On March 25, 2025, a stunning revelation shook Washington as The New York Times published an annotated transcript of a leaked Signal group chat involving some of the Trump administration’s most senior national security officials. The chat, originally reported by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, exposed candid discussions about U.S. military strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen—discussions that inadvertently included Goldberg himself due to a blunder by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. This breach has sparked outrage, raised questions about operational security, and provided an unprecedented glimpse into the decision-making process of the administration. Below, we delve into the details of this incident, including the annotated chat text as presented by The New York Times, and explore its implications.
How It Unfolded
The saga began when Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser, mistakenly added Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat intended for top officials. Signal, an encrypted messaging app known for its privacy features, was being used to coordinate sensitive plans for military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. The chat included high-profile figures such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others. What was meant to be a secure, private exchange became a public spectacle when Goldberg, a seasoned journalist, published the contents in The Atlantic on March 24, 2025.
The New York Times followed up with an interactive feature on March 25, annotating the chat to provide context and highlight key moments. The leak has ignited a firestorm, with Democrats calling for resignations and Republicans cautiously distancing themselves from criticism of the administration. Beyond the political fallout, the incident underscores the risks of using commercial messaging apps for sensitive government business—a practice that has drawn comparisons to past controversies, such as Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
The Annotated Chat
Below is the chat text as annotated by The New York Times, capturing the raw exchange among officials just hours before the Yemen strikes. The annotations, presented in italics, offer insight into the tone, intent, and implications of the conversation.
March 23, 2025, 2:03 p.m. ET
Michael Waltz: Hey team, adding a few folks to this thread to finalize Yemen strike plans. Thoughts on timing and targets?
Waltz, the national security adviser, initiates the chat, unaware he has added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, instead of an intended official.
Pete Hegseth: I say we hit them hard tomorrow night. Targets locked: Hodeidah port and Sana’a missile sites. F-35s and Tomahawks ready.
Hegseth, the defense secretary, lays out operational details with confidence, revealing specific locations and weaponry—information typically classified.
JD Vance: Timing feels off. Europe benefits more from this than we do—Houthi attacks mess with their shipping lanes. Are we sure POTUS gets that?
Vice President Vance expresses rare dissent, hinting at frustration with Trump’s focus and the strategic rationale.
Michael Waltz: JD, he’s briefed. This is about U.S. credibility too. Houthis hit our ships last week.
Waltz pushes back, emphasizing retaliation over Vance’s economic concerns.
John Ratcliffe: Concur with Pete. Intel shows Houthi missile stocks are peaking—now’s the time to degrade them.
CIA Director Ratcliffe weighs in, offering intelligence to bolster Hegseth’s plan.
Tulsi Gabbard: Agreed, but we need to keep this tight. No leaks.
Director of National Intelligence Gabbard stresses security, ironic given Goldberg’s presence.
Pete Hegseth: We’re clean on OPSEC. Let’s roll.
Hegseth uses “OPSEC” (operational security), a term that would soon prove hollow.
JD Vance: Fine, I’ll back the consensus. Just hate bailing out Europe again.
Vance relents but doubles down on his skepticism about the mission’s beneficiaries.
March 23, 2025, 2:15 p.m. ET
Pete Hegseth: Strike’s a go for 0100 Yemen time. Will update post-impact.
Hegseth confirms the timeline, hours away, exposing real-time planning.
March 23, 2025, 11:47 p.m. ET
Pete Hegseth: Bulls-eye. Hodeidah’s burning, Sana’a hit clean. 🇺🇸
Post-strike, Hegseth celebrates with a patriotic emoji, unaware of the brewing scandal.
John Ratcliffe: Solid work. Houthi capability down 40%, per initial reports.
Ratcliffe provides an early assessment, further detailing the operation’s scope.
Jeffrey Goldberg: Uh, guys, I think I’m not supposed to be here.
Goldberg finally reveals himself, shattering the group’s illusion of privacy.
Michael Waltz: What the hell? Who added him?
Waltz’s panic marks the moment the breach becomes undeniable.
The Fallout: Political and Legal Ramifications
The exposure of this chat has unleashed a torrent of criticism. Democrats, led by figures like Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Mark Warner, have called for Hegseth and Waltz to resign, arguing that their recklessness endangered national security. Jeffries, in a letter to Trump, labeled Hegseth “the most unqualified secretary of defense in American history,” while Warner questioned how such a breach could occur at the highest levels.
Republicans have been more reserved. Some, like Senator Ron Wyden, have demanded an investigation, but party leaders have largely avoided direct condemnation of Trump’s team. The White House, meanwhile, has downplayed the incident, with Trump defending Waltz and dismissing the leak as overblown.
Legally, the chat raises serious questions. The Espionage Act and federal records laws could come into play, especially given the operational details shared on an unclassified platform. The watchdog group American Oversight has already filed a lawsuit to preserve the messages, citing Signal’s auto-delete feature as a potential obstacle to accountability.
Why Signal? A Double-Edged Sword
Signal’s appeal lies in its encryption and privacy features, making it a favorite among government officials, activists, and even Elon Musk. Yet, this incident highlights its vulnerabilities when misused. The app’s disappearing message function, while not explicitly mentioned in the chat, has fueled concerns about transparency. As The New York Times noted, the reliance on Signal mirrors Wall Street’s past troubles with off-channel messaging, which led to billions in fines—a precedent that may foreshadow consequences here.
