The Craziest News Story I Can Remember
Team Trump: feel free to add me to your group chats!
The Trump era in American politics has had more than its share of absurd moments.
There’s been “covfefe” and the “much bigger” nuclear button. “Sharpiegate” and the Steele dossier. The time the president left classified documents in a bathroom, and the time he was accused of throwing his lunch at the wall. The story about Rex Tillerson being fired on the toilet, and the one about James Comey and the curtains. There was Trump talking about injecting disinfectant, and the saga of “Anonymous.”
Remember when two Trump lawyers were arguing in a restaurant, unaware that a New York Times reporter was at the next table over? Or when Politico reported on the White House aides tasked with taping back together documents that Trump ripped up?
We’ve seen a lot these last 10 years. But it’s possible that no crazier news story has come out during the Trump years — a statement I do not make lightly — than the one published by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday. Here’s a gift link to read it for yourself, but here’s a quick-and-dirty summary if you want one:
The piece takes place over the app Signal, a popular encrypted messaging service. According to Goldberg, on March 13, he was added to a Signal group called “Houthi PC small group” by a user named Michael Waltz. “PC” is often used as shorthand for “Principals Committee,” a group of the country’s highest-level national security officials. Michael Waltz is President Trump’s national security adviser.
Users who shared names with all the real-life members of the Principals Committee started texting — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and so on — but Goldberg initially assumed it was a hoax, designed to make him think White House officials were leaking to him, when they really weren’t.
But then the officials started discussing plans to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the conversation started to seem more real. Eventually, the exact time and targets of an attack were sent; two hours later, the bombs dropped exactly as the texts said they would. Here’s a screenshot of the group chat’s reaction:
Suddenly, the conclusion was inescapable: The nation’s top national security officials were discussing military strategy on a Signal group chat that the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic had mistakenly been added to.
The White House has not denied this fact. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” a spokesperson told The Atlantic.
Hegseth, on the other hand, called Goldberg a “deceitful and discredited so-called journalist” and insisted, “Nobody was texting war plans.” Goldberg, who declined to publish any sensitive operational details, responded on MSNBC that Hegseth sent the time of the attack, the targets meant to be killed, the weapons systems that would be used, weather reports for the area, and the sequencing of the campaign: what would be targeted first, and what after that, and what after that.
Like other stories in the past 10 years, this one exists at the intersection of absurd and alarming. In a vacuum, it’s crazy that a prominent journalist was added to this text thread. But it’s also a very real national security threat that these officials were discussing the operation on Signal at all (let alone in a chat where they hadn’t verified the identities of all the members).
Signal is more secure than iMessage but it is not generally seen as sharing-classified-material secure. In 2023, the Defense Department included it on list of apps “NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information.” Just last month, a Google investigation revealed “increasing efforts from several Russia state-aligned threat actors to compromise Signal Messenger accounts used by individuals of interest to Russia’s intelligence services.”
The app has typically not been allowed on government phones, which means the officials were likely discussing military plans on their personal devices — another no-no — which would be even easier to hack. The Wall Street Journal’s Yaroslav Trofimov also notes that Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff was in Moscow while receiving messages on the thread; if he was using his personal device and in Russia at the time, the cybersecurity threat would be even higher.
Then, of course, there is the fact that someone unauthorized was included on the thread, which could constitute a violation of the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to disclose national defense information. Also, according to Goldberg, the messages were set to disappear after a certain period of time; unless the officials were forwarding the messages to an official government account, that would constitute a violation of federal records law.
The reaction from Democratic lawmakers — and at least some Republicans — has been incredulous. “Every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime – even if accidentally,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said.
“If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) echoed.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called it a “huge screw up,” while Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said that “safeguards must be put in place to ensure this never happens again.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called for a full investigation; his counterpart, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), was more sanguine. “No, no of course not,” he said, when asked if Waltz or Hegseth should be disciplined.
“We all make mistakes,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) said. “Trust me, this is not going to lead to the apocalypse,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) added.
Other lawmakers have called for one or both of them to be fired. According to Politico, inside the White House, some officials believe Waltz may not survive. (The national security adviser was reportedly already on thin ice due to his more hawkish views.) However, President Trump stood by Waltz in a phone interview with NBC News this morning. “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Trump said.
Trump described the incident as “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one.”
One more thing. In addition to sharing operational details, the text thread also included a fascinating discussion of whether the Houthi bombings should go forward in the first place. As stated, it’s insane that a journalist was accidentally allowed to be a firsthand observer to these conversations — but as long as one was, we might as well take a look at what was said. Four takeaways:
Vice President Vance was really the one who sparked the discussion, texting his colleagues: “I think we are making a mistake.” Vance, very much in line with his public rhetoric, argued that the Houthi presence in the Suez Canal posed a greater threat to European trade than to the U.S., and therefore bombing the Houthis would be “bailing Europe out again.” At one point, he seemed to demean Trump’s understanding of the situation, a revealing look at how Vance and other top Trump advisers talk about Trump behind his back: “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance said.
The conversation continued on for a bit, with contributions from Hegseth, Waltz, and others. But it’s also revealing who shut it down: White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s most powerful advisers. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return,” Miller wrote. Hegseth then wrote, “Agree,” and the debate was over. Miller appeared to have the clout to overrule objections from the vice president.
It’s also interesting to see how political the conversation was. Of course, it’s nothing new for domestic politics to be part of foreign policy conversations — but we don’t normally get such an up-close view. One of Vance’s concerns was that “the public doesn’t understand [bombing the Houthis] or why it’s necessary.” Hegseth responded: “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.” It’s striking (although assuredly not unprecedented) to see such political messaging coming from the Defense Secretary as he contemplates a military operation.
And then, of course:
At no point in the conversation does anyone raise concerns about discussing the operation on Signal. Goldberg left the chat before publishing the story; he says that nobody ever contacted him to question his identity or ask him why he left. Goldberg’s Signal username is his initials, “JG”; the best theory I’ve seen is that Waltz intended to add Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative, who likely would have been included in the conversation because of the economic dimensions of the attack.
It’s fashionable after a story like this to contemplate how Republicans might respond if the shoe was on the other foot (Hillary Clinton private email server, anyone?) “Think about what we would do if Biden were president and this came out,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters. “We would raise the roof.”
In this case, though, you don’t even have to think what the Trump team’s reaction might have been if a Democrat had done it. Just think how they might have reacted if their own subordinates had.
Just last week, Hegseth’s chief of staff wrote in a memo that “recent unauthorized disclosures of national security information involving sensitive communications with principals” at the Pentagon “demand immediate and thorough investigation.” He allowed the use of polygraphs as part of the investigation, which he said would culminate in a “complete record of unauthorized disclosures within the Department of Defense.”
“Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such,” Gabbard wrote on X earlier this month, during the same week that she was participating in a discussion of sensitive — if not classified — material on an group chat that included a journalist.
What else you should know
Trump and the courts: U.S. district judge James Boasberg kept in place his temporary order blocking the Trump administration from invoking the Alien and Enemies Act to deport additional Venezuelan gang members.
Hours later, a federal appeals court heard arguments in the administration’s challenge to the order. “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act,” Judge Patricia Millett said during the hearing, taking issue with the lack of due process accorded to the gang members.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is invoking state secrets privilege to avoid giving Boasberg information about the deportation flights that took off despite his order. The administration also announced that it had used the Alien and Enemies Act to send three gang members to Chile. (The move was an extradition, not a deportation, so it wasn’t prohibited by Boasberg’s order.)
Tariffs: Stock markets had their best day in weeks after President Trump signaled that he may exempt some countries and industries from his plan to impose across-the-board reciprocal tariffs on April 2, which he has taken to calling “Liberation Day.”
At the same time, Trump also threatened a new set of tariffs to take effect the same day: against China and other countries that purchase oil or gas from Venezuela.
Stock markets rose on Trump’s announcement that April 2 tariffs will be more limited than previously indicated. (Graphic by the Wall Street Journal)
SCOTUS: Supreme Court justices appeared divided after arguments in a Louisiana race-based redistricting case that could chip away at the Voting Rights Act.
The justices declined to hear a Trump ally’s case that sought to overturn the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan libel precedent and a climate lawsuit brought by a group of minors.
The next Trump case to come before the court: The Justice Department asked the justices to block a federal judge’s order requiring the reinstatement of more than 16,000 fired probationary employees.
Staffing: Trump named Alina Habba as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, making her the fifth personal lawyer to receive a top Justice Department post.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump appointee from his first term, has resigned.
On the chopping block: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a Cabinet meeting that she will seek to “eliminate” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The acting Social Security commissioner told advocates that cuts to the agency’s phone services — which will make it harder for some Americans to apply for benefits — are being rushed by the White House. Changes that would normally take two years to implement are instead being done in two weeks, he said.
The day ahead: House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and their top committee chiefs are set to meet today to discuss Trump’s legislative agenda, as major divides linger between the House and Senate plans for a reconciliation package.
Per NOTUS, Johnson will also meet with the House Judiciary Committee to discuss potential impeachment efforts against judges who have ruled against Trump.
A Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on global threats — expected to include questions about the Signal leak — will kick off at 10 a.m. ET. Livestream here
One more read: “Law in Mahmoud Khalil’s Case Was Once Struck Down — by Trump’s Sister” (New York Times gift link)
If I were their boss, I would fire them immediately for using emojis when you’re killing people, this is not Facebook
It is another incident where I just shake my head and sigh. It will make no difference to his followers as to how bad this is. They will call it fake news, and blindly follow and never criticize him or his picks.