Trump administration officials say the Atlantic ‘conceded’ that its article providing a firsthand account of a Signal group chat involving the nation’s top national security leaders discussing an attack on terrorists in Yemen did not contain ‘war plans.’
‘The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted to X Wednesday morning. ‘This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.’
National security advisor Mike Waltz posted to X Wednesday, ‘No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.’
The Trump administration came under fire from Democrats and other critics Monday after the Atlantic magazine published an article revealing that top national security officials discussed a planned strike in Yemen against terrorist forces in a Signal group chat that also included the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a firsthand account Monday of what he read in the Signal group chat, called ‘Houthi PC Small Group,’ after he was added to the chain March 13 alongside high-ranking federal officials stretching from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to Waltz and Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles.
Monday’s article was headlined: ‘The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.’
Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued since the release of the article that no classified information was included in the Signal correspondence.
On Wednesday morning, the Atlantic published a follow-up story that included direct texts from the Signal chat, but notably did not include the phrase ‘war plans’ in its headline, instead characterizing the texts as ‘attack plans.’ The phrase ‘war plans’ was included in the Wednesday piece as quotes attributable to the administration pouring cold water that they shared classified information in the chat.
A spokesperson for the Atlantic defended that the outlet did expose a ‘war plan’ in its Wednesday report, pointing Fox News Digital to a screenshot included in the piece of Hegseth’s messages related to F-18s and drone strikes that were accompanied by timestamps for the operation.
‘If this information – particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen – had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face,’ the report stated.
The Department of Defense does not specifically define what constitutes a ‘war plan,’ according to the U.S. Army War College, though war plans are understood as in-depth plans for an ‘overarching strategy.’
‘If we consider war to be a political act between two or more states, nations, or other polities, a war plan must consider the totality of those polities’ potential political objectives, industrial capabilities, and military options for the expected duration of the conflict,’ the Army War College posted in 2020 in an explainer article headlined, ‘What’s in a War Plan?’
‘A war plan develops a concept to win a war militarily and politically; it is the detailed ways and means of an overarching strategy. A review of two historical examples of such planning offer approaches to overcome organizational and institutional obstacles to effective comprehensive war planning.’
Officials with the Trump administration continued on X that the Atlantic’s report was a ‘hoax’ for initially describing the chat as containing ‘war plans.’
‘So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic released the so-called ‘war plans’ and those ‘plans’ include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information. Those are some really s—– war plans. This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan’ (as he now calls it). Not even close. As I type this, my team and I are traveling the INDOPACOM region, meeting w/ Commanders (the guys who make REAL ‘war plans’) and talking to troops. We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes,’ Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted to his personal X account Wednesday.
A Department of Defense memo from 2023 under the Biden administration detailed that while Signal was approved for some use by government officials, the platform could not be used to ‘access, transmit, process non-public DoD information.’
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the federal office in charge of ensuring cybersecurity at all levels of the government, published a ‘best practice’ for ‘highly targeted’ government officials in December 2024 advising ‘highly targeted’ government officials to use Signal as an extra precaution against potential hackers.
CISA’s ‘Mobile Communications Best Practice Guidance’ defined as highly targeted individuals as high-ranking government officials or politicians who are ‘likely to possess information of interest to these threat actors.’ The document specifically addressed high-targeted politicos and officials, though it noted the guide was ‘applicable to all audiences.’
‘Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps,’ the guidance states. ‘CISA recommends an end-to-end encrypted messaging app that is compatible with both iPhone and Android operating systems, allowing for text message interoperability across platforms. Such apps may also offer clients for MacOS, Windows, and Linux, and sometimes the web. These apps typically support one-on-one text chats, group chats with up to 1,000 participants, and encrypted voice and video calls. Additionally, they may include features like disappearing messages and images, which can enhance privacy.’
Signal’s popularity grew in the past few months, after it was discovered that Chinese-linked hackers were targeting cellphone data in the U.S., including data belonging to President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance during the campaign, Politico reported Tuesday.
The texts released in the Atlantic’s article Wednesday show military and national security leaders discussing timing of the attack on the Houthis in Yemen, such as Hegseth notifying the chat that jets had taken off for the operation.
‘1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),’ Hegseth said in one message.
‘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)’ he added, according to the report.
Trump told NBC News Tuesday that a staffer in Waltz’s office included the journalist in the high-profile group chat, but did not reveal the staffer’s identity or if the individual would face disciplinary action.
‘It was one of Michael’s people on the phone.A staffer had his number on there,’ Trump told NBC News in a phone interview when asked how Goldberg was added to the high-profile chat.
Trump defended Waltz in comment to Fox News earlier Tuesday, as well as during his NBC interview.
‘He’s not getting fired,’ Trump told Fox News of Waltz.
The president said the incident was a ‘mistake,’ though there was ‘nothing important’ in the Signal text thread.
‘Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,’ Trump said in the NBC interview.
The president added that Goldberg’s inclusion in the group chat had ‘no impact at all’ on the strike in Yemen.
