Trump administration confirms leak of Signal texts regarding military strike

The hottest story out there right now is the leaked Signal conversation regarding a strike against the Houthis in Yemen.

There is a lot to break down about this, so we are going to try to give you the clearest picture possible about the information that has been made available thus far.

The Atlantic included in group chat

The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly added to a group chat between DoD and intelligence officials regarding a military strike that was being planned.

While no actual location was given in the texts, equipment, timing, and strike packages were discussed, so any decent intelligence officer would have been able to put this together rather easily, putting our pilots at risk, which is the biggest concern here (had these texts fallen into the wrong hands).

Goldberg was stunned he had been included in this message string, writing, "I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.

"I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action."

The obligation

From the texts I have seen so far, Yemen was not physically posted, so Goldberg surmised that on his own, making my point that the location of the strike was easy enough for someone to figure out.

Goldberg further stated that an undercover CIA agent’s identity was exposed, which Director Ratcliffe has since pushed back on (more on that in the next section).

Goldberg is now considering more releases, stating, “I get the defensive reaction. But my obligation, I feel, is to the idea that we take national security information seriously. “Maybe in the coming days, I’ll be able to say, ‘OK, I have a plan to have this materiel vetted publicly.’ But I’m not going to say that now.”

Then he addressed the issue of the undercover agent, stating, “I withheld her name. They named somebody who’s an active CIA officer in this thread, which is on Signal, and I withheld it. I didn’t put it in the story because she’s undercover. Just because they’re irresponsible with material, doesn’t mean that I’m going to be irresponsible.”

No classified information

Ratcliffe immediately responded to the undercover claim, stating, "Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information, and that the reporter who I don't know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that. That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat. In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff who was not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.

"I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here, because that's what did happen, not what possibly could have happened.”

First, I need to call out the Trump administration for doing verbal gymnastics on this in its denials regarding it not being a big deal and no classified information was included. I have seen documents that have been declassified previously that held significantly less information about strikes, so I disagree on that front, but, ultimately, what is considered classified would be up to Hegseth in this case.

Second, the administration could have killed this story as soon as it came out by owning it and holding someone accountable. They screwed up, it happens. So fire the aide who included the reporter, say you made a mistake, then announce new protocols and checks will be put in place to make sure this never happens again. This IS a big deal regardless of how Trump is presenting, but it did not need to be this big of a deal. But I can tell you I am thankful that Goldberg sat on the story versus going live with it in real time because we would probably be talking about dead US pilots had he done that.