Atlantic’s editor got access to Trump’s 'private' military secrets…. Spoiler: Signal and Ineptitude.
https://possum.news/post/6023

possum.news‘This can’t be real’: How The Atlantic’s editor got access to Trump’s 'private' military secrets…. Spoiler: Signal and Ineptitude. - Possum.newsA journalist from The Atlantic was accidentally added to a Signal messaging
group discussing military actions against the Houthi group in Yemen. The breach
revealed sensitive details, including military strategy and classified
information. The Pentagon later confirmed the authenticity of the messages,
raising concerns about national security and communication protocols within the
U.S. administration. In an unprecedented leak, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic, found himself accidentally included in a private chat group
with the Trump administration’s senior national security officials. The group,
created for discussions on airstrikes targeting the Houthi rebels in Yemen,
exposed highly sensitive military plans, which Goldberg detailed in an explosive
article titled, The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.
#The Chat That Shouldn’t Have Happened Goldberg’s story began on March 11, when
he received a Signal connection request from someone identifying as Michael
Waltz, the national security adviser. Initially unsure whether it was truly
Waltz, Goldberg reluctantly accepted the request, only to be added to a
discussion chain called the “Houthi PC small group” two days later. The messages
shared within this group included sensitive details about military operations
targeting the Houthi rebel group, backed by Iran, in Yemen. #A Reckless Breach
of Security Protocols The Signal chat was populated by some of the
highest-ranking officials in the Trump administration: Vice President JD Vance,
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, to
name a few. They discussed everything from military targets to operational
details. Goldberg shared his initial disbelief at the group’s informality, with
members, including top officials, casually debating strategic decisions like the
timing of military strikes and potential impacts on oil prices and global trade.
Waltz, unaware or unconcerned by Goldberg’s presence, continued to share
increasingly sensitive details. The messages included information on the precise
timing of the strikes, the weaponry to be used, and even discussions about
military morale. This wasn’t just a logistical planning group—it was an in-depth
look into the decision-making processes surrounding imminent military actions.
#Houthi Strikes: The Military Action Unveiled On March 15, just hours after
these discussions, the Trump administration launched a series of air and naval
strikes against the Houthis. The Pentagon confirmed the operation was aimed at
neutralizing key Houthi leaders in a bid to restore stability to the Red Sea.
Waltz later appeared on ABC’s This Week, asserting the strikes were “an
overwhelming response” that “actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders” and
showed that the administration was “holding Iran responsible.” What makes this
breach even more troubling is the information shared within the chat. Hegseth
and others included extremely specific details about the weaponry to be used,
the targets selected, and the sequence of events— information that could
potentially have jeopardized the lives of American military personnel or
compromised national security if exposed to adversaries. #The Strange Nature of
the Leak# As Goldberg navigated this bizarre situation, he consulted colleagues,
who initially suspected the messages could be part of a disinformation campaign,
designed to entrap or embarrass journalists.** But as the hours passed, it
became increasingly clear that the texts were authentic.** The language, tone,
and depth of the discussions rejected the voices of the people they purported to
be. Goldberg was left questioning how and why he had been included, and what
kind of security lapse had allowed him to see these sensitive discussions. #The
Legal and Security Implications This incident raises significant concerns about
the security practices of senior U.S. officials. National security lawyers
pointed out that discussions of active military operations should only occur on
classified communication systems, not on apps like Signal, which are not
approved for sharing classified information. Even though Signal is encrypted, it
doesn’t meet the security standards required for sensitive government
discussions. There is also the matter of the Espionage Act and the Federal
Records Act. The use of Signal to coordinate military action potentially
violated both. Senior officials should not use unsecured apps for official
business, as it risks leaking national security information. What’s more, by
setting messages to disappear after a certain period, the officials also
circumvented federal records laws, which mandate the preservation of government
communications. #The Aftermath and Official Responses Goldberg eventually
removed himself from the Signal group, prompting no immediate questions from the
others. It was only after his article was published that National Security
Council spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed the authenticity of the Signal chat,
calling it a “demonstration of deep and thoughtful policy coordination” but also
acknowledging that an “inadvertent number” had been added to the chat. The Trump
administration’s response has been mostly defensive. A spokesperson for Vice
President Vance stressed that he supported the administration’s foreign policy,
despite the controversial nature of the leak. Meanwhile, legal experts have
warned that this breach could have far-reaching consequences, including for
national security, operational secrecy, and the integrity of military planning.
#A Leak That Should Never Have Happened In the end, Goldberg’s inclusion in the
Signal chat was a glaring example of how easily sensitive national security
information can slip through the cracks. While some might argue it was a simple
mistake, the repercussions are far from trivial. With the actions of senior U.S.
officials now exposed to public scrutiny, the case underscores the critical need
for tighter security measures, especially when discussing sensitive military
operations.