Atlantic Releases Full Signal Text Chain on Houthi Attacks

(Bloomberg) — The Atlantic released the transcript of a group chat between top US officials on Signal that inadvertently included its top editor, revealing how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared details of timing and weapons systems to be used in attacks against militants in Yemen.

The transcript included a text message from Hegseth to the full group — which included Vice President JD Vance, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and others — giving precise times for two waves of US attacks against the Houthis, including with details of what weapons system would be used.

The magazine said it had come to believe that “people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions” after President Donald Trump and other officials including Hegseth and Waltz played down the severity of the incident. It was Waltz who had apparently added Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat — dubbed “Houthi PC small group” — before the attacks by mistake.

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

“It had no impact on the attack, which was very successful,” Trump said. 

The magazine had withheld some details when it disclosed on Monday that Goldberg was added to the text group. Goldberg recounted how he watched in real time as top officials including Vance and Hegseth debated the strike, which went ahead exactly as they’d detailed.

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. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline 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. 

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

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.

“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.”

In Senate testimony Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said she didn’t “recall specific weapons systems being named.” CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified the same. The two were set to testify before the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

Hegseth had also denied any wrongdoing.

“Nobody’s texting war plans,” he told reporters. “I know exactly what I’m doing, exactly what we’re directing, and I’m really proud of what we accomplished, the successful missions that night and going forward.”

Goldberg said Hegseth sent the chat on the attack plans more than 30 minutes before the strikes occurred. If the Houthis or a foreign US adversary had been aware of the texts, they could have prepared air defenses and jeopardized the lives of the US 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 US 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 assistance from Stephanie Lai.

(Updates with Trump response starting in fourth paragraph, additional responses and context throughout)

More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com