Trump Administration Challenges Atlantic’s Claims of War Plans in Signal Chat Scandal

Trump Administration Challenges Atlantic’s Claims of War Plans in Signal Chat Scandal

The Trump administration firmly asserted that the Atlantic’s article denouncing alleged ‘war plans’ was exaggerated, given that it did not reflect actual military strategies. Officials claimed the publication misrepresented the contents of a Signal group chat in which top national security figures discussed a potential military action against terrorists in Yemen.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt took to X, formerly Twitter, to declare, ‘The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans.’ This entire story was another hoax authored by a known Trump antagonist with a penchant for sensationalism.’

National security advisor Mike Waltz echoed this sentiment on social media, emphasizing the absence of any classified data in the correspondence. He stated, ‘No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Our foreign partners were already briefed that strikes were forthcoming. The BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is focused on American safety and interests.’

Context Behind the Controversy

The controversy ignited after the Atlantic published an article detailing what it termed a critical discussion among national security officials regarding a proposed military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen. The article mentioned that this dialogue occurred in a Signal group chat, where high-profile figures, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, were present.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, provided an eyewitness account of the events unfolding in the Signal chat, named “Houthi PC Small Group.” He became part of this communication channel on March 13, joining senior federal officials as they discussed impending military operations.

The Atlantic’s article was provocatively titled, ‘The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.’

Administration’s Stance on Classified Information

In response to the article’s release, Trump administration officials consistently maintained that no classified information surfaced in the Signal conversations.

In a follow-up publication, the Atlantic released direct excerpts from the Signal chat but consciously refrained from using the term ‘war plans’ in the headline. Instead, they employed ‘attack plans.’ This subtle wording shift seemed intended to temper the backlash by framing the discussion’s details less sensationally, although the term ‘war plans’ still appeared in the text, attributed as a quote to the administration.

Defense of the Atlantic’s Reporting

A spokesperson for the Atlantic defended the article, asserting that the outlet did reveal a ‘war plan’ through content in its Wednesday report. They highlighted a screenshot showcasing messages related to the use of F-18s and drones, which detailed timestamps for the planned operations.

The spokesperson warned that if the information—especially regarding the precise timings of American aircraft destined for Yemen—fell into hostile hands, it could jeopardize the safety of aerial units and personnel involved.

Understanding Military Planning

While the term ‘war plan’ carries significant weight, the Department of Defense does not provide a strict definition. Insights from the U.S. Army War College define ‘war plans’ as comprehensive strategies encompassing political and military objectives, resources, and projections regarding conflict duration.

The Army War College previously noted that effective war planning requires adopting a holistic view of potential political dynamics, military capacities, and desired outcomes. Such planning includes detailed methodologies aimed at achieving victory on the battlefield.

Criticism of the Atlantic’s Narrative

Trump administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Hegseth, reiterated their disdain for the Atlantic’s portrayal, slamming the report as a ‘hoax.’ Hegseth criticized the piece by stating, ‘So let me get this straight. The Atlantic published so-called ‘war plans’ which included: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information. These are some undetailed war plans. This clearly indicates that Jeff Goldberg has never seen a legitimate war plan.’

Officials underscored that they remain focused on substantive duties and responsibilities while alleging that media narratives often misrepresent their intentions.

Signal App Under Scrutiny

A recent memo from the Department of Defense, issued during the Biden administration, highlighted specific guidelines concerning personnel use of the Signal app. The memorandum indicated that while Signal is permissible for certain communications, it must not be employed for accessing or transferring non-public Department of Defense information.

CISA, dedicated to ensuring cybersecurity across governmental domains, recently published best practice guidelines advising high-level officials to utilize Signal for secure communications. The agency defined ‘highly targeted individuals’ as those likely to be on adversaries’ radars—a category that includes senior officials.

CISA emphasized the importance of using applications that offer end-to-end encryption, such as Signal, as a protective measure against hacking attempts.

The Broader Implications

The Signal app gained notoriety recently, especially after revelations emerged regarding cyberattacks targeting personal cellphone data of high-profile American officials. Reports indicated that hackers with links to China had aimed to infiltrate communications of notable figures, including Donald Trump.

In the Atlantic’s article, snippets of conversations revealed military leaders discussing strike timings, with one message timestamped as indicating F-18s were being launched for the operation against Houthi forces.

Trump’s Response and Assurance

Trump acknowledged the incident, mentioning to NBC News that a staff member in Waltz’s office had inadvertently included the journalist in this high-stakes group chat. He refrained from disclosing the identity of the staffer or confirming any potential disciplinary actions.

The president dismissed the incident as a mere ‘mistake,’ asserting that the content shared through Signal held no significant importance. Moreover, he articulated confidence in Waltz, stating, ‘He’s not getting fired. Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man.’

Trump concluded by maintaining that the inclusion of Goldberg in the chat had no real consequence on the operation conducted in Yemen.