SignalGate: U.S. Officials Under Fire After Bombing Plans Leaked in Signal Chat

Micah Hanks·

Waltz Hegseth

Welcome to this week’s installment of The Intelligence Brief… on Monday, it was revealed that sensitive U.S. military strike plans were unintentionally shared earlier this month with The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, via a Signal group chat created by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. In our analysis of the “SignalGate” controversy, we’ll be looking at 1) what is known about how the information accidentally made its way to The Atlantic, 2) the response from lawmakers regarding Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s involvement, 3) ironic statements made by Hegseth in the private communications, which were published by The Atlantic this week, and 4) the remaining question of how, precisely, Jeffrey Goldberg’s number became mistakenly associated with the name of an unknown U.S. official, and subsequently provided to Mike Waltz.

Quote of the Week

“We’ve got the best technical minds looking at how this happened.”

– Mike Waltz, National Security Adviser to President Trump

RECENT NEWS from The Debrief

SignalGate: Sensitive Military Info Shared in Group Chat with Atlantic Journalist

This week, it was learned that sensitive information involving a United States bombing operation carried out against Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this month had been mistakenly shared with a journalist by top Trump administration officials just hours before the strikes occurred.

The concerning revelations were revealed by Jeffrey Goldberg, current Editor-in-Chief at The Atlantic, in a stunning article featured in his publication on Monday. “The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen,” Goldberg wrote.

“I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming,” he added, revealing that “Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m.” Goldberg said the message he received at that time “included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.”

The information was unintentionally shared with Goldberg after his number was erroneously added to a Signal group created by Mike Waltz, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. In the days since the bizarre situation was revealed in The Atlantic, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has faced mounting criticism not only from Democrats, but now also from Republican lawmakers regarding why such sensitive information was being communicated using the popular encrypted messaging app rather than the normal system required for securely discussing and sharing National Security information.

Hegseth and Officials Come Under Fire from Republicans

Legislative responses this week were mostly predictable along party lines, with some Democrats calling for the resignations of officials involved. While GOP senators have not called for Hegseth’s resignation, some have nonetheless warned that the lapse in judgment is serious.

Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) emphasized the need for accountability, saying, “They made a mistake. They know it. They should own it and fix it so it never happens again.” However, Democratic leaders, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, have gone further, calling for Hegseth’s removal, citing national security risks.

Hegseth’s confirmation in January narrowly passed with Vice President J.D. Vance breaking a Senate tie. Several Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell, opposed his nomination, citing concerns over his readiness to lead the Pentagon. During a Senate hearing earlier this week, similar concerns were expressed over not just Hegseth’s qualifications, but also those of intelligence community leaders—namely, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who, along with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, was reportedly part of the Signal chat group.

As calls for transparency and investigation grow, the administration has so far stood by Hegseth and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who reportedly initiated the group chat.

“This leaks, and we look indecisive.”

Ironically, in portions of the communications, the release of which has since been referred to as “SignalGate” after they were published earlier this week, Hegseth cites the potential leak of the plans being discussed in the group chat as one of the reasons he was against waiting to carry out the bombing strikes against Houthi targets for several weeks.

“Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus,” read one response from the account identified under Hegseth’s name in the Signal chat. “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.”

In hindsight, it is rather ironic that as the possibility of leaks was being discussed in the chat group, the plans for the attacks to be carried out by the U.S. on March 15 were being shared in real time with the editor of a major U.S. publication.

Who Gave Waltz Goldberg’s Number?

Of all the questions which arise from this bizarre series of events, one in particular stands out: how, precisely, did Trump’s National Security Adviser Mike Waltz obtain Goldberg’s number, and thereafter erroneously include The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief in what was supposed to have been a private chat among top Trump administration officials?

Although the answer remains unclear, some additional insights came to light during Waltz’s Fox News appearance on The Ingraham Angle this week. When asked by host Laura Ingraham how “a Trump-hating editor of the Atlantic” was added to the Signal chat group, Waltz said he is “not a conspiracy theorist” but seemed to express bewilderment as to how Goldberg’s number could have been provided to him.

“Of all the people out there, somehow this guy, who has lied about the President, who has lied to Gold Star familes, lied to their attorneys, uh, and gone to Russia hoax, just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the President of the United States, and he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contact and then gets sucked into this group,” Waltz said.

“Is someone in your intel team trying to cause trouble here?” Ingraham then asked, probing the possibility that someone—whether by accident, or perhaps intentionally—might have given Waltz Goldberg’s number associated with the name of another individual.

“No. Uh, look, this was, this is a great group,” Waltz responded, adding that “The President has a great team.” Waltz added that he had spoken with Trump senior adviser Elon Musk on the way to the studio for his appearance with Ingraham, telling her, “We’ve got the best technical minds looking at how this happened. But I can tell you—I can tell you for 100%, I don’t know this guy. I don’t know him by his horrible reputation, and he really is the bottom scum of journalists. Uh, and I know him, uh, in the sense that he hates the President, but I don’t text him, he wasn’t on my phone.”

The Case of the Missing Staffer 

Throughout this portion of the interview, Ingraham continues to press Waltz on whether Goldberg’s number might have been supplied to him by a staffer. It’s a reasonable question, assuming that someone must have provided the number to Waltz, especially given his insistence that he doesn’t know Goldberg personally and has never communicated with him by phone or otherwise.

“Well look, a staffer wasn’t responsible,” Waltz said. “Look, I take full responsibility, I built the—I built the group, and my job is to make sure everything’s coordinated.”

“I mean, I don’t mean to be pedantic here,” Ingraham interjected, apparently unsatisfied with Waltz’s response, pressing him again on how Goldberg’s number could have possibly made its way to him.

“Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name, and then you have a, and then you have somebody else’s number there?” Waltz explained to Ingraham. “You’ve got somebody else’s number on someone else’s contact. So of course I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Now whether he did it deliberately, or it happened in some other technical mean[s] is something we’re trying to figure out.”

“It Gets Sucked In”

At this point, Ingraham seemed to try to clarify one last time whether a staffer had been responsible for the error, to which Waltz again says “of course not,” and that how Goldberg’s number was erroneously given to him was something that he and other administration officials are “trying to figure out.”

“But you’ve never talked to him before, so how’s the number on your phone?” Ingraham again asked Waltz. “I mean, I’m not an expert on any of this, but it’s just—how is the number on your phone?”

“Well, if you have somebody else’s contact, and then it, and then somehow it gets sucked in,” Waltz told Ingraham.

Asked by Ingraham if someone else was supposed to have been included in the Signal group, and if Goldberg’s phone number had been mistakenly paired with that individual’s name, Waltz confirmed that this had been the case, but declined to share who the intended recipient of the messages had been.

Altogether, it’s easy to see why speculations involving someone on Trump’s intel team “trying to cause trouble” would be circulating. This possibility, at least, would help explain an unprecedented set of circumstances that, otherwise, appear to be accounted for through pure incompetence. If the latter is true, however, this week’s revelations only raise further concerns that have lingered over several members of the current U.S. administration, whose nominations were primarily controversial due to their perceived lack of experience for the roles they would fill.

“It’s the first strike in the early stages of an administration,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) this week. “If mistakes like this continue to happen, we’ll deal with them as it happens.

“My hope and expectation is that it won’t,” he added.

That concludes this week’s installment of The Intelligence Brief. You can read past editions of our newsletter at our website, or if you found this installment online, don’t forget to subscribe and get future email editions from us here. Also, if you have a tip or other information you’d like to send along directly to me, you can email me at micah [@] thedebrief [dot] org, or reach me on X: @MicahHanks.

Here are the top stories we’re covering right now…