National Security Concerns Rise After American Official War Plans Leaked In Group Chat

BY: ISABEL RANGEL / CO-NEWS EDITOR

Andrew Harnick. Photo via Getty Images

On the morning of March 24th, The Atlantic published a very jarring exposé detailing coordinates and real-time missile strikes being planned in a Signal group chat composed of U.S. military officials and cabinet members.

Now, one might ask how exactly does a news publication get so lucky in retrieving such information? Ask Jeffery Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief who just so happened to be the person inadvertently included in their group chat.

Upon this discovery, The Atlantic published a transcript of the text messages the following Wednesday, flaunting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s detailed attack plans on Yemen. The leaked group chat has sparked a nationwide discussion, bashing national security protocols and raising questions about government communication practices.

In the article bluntly titled, “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal,” Goldberg pulled texts in which Hegseth, along with Vice President JD Vance and other government officials, specified times and many of the aircrafts used to carry out recent air strikes against the Houthi militias in Yemen. 

The group chat messages, published in an article coupled with screenshots, showed a blatant disregard for national security amongst American government officials. Not only did Goldberg manage to go unnoticed for hours before removing himself, but these discussions were held outside of government channels, which would have normally been used for highly sensitive war planning such as these airstrikes. 

The contents of the texts themselves raise a whole other slew of questions amongst Americans. Texts relayed from Vice President JD Vance to the rest of the chat held an air of hesitation, with a small paragraph expressing his concern about the message the air strikes are sending to other nations. 

“But I think we are making a mistake… The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message. But I am not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.”

This extraordinary debate with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Michael Waltz (amongst other members) is settled after Hegseth gives his reasoning on attacking now rather than later, to which Vance replies, “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

This incident has since amplified concerns over how the Trump Administration manages sensitive information. It has offered an extraordinary look at the handling of U.S. official affairs, and has provoked criticism from many citizens and Democratic lawmakers, many who have called for the resignation of Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. 

In immediate deflection of the many questions raised, President Trump kept his statement brief: “It wasn’t classified information.”

When pressed once more on Wednesday, his answer remained just as vague. When questioned again about how sensitive the topics covered in the groupchat were, he replied, “I don’t know. I’m not sure. You have to ask the various people involved. I really don’t know.”

In testimonies given at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that Tuesday, intelligence officials both claimed that no classified information was shared in the groupchat. CIA Director John Ratcliffe stated his “communications in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.” 

There are likely many hearings and further testimonies in the future for these U.S. leaders, with increasing calls for accountability and the implementation of stricter communication protocols to prevent further damage. For the world of journalism, some have argued that by exposing these plans, The Atlantic has put national security at risk, while others defend the nation’s right to know of the lack of protection put in place for discussing such matters. 

In the meantime, all sides will have to address the fundamental question behind such a controversial case: How does one handle sensitive government conversations in a world where information is so easily accessible?