By now, almost everyone is aware that The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the “Houthi PC small group” on Signal on Thursday, March 13. He wrote about how he was added, presumably by National Security Advisor Michael Walz. There remains a question about whether Walz intentionally added Goldberg or whether it was a ‘fat finger’ mistake. What seems to be in little doubt at this point is whether the chat was real. It was. Now, we wait for the fallout.
Greenberg’s article went live at theatlantic.com Monday afternoon. Almost immediately, every news agency in the world had hold of the amazing and unbelievable story. The administration had invited a journalist to a mission-planning group chat, and he had subsequently, well after the related mission was initiated, published the portions that, in the opinion of The Atlantic and their attorneys, weren’t likely to violate federal espionage law.
Social media had a heyday, with memes and barbs flying from every direction. Here are a few samples:
While Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, was not the one who added Goldberg to the group chat, he’s getting most of the heat for sharing what should have been top-secret classified information over a non-government application. No one is saying yet whether Hegseth knew there was a reporter in the chat. Goldberg stayed quiet and let the conversation play out before saying anything himself. While Signal may be the best fully encrypted text app on the market, it can’t prevent people from making careless mistakes.
Why is this a problem? 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) makes it a federal crime for people entrusted with information related to the national defense to, with gross negligence, disclose it to others in violation of that trust. At the very least, both Walz and Hegseth should be forced to resign. Legally, everyone involved in the conversation, except for Goldberg, is complicit and they all could face federal charges. No one is expecting any charges to actually be filed, of course.
What did they actually say in that chat? Here’s the Bud Light version:
Thursday 13 March
This day was seemingly aimed at establishing who would make up the small group.
A message to the group, from Michael Waltz read: “Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.”
The message continued: “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.”
One minute later, the secretary of state Marco Antonio Rubio wrote: “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counsellor of the state department as his representative.
JD Vance wrote: “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, wrote: “Joe Kent for DNI.”
Nine minutes later, treasury secretary Scott Bessent wrote: “Dan Katz for Treasury.”
At 4.53pm Pete Hegseth wrote: “Dan Caldwell for DoD.”
And at 6.34pm, a user called “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” Someone called “John Ratcliffe” then wrote with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group.
Sounds boring at this point, doesn’t it? Hold on, though, the next day’s chat gets more interesting.
Friday 14 March
At 8.05am, Mr Waltz texted the group: “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents [sic] guidance this morning in your high side inboxes,” with “high side” referring to classified computer systems.
“State and DOD [Department of Defence], we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am [morning] a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS [chief of staff], OVP [office of the vice president] and POTUS [president of the United States] are briefed.”
Mr Goldberg says at this point, a “fascinating” policy discussion commenced, during which JD Vance wrote: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.
“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.
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. 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.”
At 8.27am, a message arrived from the Pete Hegseth reading: “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.
“Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both.
“We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC – operations security.
“I welcome other thoughts.”
Later in the conversation, Mr Waltz criticised the limited capabilities of European navies, writing: “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”
Mr Vance addressed Mr Hegseth in a message reading: “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”
Mr Hegseth replied: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”
An account believed to be the deputy White House chief of staff, Stephen Miller, then said: “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.”
This was followed by the last text of the day, from Mr Hegseth, who wrote at 9.46am: “Agree.”
There’s plenty there to dissect. Most notable is the ‘loathing’ for Europe. Yes, Europe noticed. There has yet to be any official response. The news hit late enough on Monday that most people in Europe were already in bed. Expect more of a deliberate response from them later today.
Oh, but there’s more to the chat.
Saturday 15 March
[Goldberg redacted much of this day’s conversation on concern that it could give enemies of the US information on military strengths and capabilities. Goldberg does have copies of the chat, however, should such be needed for appropriate legal proceedings.]
At 1.48am, Mr Waltz provided an update in the group which Mr Goldberg did not quote in full, but he did say the national security adviser described the operation as an “amazing job”.
John Ratcliffe then wrote: “A good start.”
Mr Goldberg said Mr Waltz responded with three emojis: a fist, an American flag and fire.
Others soon joined in, including Mr Rubio, who wrote, “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” and Susie Wiles, who texted: “Kudos to all – most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.”
Mr Witkoff responded with five emojis: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags.
Tulsi Gabbard responded: “Great work and effects!”
Response to this whole debacle is just beginning, but here are a few comments from both sides of the aisle.
Republicans
- President Felonious Punk: He said yesterday he knew nothing about the incident and is “not a big fan of The Atlantic” – whose editor-in-chief first reported on the leak. The president labeled the strikes “very effective”
- Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth: When pressed by journalists on the chat, he said: “Nobody was texting war plans and that’s all I have to say about that”
- House Speaker Mike Johnson: He told reporters that adding the journalist was a mistake, the administration is addressing what happened, and will “make sure it doesn’t happen again”
Democrats
- Senate leader Chuck Schumer: He called it “one of the most stunning” military intelligence breaches in a long time, calling for an investigation
- House leader Hakeem Jeffries: The Trump administration is arrogant and incompetent, he said, writing that the Democrats will “grill several national security officials” this week under oath to “expose” them
- Hillary Clinton: Former rival to Trump for the presidency in 2016, Clinton was simple in her reaction: “You have got to be kidding me”
This is just the beginning of what could be a long and drawn-out ordeal unless Punk dares to fire some of his top people, namely Hegseth and Walz. There is some speculation that the President will attempt to distract from the matter by doing something even more outrageous. No one wants to think what act that might be.
What is clear is that someone has to be held accountable. Will congressional Democrats finally grow a spine and take this opportunity to show some force, or will they recede at the first sign of pushback from the administration?
This story will continue to play out throughout the day. Watch for updates as they are warranted.
Discover more from Chronicle-Ledger-Tribune-Globe-Times-FreePress-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
