The Atlantic/Photo: The Atlantic screenshot
Earlier, I wrote about the unexpected leak of information when The Atlantic ‘s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg accidentally found himself in a secret chat between US officials on the Signal messenger. At the time, it seemed that they would try to hush up the incident, as representatives of the Trump administration and the Pentagon insisted that there was nothing critical in the correspondence. However, on 26 March 2025, The Atlantic struck back by publishing the full transcript of the chat, which reveals details of the planning of air strikes against the Yemeni Houthis. And these new details call into question all previous assurances of officials.
What did the publication reveal?
The American publication, whose editor-in-chief inadvertently witnessed the inner workings of government decisions, published not just excerpts, but the entire correspondence. The chat, which involved 18 people – from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to National Security Adviser Mike Walz – discussed specific details of the military operation. In particular, they discussed the timing of the launch of F-18 fighter jets, MQ-9 strike drones and Tomahawk cruise missiles. One example published by The Atlantic: a message from Pentagon Chief Pete Hagseth: “12:15 ET: F-18s are launching”. The correspondence began half an hour before the first aircraft took off, which contradicts statements about “no military plans” in the chat.
The list of participants was also made public – with the exception of one CIA officer whose name was withheld by the magazine at the request of the agency. Mike Walz, an adviser to President Trump, claimed responsibility for adding Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, although he still maintains that the correspondence contained “no secrets”. However, the published screenshots suggest otherwise.
Washington’s reaction: from denials to investigations
The scandal gained momentum after US officials attempted to downplay the incident at a Senate hearing. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defence, insisted that the chat did not contain any specific information about the operation. Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, also supported this line, saying that “no classified information” was transmitted. However, The Atlantic’s transcript casts doubt on this claim.
Senate Democrats have already called for a bipartisan investigation, calling the incident an example of “lax security” and “potential leakage of military plans”. National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes acknowledged the authenticity of the correspondence, but stressed that an investigation is underway to determine how Goldberg’s number got into the chat.
Who’s to blame and what’s next?
This story is not just about Mike Walz’s accidental mistake of adding the “wrong person”. It exposes a broader problem: how American officials handle sensitive information in the digital age. While some are demanding accountability, others – like Walz himself – continue to claim that “nothing bad happened”.
The publication of The Atlantic’s chat was not just a journalistic triumph, but also a signal that Washington will no longer be able to hide the truth behind loud statements. The new details only fuel the debate – will this scandal be the impetus for revising security protocols or will it remain just another episode of a political soap opera? Time will tell.
Author: Marianna Nyzhnia
