A significant security breach has unsettled the White House, following revelations that top administration officials inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, in a private group chat discussing military operations against Houthi militants in Yemen. The incident has ignited intense internal deliberations about the future of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who is at the center of the controversy.
On March 11, Goldberg received an unexpected invitation to join a Signal group chat titled “Houthi PC small group.” This group comprised high-ranking officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and others. Within this chat, participants discussed detailed operational plans for imminent strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. Goldberg’s inclusion in such a sensitive conversation has raised serious concerns about the administration’s communication protocols and the safeguarding of classified information.
The inadvertent disclosure has led to vigorous discussions within the White House regarding potential repercussions for Waltz. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that multiple text threads among staffers are debating Waltz’s future. “Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” the official noted. Some aides have suggested that Waltz should resign to prevent placing President Donald Trump in a “bad position.” The official emphasized, “It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser.”
A person close to the White House was even more blunt: “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a [expletive] idiot.”
According to reports, the Signal group chat included discussions on the timing and execution of the military strikes. Defense Secretary Hegseth reportedly shared operational details, including information about targets, weapons to be deployed, and attack sequencing. Vice President Vance expressed concerns about the potential impact on oil prices and the consistency of the operation with the administration’s messaging on Europe. He stated, “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.”
Despite the uproar, the White House has publicly stood by Waltz. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz.” However, internal sources indicate that the president’s final decision will depend on his assessment of the situation in the coming days.
The incident has elicited strong reactions from both sides of the aisle. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, described the use of an unsecured network for sensitive information as “unconscionable.” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, labeled the breach a “concern” and indicated that his committee would “definitely be looking into it.” Democrats have been more vociferous, with Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) calling for a full investigation and stating, “This is an outrageous national security breach and heads should roll.”
Axios
Former national security officials have expressed alarm over the breach. Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, remarked, “Somebody needs to get fired. How the name of a journalist was added to that list—this is just a serious blunder.” The use of Signal, an encrypted messaging app, for discussing classified information is particularly troubling. Pentagon regulations explicitly prohibit the transmission of non-public Department of Defense information over unauthorized platforms. Legal experts suggest that the mishandling of such sensitive information could potentially violate federal laws, including the Espionage Act.
Defense Secretary Hegseth has denied that “war plans” were discussed in the Signal chat. He asserted that the conversations were internal deliberations related to operational details about airstrikes against Houthi terrorists in Yemen. Despite his denial, the White House has confirmed the authenticity of the messages and is investigating how Goldberg was inadvertently added to the chat.
The breach has intensified existing tensions within the administration. Critics of Waltz, wary of his neoconservative background and previous advisory role to former Vice President Dick Cheney, see this incident as an opportunity to advocate for his removal. Conversely, some Republicans, particularly those in the House, have rallied behind Waltz. Speaker Mike Johnson stated that Waltz should “absolutely not” resign, praising him as “exceptionally qualified for the job” and “trustworthy.”
As the administration grapples with the fallout from this unprecedented security lapse, the focus remains on President Trump’s impending decision regarding Waltz’s future. The incident underscores the critical importance of stringent communication protocols, especially when handling matters of national security.
