The Atlantic releases full Houthi attack group chat to counter denials

Article content

President Donald Trump and top allies struggled to fend off criticism over the inadvertent inclusion of a journalist in a Signal chat discussing military attacks in Yemen, after newly disclosed texts showed how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed specific operational details.

Article content

Article content

Trump and senior administration officials on Wednesday ratcheted up criticism of Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg — who National Security Advisor Mike Waltz mistakingly added to the chat — and maintained that specific timing of planned strikes, U.S. weapons systems and targets contained in text messages did not amount to “war plans” or classified information.

Article content

“It had no impact on the attack, which was very successful,” Trump said during an appearance on a conservative talk radio show.

Yet that effort was failing to gain traction outside of the president’s most fervent loyalists. On Capitol Hill, Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who serves as chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, agreed with Democrats’ request to provide to lawmakers an expedited watchdog report on the incident. Wicker said he would also seek a secure briefing for his committee, and that he believed that the information disclosed in the chat was classified.

And four of the officials on the chat, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, sought to distance themselves from the controversy, saying they had done nothing wrong and had been told by others that no classified information was shared.

Article content

“Obviously, someone made a mistake — someone made a big mistake and added a journalist,” Rubio told reporters on a trip to Jamaica. Asked if the information in the text was classified, he responded, “Well, the Pentagon says it was not.”

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, acknowledged to a House panel that details of the attack had been shared. She maintained she “was not directly involved” in portions of the chat where some of the most sensitive material was provided.

“I’m going to leave all that to the legal experts,” Bessent said when asked on Fox News about the texts. “You know, I’ll say one of the few advantages of being one of the older people in the cabinet is that I still like to pick up the phone and call people.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared undeterred by the blowback Wednesday, attacking Goldberg as an “anti-Trump hater” and calling Democratic critics in Congress “hysterical.”

Article content

Article content

But the saga has demonstrated the limits of the Trump administration’s defiant, flood-the-zone approach, in which officials — including the president — responded to The Atlantic’s initial report by attacking its veracity and dismissing concerns about a security breach as overblown.

In response, the magazine published a story Wednesday saying it had come to believe that “people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions” after Trump and other officials insisted that the disclosure did not include classified material.

The Atlantic published a transcript that included a text message from Hegseth to the full group — which included Vice President JD Vance, Waltz and others — giving precise times for two waves of U.S. attacks against the Houthis, and featuring details of what weapons system would be used.

Trump again Wednesday downplayed the significance of a breach, saying during his talk-show appearance that “there weren’t details” in the texts “and there was nothing in there” that was “compromised.”

Article content

On the chain, Hegseth said the effort would include strikes by F-18 Hornet fighter jet and MQ-9 Reaper attack drones.

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” reads one text from Hegseth. “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).”

The Atlantic said the White House had asked it not to disclose the plans. Earlier Wednesday, Leavitt called the reporting a “hoax,” arguing that the magazine had described the content as “war plans” in its original story but “attack plans” in the subsequent post.

“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,’” Leavitt wrote on X. “This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”

“No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent,” Waltz posted on X.

Article content

Goldberg, in an interview with MSNBC, said Leavitt was playing a “weird semantic game.”

In the group chat, Hegseth posted multiple details about the impending strike, using military language and laying out when a “strike window” starts, where a “target terrorist“ was located, the time elements around the attack and when various weapons and aircraft would be used in the strike. He mentioned that the U.S. was “currently clean” on operational security.”

“Godspeed to our Warriors,” he wrote.

“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)”

“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)”

Article content

“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.

A strike package includes the personnel and weapons used in an attack, including Navy F-18 fighter aircraft. MQ-9s are armed drones. Tomahawks are ship-launched cruise missiles.

Goldberg has said he asked the White House if it opposed publication and that the White House responded that it would prefer he did not publish.

The texts touched off a firestorm of accusations from Democrats and national-security experts who argued that top officials should not have used Signal, a publicly available messaging app, for such high-level and sensitive discussions. Calls grew louder on Wednesday for Hegseth and others to resign.

Article content

Signal is encrypted but can be vulnerable and is not approved for carrying classified information.

On March 14, one day before the strikes, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of Signal, specifically that Russia was attempting to hack the app, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“The Signal incident is what happens when you have the most unqualified Secretary of Defense we’ve ever seen,” Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly wrote on X. “We’re lucky it didn’t cost any servicemembers their lives, but for the safety of our military and our country, Secretary Hegseth needs to resign.”

Hegseth, who is currently traveling in Asia, had also denied any wrongdoing.

“Nobody’s texting war plans,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “You know who sees war plans? I see them.” He described his text as “general updates” to “keep everybody informed.”

Article content

Goldberg said Hegseth sent the chat on the attack plans more than 30 minutes before the strikes occurred. If the Houthis or a foreign U.S. adversary had been aware of the texts, they could have prepared air defenses and jeopardized the lives of the U.S. fighter pilots launching the strikes.

In a classification guide released as part of a 2016 Freedom of Information Act request, “general information or assessments regarding military plans, intentions, capabilities, or activities of the US” would be confidential, while “specific information or assessments regarding the military plans” should be marked as secret. Information “providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack,” should be categorized as top secret, the guide said.

While subsequent administrations could update the document, officials from previous administrations signaled the guidelines were still operative.

“In the DNI’s own guidance, this type of information should be classified TOP SECRET,” former Biden State Department spokesman and CIA official Ned Price wrote on X, referring to the Director of National Intelligence.

— With additional reporting from Stephanie Lai, Erik Wasson, Roxana Tiron, Courtney McBride and The Associated Press

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content