The Trump administration accidentally texted its War Plans to a journalist

[Admiral Yi]

I have trouble with the notion that when Hillary did it that was white female incompetence.

[Norgy]

The response after this became public was rather typical. Fake news. Erm. No. Bad journalist. No credibility.

[dist]

I have trouble with the notion that when Hillary did it that was white female incompetence.

On that note, and maybe I'm biased, but this seems so much worse than the whole "but her emails!" affair.

[Syt]

I have trouble with the notion that when Hillary did it that was white female incompetence.

On that note, and maybe I'm biased, but this seems so much worse than the whole "but her emails!" affair.

Yes, but you see this time it's different. Because it's Republicans. Their missteps somehow never seem to incur the outcry or pushback that happen when Democrats do less egregious things. Imagine if Biden or Obama had hosted a sales event for [insert vendor of choice] on the White House lawn and then receved $100M for their coffers. Republicans were crying streams of crocodile tears over Obama's much less problematic post-presidency Netflix deal.

[Razgovory]

If this is not classified information, as many in the Trump administration have said, then release it to the public.

[Admiral Yi]

On that note, and maybe I'm biased, but this seems so much worse than the whole "but her emails!" affair.

I agree, though one could argue about the degree.  Do you have any additional thoughts on the matter you'd like to share that depended on my answer?

[Admiral Yi]

If this is not classified information, as many in the Trump administration have said, then release it to the public.

Tonto's new hero reads aloud from it if you're interested.

[Sheilbh]

Does Hegseth look a lot like Timothy Olyphant or is it just me?

That he looks good on TV is, I think, a not insignificant part of his appeal to Trump, from Sam Adler-Bell:

As to why Trump picked him: First, he's Ivy League educated and looks like a movie star (neither of which Trump can resist), and second, while the rest of Fox News Channel was having its whirlwind romance with Ron DeSantis, Hegseth remained a Trump guy and said so on TV over and over.

Same with Vance's Ivy League education - there's no need to play it down with Trump. It's a big appeal to him.

Yes, but you see this time it's different. Because it's Republicans. Their missteps somehow never seem to incur the outcry or pushback that happen when Democrats do less egregious things. Imagine if Biden or Obama had hosted a sales event for [insert vendor of choice] on the White House lawn and then receved $100M for their coffers. Republicans were crying streams of crocodile tears over Obama's much less problematic post-presidency Netflix deal.

I saw someone point out (this is maybe more for the Quo Vadis thread) that Gerry Connolly, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee last did a media round over a month ago. Again I don't necessarily think AOC and Sanders are "the" answer. But AOC ran for that position and House Democrats went for Connolly. As I say I don't think they're necessarily the answer but I can guarantee that AOC would be a bit more proactive.

Admittedly I believe Connolly has some health problems - but this just goes back to the Democrats not really having an issue with a 75 year old with cancer having a senior leadership role because it's their "turn".

Even with Connolly he's only just become ranking member having served on the Committee for 15 years - but there are other committees with Democrat ranking members for many years and sometimes over a decade. By contrast unless granted a waiver Republicans are limited to a maximum of three consecutive terms or six years as chair which I think is healthier and gives space for the young and hungry types. I get why seniority was useful politically for the Democrats, and particularly Southern Democrats, but I think that sort of thing is an issue. I think the days of very long holding onto those really crucial institutional levers of Congressional power and leadership, based on relationships (perhaps white Southern power gloved in Southern gentility/decorum) need to end.

[The Minsky Moment]

The official WH take, straight from Lie-To-Us Barbie:

"The American people should be grateful to these individuals and especially to President Trump for putting together such a competent and highly qualified team who are killing terrorists the Biden administration allowed to run wild in the Middle East

I have to admit, it is really impressive that Pete Hegseth and Scott Bessent (among others) are personally killing Houthi terrorists despite being thousands of miles from Yemen.

Still, the whole theme in this administration of demanding everyone express gratitude to them all the time has a real Riefenstahl tinge.

[dist]

I agree, though one could argue about the degree.  Do you have any additional thoughts on the matter you'd like to share that depended on my answer?

No. For me, your message was a segway to possibly discuss and comment the false equivalency of weighting the use of Signal to discuss military operations and Hilary's email server scandal.

To juggle our memory a bit, this is how Wiki (sorry, I've to leave soon) introduces its article on the subject: "During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified."

In contrast to that, this is what the Signal chat contained (The Atlantic decided to publish some more since the administration maintains the messages didn't contain any classified info):

o, about that Signal chat.

On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, "Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that."

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. "There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group," Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ratcliffe said much the same: "My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information."

President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, "It wasn't classified information."

These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic's initial story about the Signal chat—the "Houthi PC small group," as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.

The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.

Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.

Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: "In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain 'war plans,' The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain."

We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.

Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: "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 a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release." (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)

A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe's chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was "completely appropriate" to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.

As we wrote on Monday, much of the conversation in the "Houthi PC small group" concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis, and contained remarks by Trump-administration officials about the alleged shortcomings of America's European allies. But on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the discussion veered toward the operational.

At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, "TEAM UPDATE:"

The text beneath this began, "TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch." Centcom, or Central Command, is the military's combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:

"1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)"
"1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)"

Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg's cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi "Target Terrorist," was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.

The Hegseth text then continued:

"1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)"
"1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier 'Trigger Based' targets)"
"1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched."
"MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)"
"We are currently clean on OPSEC"—that is, operational security.
"Godspeed to our Warriors."
Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, "I will say a prayer for victory."

At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: "VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job." Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to "multiple positive ID" suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.

Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz's message, wrote, "What?"

At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: "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 responded a minute later: "Excellent." Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, "A good start," which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji. 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.

Later that afternoon, Hegseth posted: "CENTCOM was/is on point." Notably, he then told the group that attacks would be continuing. "Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far."

It is still unclear why a journalist was added to the text exchange. Waltz, who invited Goldberg into the Signal chat, said yesterday that he was investigating "how the heck he got into this room."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/

[HVC]

The official WH take, straight from Lie-To-Us Barbie:

"The American people should be grateful to these individuals and especially to President Trump for putting together such a competent and highly qualified team who are killing terrorists the Biden administration allowed to run wild in the Middle East

I have to admit, it is really impressive that Pete Hegseth and Scott Bessent (among others) are personally killing Houthi terrorists despite being thousands of miles from Yemen.

Still, the whole theme in this administration of demanding everyone express gratitude to them all the time has a real Riefenstahl tinge.

Fighting terrorism is easy, but phones are hard.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Stolen from Reddit, more leaked Signal chats released:

[Syt]

Saw this one in my feed.

[fromtia]

Meritocracy has elevated the best and brightest. We are blessed.

[Syt]

Meritocracy has elevated the best and brightest. We are blessed.

At least they got rid of DEI to make sure only the "right" people get hired