The White House announced on Monday that it is investigating how Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was mistakenly added to a group chat where high-ranking members of President Donald Trump’s administration appeared to be discussing military airstrikes against Houthi militants in Yemen.
According to a statement from the National Security Council (NSC) to NBC News, “At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.”
The incident came to light after The Atlantic published an article by Goldberg detailing his unexpected inclusion in the chat, which was titled “Houthi PC small group” on Signal, a widely used encrypted messaging platform. Goldberg, a veteran journalist covering national security and foreign affairs, stated that he was added to the conversation on March 13. Initially, he suspected that it might be a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by either a foreign intelligence service or a group attempting to embarrass journalists.
As he monitored the chat, Goldberg realized that the participants appeared to be key figures in the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. The messages exchanged in the group seemingly discussed military strategy, and The Atlantic published screenshots of the conversation, though Goldberg refrained from revealing sensitive operational details to avoid compromising national security.
One particularly striking exchange took place on March 15, when the user identified as “Michael Waltz” celebrated the launch of airstrikes against the Houthis at 1:48 p.m. Eastern Time. Goldberg recounted how he checked X (formerly Twitter) moments later and found reports of explosions rocking the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, indicating that the discussions in the chat were not hypothetical but tied to real-world military operations.
The National Security Council, in its response, sought to downplay any security concerns arising from the incident. “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 our servicemembers or our national security,” the NSC’s statement read.
Goldberg revealed that he ultimately decided to exit the chat after concluding that it was “almost certainly real.” He noted that no one in the group acknowledged his presence or questioned his departure, suggesting that his accidental inclusion had gone unnoticed. “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,” Goldberg wrote in his article.
Interestingly, the conversation within the group indicated internal disagreements about the airstrikes. The user identified as “JD Vance” initially expressed reservations, saying, “I think we are making a mistake.” However, the same account later responded to “Pete Hegseth” with, “If you think we should do it, let’s go,” suggesting that opposition within the administration may have been limited.
Vice President Vance’s office later issued a statement to NBC News, clarifying his stance on the situation: “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. 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.”
President Trump, when asked about the situation in the Oval Office on Monday, claimed he was unaware of the matter. “You’re telling me about it for the first time,” he told a reporter.
The White House has yet to disclose who was responsible for adding Goldberg to the chat or whether any internal security protocols had been violated. The episode raises questions about how such a crucial group chat discussing national security matters could mistakenly include an outsider, particularly a journalist. Security experts have pointed out that even secure messaging platforms like Signal require stringent verification processes to prevent such lapses.
As the Trump administration moves forward with its review, concerns remain over the implications of this breach, particularly in an environment where national security decisions are made in real-time. Whether this was a simple technical mishap or indicative of broader cybersecurity vulnerabilities within the administration remains to be seen. However, given the sensitivity of the information being discussed, the incident underscores the need for rigorous security measures in handling classified discussions at the highest levels of government.
