The Classified Information John Ratcliffe, Pete Hegseth, and Mike Waltz Sent to Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg

/84 Comments/in /by

If you’re like me, you’ll keep checking when reading this story about how Mike Waltz added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat of top Trump officials planning war strikes on Yemen to see if it’s the Onion.

But it’s not.

It’s real.

Mike Waltz really did add a journalist to a chat (including Marco Rubio, who was a big player in the Butter Emails fun) planning war strikes on Yemen.

To make things easier to understand the risk of all this, I wanted to pull out what kinds of highly classified information these people shared with a journalist.

First, CIA Director John Ratcliffe sent the identify of a currently serving intelligence officer.

One more person responded: “John Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.

Then, Ratcliffe sent what sound like sources and methods.

Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.” The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.

Then, Whiskey Pete Hegseth (who says trans service members are not fit to serve, but thinks he himself is fit to run DOD), sent operational details of the strikes on Yemen about to start.

At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.

Finally, Waltz sent what sound like the immediate results of the operation.

I went back to the Signal channel. At 1:48, “Michael Waltz” had provided the group an update. Again, I won’t quote from this text, except to note that he described the operation as an “amazing job.”

Miek Waltz is the one who added Goldberg to the chat. He also set at least some of them to auto delete.

Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four. That raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law: Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.

Finally, Goldberg notes that by definition, they could not have had their phones in a SCIF, so all were sharing information outside the security guidelines mandated for this kind of information.

Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.

I guess this is what we should expect from an Administration led by a guy who stored nuclear documents in his bathroom.

Not a single one of the people involved in this thread exhibits the least competence for the job.

Share this entry
84 replies
  1. xyxyxyxy says:

    From the article:

    Earlier today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I also wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the “Houthi PC small group” a genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was included in this group? Was I (on the off chance) included on purpose? If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I removed myself from the group? Do senior Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for sensitive discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel could endanger American personnel?
    Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”

    Reply
    • Fancy Chicken says:

      Thanks for sharing that.

      While you were posting so was I below, wondering if why Goldberg got added was addressed in his Atlantic piece as I don’t subscribe.

      It seems even he doesn’t know how he got added. Maybe Hegseth was drunk dialing journalists for kicks and accidentally added Goldberg.

      What a clusterfuck of an administration.

      Reply
      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        By Trump standards of rhetoric, Evans is doing superbly. To wit, observe his facility with the logical fallacy If X then Q: “The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”

        This one works (is supposed to work) by leaving the audience nonplussed. What “ongoing success”? And we weren’t talking about threats in the *past* but rather future threats posed your boys’ incompetence. As we sputter, Evans and his handlers wipe their hands and say “Voila! We came, we fucked up, we conquered the media.”

        Reply
  2. xyxyxyxy says:

    “Not a single one of the people involved in this thread exhibits the least competence for [like the DOGE teens, ANY] job.

    Reply
  3. Fancy Chicken says:

    I don’t have a subscription to The Atlantic so I can’t read that, but all the reporting I’m reading on this uses words like “inadvertently” or “accidentally” when discussing why Waltz invited Goldberg.

    I just find that incredibly hard to swallow considering this administration’s antipathy to media not in the MAGAsphere. And wouldn’t someone on that chat wonder who Goldberg was or why he was included?

    It’s just unbelievably odd.

    Reply
      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        My favorite part is when Vance texts that he’ll say a prayer for victory, just to let us know that yes, this is a religious war (as the Houthis themselves have helpfully declared).

        My second favorite part is where Vance, at the beginning, says he’s against it because that’s a primary EU trade route, and US related cargo only amounts to 3% of the volume. It’s a nifty, blunderbuss FU to the EU.

        Reply
        • harpie says:

          This part towards the end was pretty good [emphasis added]:

          William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president.

          “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations,” he said.

          “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          Oh, almost forgot, right after that Miller chimes in saying that the EU (who of course have no idea this is going down, let alone agreed to a qid quot pro) will be required to pay the bill for the action, which will get good laughs in London and on the Continent.

          After consideration, I guess I don’t really have a favorite part; the whole damn thing is as out-there as anything that has happened in recorded history.

          {prayer emoji}

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          @harpie, 2:44 pm:

          Yes, being in deliberations with the VP is like participating in an Oxford debating society…with WWE emojis.

        • Nord Dakota says:

          Mine was Hegseth saying, when they discussed whether doing this now or doing it later, that a downside of delay would be if this discussion got leaked and made them look indecisive. That’s some real worm ouroboros there.

    • SteveBev says:

      I think I have figured out whom Mike Waltz THOUGHT he was adding to the CHAT when he added JEFFREY GOLDBERG as JG to the chat group.

      JAMIESON GREER

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamieson_Greer

      Is the the current US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

      As such he is on the list of
      ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS
      for THE US NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
      Additional participants, ie additional to Regular Attendees include:
      White House Counsel
      DIrector of the Central Intelligence Agency
      Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
      United States Trade Representative
      Director of the Office of Management and Budget
      U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate
      White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council

      Reply
      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        Hmm. Good catch, and very not-unlikely because the underlying motive, other than geopolitical masturbation (can we please call the group chat The Wingnut Circle Jerk?) and one-upping Biden, was keeping M.E. maritime trade routes open — and maybe even hoping to bring down the cost of shipping insurance in the process. The Trade Rep definitely belonged in that “circle.”

        Greer’s mistakenly assumed presence there would also explain why no one questioned “JG’s” complete absence from the threads: he’s not a military expert, and would have been folded into the group only for the sake of having the background when interacting with his international cohorts, post hoc.

        Goldberg played it solidly, from start to finish. Gotta admire him for that.

        Here’s the one

        Reply
  4. Rugger_9 says:

    There are couple more consequences I see:

    First, this alerts every court and opposition lawyer of this ‘administration’s’ proclivity for untraceable secrecy which will lead to skepticism and (potential presumptive guilt) about whether USG prosecutions turned over all Brady evidence. Lots of filings to come, and something like this makes it easy for defendants, et al to claim missing evidence.

    Second, I wonder whether the entire list of the signal group was visible to Jeffrey Goldberg, I think there is a decent probability there were others lurking in the background and/or listening in at the locations of the players. Hegseth’s claim that OPSEC was clean points out just how unaware he was about who was in the group. I wonder who they thought was there as Goldberg.

    Third, IIRC Ratcliffe was turned down in the 45 version of the administration because he was an idiot. Thanks for proving it.

    Reply
    • CaptainCondorcet says:

      Your point about the flurry of upcoming filings feels dead-on, but how do you prove a negative? Can you submit a legal argument that since members of USG have been proven to have deleted required messages off Signal for other things they might have here? And does Signal even allow retrieval of deleted messages that would adjudicate the claim? Signal at least publicly claims no.

      Reply
        • CaptainCondorcet says:

          Specifically, they did indeed submit Signal messages into evidence in a couple of cases, such as when Judge Mehta denied bail to Stewart Rhodes. But I do not remember if they ever publicly disclosed how they secured them, and the chance always remains that one of the other parties in the group chat saved them and handed them over to law enforcement.

      • chicago_bunny says:

        There are several ways this fact can be used in litigation. First, in discovery, you specifically request Signal messages from the defendants. If the defendant makes the blanket argument that Signal is not used for government work, you point to this as an example. Second, if the person admits that they use Signal but argue that the messages no longer exist, you hit them with accusations of spoliation (destruction of evidence) and violation of government record keeping rules. And finally, if you can establish that there were Signal messages that were not retained, one of the remedies that the court can order is an adverse inference – an assumption that the message did exist and its contents were unfavorable to the party who failed to preserve them.

        Reply
  5. Molly Pitcher says:

    The emoji conversation in the picture with this post is read with a Valley Girl accent in my head.

    These idiots are going to get us all killed.

    Reply
      • drhester says:

        Trump was asked about the leak. His response:

        I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic. To me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. It’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.

        Reply
        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          Finally, in the first and last phrases of that comment: (on the off chance and purely by accident, of course) he is able to speak honestly after all ! I am reminded, by an uncontrollable reflex, of Sgt Schultz’ timeless comment:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HblPucwN-m0

          O to be a fly on the wall in the Oval Orifice this week!

          Let it be proclaimed from the rooftops! March 24 should be a national holiday going forward! “No Lie Day?”

        • Matt Foley says:

          “I don’t know anything about it.”
          “I didn’t sign it.”
          “I haven’t been following it.”
          “I had nothing to do with it.”

        • P J Evans says:

          It doesn’t have enough photos and cartoons for him.
          I think only “Highlights” would work. Or the late lamented “Life”.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          For Matt, perhaps it is time to start the ‘out of touch’ theme that got under Reagan’s skin.

        • Matt Foley says:

          “I don’t know” and questioning the questioner is a favorite Trump tactic. Watch him lie his ass off about his multi-billion dollar meme coin.

          https://www.threads.net/@aaron.rupar/post/DFGvtQjg5IH

          REPORTER: Do you intend to continue to sell products that benefit yourself personally while you’re president?
          TRUMP: Well I don’t know if it benefitted. I don’t know where it is. I don’t know much about it other than I launched it. I heard it was very successful. I haven’t checked it. Where is it today?
          REPORTER: You made a lot of money, sir.
          TRUMP: How much?
          REPORTER: Several billion dollars it seems like in the last several days.
          TRUMP: Several billion? That’s peanuts for these guys.

    • harpie says:

      Aaron Rupar [access this post from Marcy’s below]
      March 24, 2025 at 2:46 PM

      Trump on his cabinet members using Signal to text war plans to a reporter: “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. To be it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. But I know nothing about it. You’re saying that they had what?” [VIDEO]

      Marcy responds to Rupar’s post:
      https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3ll5gedh2lk2y
      March 24, 2025 at 2:50 PM

      Trump claiming that NSC knew that Trump’s entire NatSec team did something wildly incompetent and none of them — not JD Vance, not Mike Waltz, not Susie Wiles
      — gave him a heads up.

      Highly likely that’s a lie, but it’s not a lie that makes him look less stupid.

      Reply
      • harpie says:

        Transcript of that Rupar clip:

        Q: Your reaction to the story in the Atlantic that said that some of your top cabinet officials and aides have been discussing very sensitive material through Signal and included an Atlantic reporter. What is your response to that [unclear]

        [0:13] TRUMP: I don’t know about it. I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic. It’s to me it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. Your saying that they had what?

        [0:24] Q: They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials in

        TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what were they talking about?

        Q: The Houthis

        [0:34] TRUMP: The Houthis, you mean the attack on the Houthis?

        Q: Right

        [0:36] TRUMP: Well, it couldn’t’a been very effective because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that. I don’t know anything about it. You, you’re telling me about it for the first time. [Turns to another reporter][0:47]

        Reply
        • Matt Foley says:

          Questioning the questioner is how he buys time to come up with more lies. And he stares right at them trying to intimidate them.

  8. Savage Librarian says:

    All the more reason for teachers, Independents, Democrats, and anti-Trump Republicans to get out and vote in the Special Elections.

    Vote Josh Weil in Waltz’ vacated FL 6th Congressional District. I think this is also the district Susie Wiles votes in.

    So, get out on April 1 to make sure no more fools are elected. The same holds true for Matt Gaetz District 1 special election.

    And Jake Sherman reports this:

    “Just a massively stunning cash disparity in FL-6, where there will be a special next week to replace @ michaelgwaltz.

    Democrat Josh Weil raised $9M and has $1.2M on hand. Republican Randy Fine raised $987,759 and has $92,693 on hand. This is a district Waltz and Trump won by 30. Republicans on the Hill and in W.H. are getting a bit worried about this seat.”

    https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1904167553716371842

    Reply
  9. Savage Librarian says:

    Although, not in any way near in comparison, this reminds me a bit of the time someone inadvertently sent me an incriminating piece of evidence through the US Postal Service. They definitely intended to send it to me, but they completely failed to realize the implications.

    Long story short, they were eventually forced into an early retirement. I wonder how long it will take for the pressure to build here. When will a critical mass of Republican legislators realize how much these fools are jeopardizing their own families?

    Reply
    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      As to your question: It’s possible, if the Left can take this, and all of the implications of it, and run like hell with it. Calls for Senate and House hearings on it should be demanded.

      Can’t wait for Colbert’s crew to play with it. It will be a thing of beauty.

      It is beyond the pale, and perhaps the biggest offshoot is that US security is totally in the shitter at this point. No secure communications with State or DoD, or any Executive office across the board is possible.

      And the laughingstock aspect of it is political gold, as well, if the Left can just pick up the ball and run with it. “Houthi Truthy” has a nice ring.

      Reply
    • Gacyclist says:

      My bet is absolutely nothing will come of this. Interesting when you consider the gop foaming at the mouth for years over Hilary using a private email server

      Reply
      • Ed Seedhouse says:

        Well, MSNBC at least is all over it. It’s been topic 1 or 2 on all the early evening programs so far. Wonder what Rachel will make of it? Or Lawrence if he’s back this week.

        Reply
      • P-villain says:

        Remember when Trump and Abe pored over photos of a N Korean missile launch on the public patio at MAL? There were no consequences then; there will be none now, except maybe Waltz (not Hegseth) will lose his job.

        Reply
  10. harpie says:

    Here’s a great THREAD from Media Matters’ Matthew Gertz:

    https://bsky.app/profile/mattgertz.bsky.social/post/3ll5fb4zmic23
    March 24, 2025 at 2:30 PM

    The NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER added the EDITOR OF THE ATLANTIC to a PRINCIPALS COMMITTEE TEXT CHAIN set up for the DEFENSE SECRETARY about PLANNED MILITARY STRIKES.

    Here’s a thread of involved parties talking about the need for secure communications (when Dems are involved): [THREAD]

    [Hegseth 2023]
    [Hegseth 2016]
    [Hegseth 2016]
    [Rubio 2016]
    [Walz 2023]
    [Hegseth 2016]
    [Ratcliffe 2018]

    Reply
  11. Dark Phoenix says:

    Gotta love Trump with the Sgt. Schultz defense, too. He knows nothing and sees nothing.

    “SCHULTZ! Just what is the meaning of this?”

    Reply
  12. Charlie_on_the_MTA says:

    1) open notice to all attorneys that government is using encrypted public (and self deleting chats) Court is one already cased for preservation but needs to up that

    2) if you read the Goldberg piece nowhere does it appear potus was briefed or authorized operation Steve miller did it Analogous to fridays declaration that trump did not sign aea designation

    3) is it a hatch act violation to carry out a military action in order to make a point about Biden ? That was the underlying message of secdef

    Reply
  13. RitaRita says:

    The pattern emerging for this Trump Administration is of actions without thorough preparation. There probably is a way to accomplish their goals without embarrassing court battles and “inadvertent” mistakes like adding a journalist to a top secret conversation happening on an insecure app. But they choose to believe that they don’t have to follow any rules. It is as if they have decided that cause and effect don’t matter. It’s only the spin afterwards that counts.

    Reply
  15. dopefish says:

    How can it possibly be legal for senior administration officials to make decisions over Signal?
    How is NARA supposed to archive that?

    Reply
  16. johno808 says:

    I bet Elon’s PO’ed he wasn’t on the call.. BTW, what’s the statute of limitations on the Espionage Act?

    Reply
  18. Depressed Chris says:

    I assume that Waltz had another “J. G.” in mind. Since most if the folks on the message would be the folks who would need to know about the strike, I’m guessing the intended “J. G.” was someone senior at CENTCOM, the C.O of the strike group, or possibly a senior military officer from one of the countries in the area, coordinating any overflight issues. With the journalist in the loop, someone important was possibly left out. I wonder if someone is going to ask Waltz why Goldberg’s contact info was on his phone? If his cell was Gov provided it can be audited by DoD.

    Also cell phones in a SCIF? A great, big, super, duper mistake!

    Reply
  19. WilliamOckham says:

    These people want to be able deport anyone in the U.S. without judicial review. I hope Lee Gelerent going to ask for a preservation order for any Signal chats that happened last Saturday that referenced those flights to El Salvador. Now that we know that that’s the way the Trump administration Principals’ Committee conducts business, I would be willing put good money on them having organized their deliberate violation of the judge’s orders over Signal. I would love to know what Stephen Miller said about the judge on Signal.

    Reply
  21. Coritza Cedeno says:

    What an embarrassment to United States Of America. I better not never hear anyone bring up crooked Hillary’s emails after this one.

    Reply
  22. LargeMoose says:

    Here’s a nice report about the scandal, including highlights of the principals’ outrage when they accused Hillary Clinton because of her email server, etc. They all demonstrate a knowledge of correct handling of classified info when it suits them.

    “Trump issues STUNNING response to BOMBSHELL group chat scandal” –Brian Tyler Cohen
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7GY0iMEJRg

    Hypocrisy-On-Parade clips here:
    Pete Hegseth, 2016: https://youtu.be/k7GY0iMEJRg?t=167
    Pete Hegseth, 2023: https://youtu.be/k7GY0iMEJRg?t=282
    Marco Rubio: https://youtu.be/k7GY0iMEJRg?t=330
    John Ratcliffe: https://youtu.be/k7GY0iMEJRg?t=354
    Tulsi Gabbard: https://youtu.be/k7GY0iMEJRg?t=380

    Reply
  25. Charlotte_24MAR2025_2242h says:

    The arrogance of these incompetent fools will put us all in danger. Hegseth is already out there claiming that nobody revealed any war plans. Sure, PETE… Can’t wait for Goldberg’s response. He has receipts.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is insufficiently unique, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]

    Reply
  26. wa_rickf says:

    Signal was used in planning J6 and discussing the Jamal Khashoggi murder aftermath with the Saudis. No one in the Trump 1.0 Administration got into trouble for using Signal then, either.

    Reply
  27. harpie says:

    Atlantic staff writer Shane Harris re: GABBARD and RATCLIFFE:

    https://bsky.app/profile/shaneharris.bsky.social/post/3ll66xcjvyc2u
    March 24, 2025 at 10:10 PM

    Programming note: Two members of the “Houthi PC small group” Signal chain will be testifying before Congress tomorrow. DNI Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe are slated to appear at the annual Worldwide Threats hearing. [link]

    As we noted in our story, Ratcliffe wrote in the chain the name of an active intelligence officer, which we did not publish. He also shared information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.

    Gabbard aide Joe Kent was also weighed in on the question of delaying the attack. He is also her nominee to lead the NCTC, but has yet to be confirmed.

    Reply
  28. Memory hole says:

    More from Olga Lautman of Trump tyranny tracker. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff was in Moscow when he was added to the Houthi chat.

    Reply
    • Rugger_9 says:

      One wonders who else ‘listened in’ especially given how gushing Witkoff has been over Putin. Back door at least IMHO between Vlad and his agents.

      As for whether Convict-1 / Krasnov was in the loop, two things tell me he probably was. The reference to the MAL team as well as the fact that so far no one has been fired for this both point to a mob boss approval. How else can a world-wide SNAFU get a shrug from Convict-1 / Krasnov (even allowing for general assholery) when he notoriously micromanages the message. He also had to give the ‘GO’ order, otherwise all sorts of inconvenient questions will be asked.

      Reply
    • starling says:

      Did anyone else confirm this? Obviously this makes it more likely that information on war plans got through to an adversary. A month ago there were a lot of public warnings that Russia is trying to intercept Signal messages.

      Reply
  29. Shagpoke Whipple says:

    I assume Waltz did not intend to include Goldberg in the chat, but what does the fact that Goldberg was on his contact list imply? Was Waltz a source?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.