WASHINGTON – In a surprising move, The Atlantic on Wednesday disclosed the entirety of a Signal chat conversation that included senior national security figures. This chat revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had shared precise information about the timing of warplane launches and bomb deployments in an operation against Yemen’s Houthis, prior to the airborne strike taking place this month. The revelation has triggered significant controversy and raised questions about the handling of sensitive military information.
Over the past two days, officials from intelligence and defense departments under President Donald Trump’s administration have struggled to clarify how such supposedly sensitive information was shared in a Signal conversation with Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg. The chat was not considered classified, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who emphasized no classified materials were shared. However, the episode has prompted Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, alongside Sen. Jack Reed, the committee’s lead Democrat, to request an inspector general’s investigation into the issue. They are also seeking a classified briefing with a senior administration official to get precise details regarding this incident.
An interesting point about the chat is the absence of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, even though he is the only military representative in the principals committee. Adm. Christopher Grady is currently serving in this role temporarily, after President Trump dismissed Gen. CQ Brown Jr. in February. The decision to exclude the Joint Chiefs chairman from discussions was at the discretion of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, based on various criteria, including secrecy and policy relevance. The Pentagon has abstained from commenting on why Grady was not involved in conversations pertaining to military operations.
Hegseth, amid questions about whether he shared classified information, has refrained from confirming any breach, and instead, dismissed such inquiries by saying he did not divulge any “war plans.” Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that determining the nature of the information rested with Hegseth. Surprisingly explicit content from the chat, including detailed timelines and military operational language, was described by others as tightly held for operational security. Hegseth’s spokesperson, however, asserted no classified data was shared, merely updates on ongoing plans.
The Pentagon and White House have tried to redirect the backlash by criticizing Goldberg and The Atlantic. Despite such criticism, The Atlantic had approached the White House before and after the conversation to gather context and ensure publishing the content wouldn’t result in damage. Leavitt, in response, acknowledged some information as sensitive and indicated a preference against its publication. During the conversation, Hegseth outlined in military terms precise timings when various units, including F-18 fighter jets and drones, should take action, specifying when bombs were expected to drop. He conveyed confidence in operational security by affirming “We are currently clean on OPSEC.”
Signal, the app used for this communication, is publicly accessible and offers encrypted messaging, but it is not sanctioned for use with classified content. The Defense Department, prior to the revealed incident, had cautioned personnel about Signal’s vulnerabilities, particularly against Russian hacking attempts as noted by a U.S. official. Such vulnerabilities include scenarios where a bad actor could, with phone access, link another device to a user’s account and thus monitor messages in real-time.
Leavitt is part of a broader legal confrontation, being one of three Trump officials facing a lawsuit from The Associated Press over alleged retaliation against editorial decisions the administration opposed. The administration claims the AP has not adhered to an order about naming conventions regarding the Gulf of Mexico.