Trump's top officials discussed war plans in group chat where journalist was inadvertently added—report

Text chain

Goldberg, in his piece, recalled getting a connection request from a user identified as Michael Waltz on March 11. Trump's national security adviser is named as such.

Goldberg said it was unusual, noting Trump's "contentious relationship" with journalists and his "periodic fixation" on him specifically.

He thought someone could be pretending to be Waltz to "somehow entrap" him.

"It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them," Goldberg said.

In any case, he said he accepted the connection request, with the belief that it was really Waltz and that the adviser wanted to chat about important matters like Ukraine or Iran.

Two days later, or on March 13 at 4:28 p.m., Goldberg said he received a notice that he was about to be included in a chat group called the “Houthi PC small group.”

There, a "Michael Waltz" announced establishing a "principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours."

Goldberg thought the user was referring to the principals committee, which he noted "generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the [Central Intelligence Agency]."

A minute later, officials have designated their representatives to the committee, including various National Security Council officials, Trump's Middle East and Ukraine negotiator Steve Witkoff, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Goldberg said that upon reading chats in the “Houthi PC small group," he consulted with colleagues as the chats could be part of a disinformation campaign.

"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," he said.

On March 14, Goldberg said "things got weirder" when "Michael Waltz" told the group to "have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes." The journalist noted that "high side" pertains to classified computer and communication systems.

"JD Vance" then said he's "out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” US Vice President JD Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.

"3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message," the Vance account is quoted as saying.

Goldberg then noted how the Vance account made a "noteworthy statement" next, given that he has "not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue" publicly.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now," the Vance account wrote. "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.”

Other officials chimed in, apparently reassuring the Vance account about the plan.

Eventually, the Vance account told "Pete Hegseth": "if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

Goldberg said the previously silent "S M"—presumed to be Trump's confidant, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller—then joined the conversation, chatting, "“As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return."

"We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return," the "S M" account added.

Goldberg noted that upon reading the exchange, he recognized that it possessed a "high degree of verisimilitude," though still had doubts that it could be disinformation operation or even AI-generated.

'Truly bizarre'

On March 15 at 11:44 a.m., Goldberg said the story became "truly bizarre" when the Hegseth user shared an update.

He refused to quote from the chats at the time, noting the information there, if they had been read by a US adversary, "could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility."

But the Hegseth user said the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence.

The Vance user offered a "prayer for victory," while others replied with prayer emojis.

When Goldberg checked X and searched Yemen at 1:45 p.m., there were updates about explosions being heard across the capital city of Sanaa.

The group chat later got an update from "Michael Waltz" about an "amazing job."

Others shared words of affirmation and emojis that included a fist, the American flag, and a fire.

Goldberg noted that the Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported at least 53 people killed in the strikes, a number that hasn't been independently verified.

Convinced that the group chat was "certainly real," Goldberg left, "understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator." He said he received "no subsequent questions" about why he left.

He then emailed Waltz and sent him a message on Signal. He also wrote to other administration officials whose names appeared in the group chat, asking a barrage of questions including intention and security.

Goldberg said Hughes responded to him two hours later, confirming the group's veracity. Hughes said they're reviewing "how an inadvertent number was added to the chain."

"The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security," Hughes is quoted as saying.

Toward the end of his piece, Goldberg opined that though it's "not uncommon" for national-security officials to communicate on Signal, it's an app that's used "primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action."

"And, of course," he said, "I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion."

He also flagged possible violations of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information.

Goldberg also noted possible violations of federal records law, noting that some messages were set to disappear after a week, and some after four.

Trump's reaction

The Los Angeles Times reported that the National Security Council said the text chain "appears to be authentic."

Trump, however, told reporters he wasn't aware that sensitive information had been shared two and a half hours after it was reported.

"I don’t know anything about it," he said in a press conference. "I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that’s going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it."

"I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time," he added.