War Plans Leak Reveals The Shocking Incompetence Of The Trump Administration
New details in the case of top U.S. officials messaging each other about war plans — and accidentally including a journalist in the conversation — reveal the breathtaking incompetence of President Donald Trump's administration just two months into his new term.
The Atlantic on Wednesday published the full message chain from a Signal group chat that themagazine's editor-in-chief was inadvertently invited to join earlier this month. The messages, which The Atlantic first reported on Monday, discussed plans for strikes in Yemen, along with other sensitive national security matters.
The conversation gives a glimpse into how lax some of the nation's top officials were while discussing those matters.
'We are currently clean on [operational security],' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth texted the group, which included several officials and a number that wasn't known to him: The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Here are some of the biggest takeaways from this national security failure:
The Trump administration's decision to use a third-party messaging app like Signal flies in the face of basic operational security measures.
Even before Monday's bombshell report, a Pentagon-wide email reportedly went out last week explicitly warning against using Signal for communications.
'A vulnerability has been identified in the Signal messenger application,' the email began.
The email added that Russian hacking groups were targeting 'Signal Messenger to spy on persons of interest.' But in this case, Russian hackers had nothing to do with the leaks: The Trump administration did that all on its own.
After Goldberg published his initial story saying Trump's national security adviser, Michael Waltz, accidentally added him to the Signal group, Trump's team pushed back on the claim that they ever discussed war plans.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday that 'No 'war plans' were discussed' and that 'No classified material was sent to the thread.'
And on Wednesday, after The Atlantic published messages in which officials discussed the strike on Yemen, Hegseth defended himself on social media.
'So, let's me get this straight,' Hegseth wrote on X. 'The Atlantic released the so-called 'war plans' and those 'plans' include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.'
'Those are some really shitty war plans,' Hegseth added.
But the former Fox News anchor and current defense secretary had sent some of the most revelatory messages of all in the group chat titled 'Houthis PC small group,' including a detailed timeline of the attack plans. More from Hegseth's texts:
1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)
1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)'
1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)
1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier 'Trigger Based' targets)
1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.
MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)
We are currently clean on OPSEC
Godspeed to our Warriors.
As The Atlantic pointed out in its story on Wednesday, it could have been catastrophic for U.S. troops if those messages had gotten into the wrong hands.
Just 31 minutes after Hegseth wrote to the group, U.S. warplanes launched to carry out their attack. More from The Atlantic:
If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.
As more information has come to light, the Trump administration has remained remarkably consistent on one point: It wasn't their fault.
While testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe claimed that using Signal was a policy of President Joe Biden's administration.
'That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration,' Ratcliffe said.
But former Biden officials stressed Signal was never allowed on their government phones.
'We were not allowed to have any messaging apps on our work phones,' one former top national security official told HuffPost on the condition of anonymity. 'And under no circumstances were unclassified messaging apps allowed to be used for transmission of classified material. This is misdirection at its worst.'
In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, Waltz suggested that Goldberg may have intentionally infiltrated the group.
'You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact, so of course I didn't see this loser in the group,' Waltz said. 'It looked like someone else. Now whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical means is something we're trying to figure out.'
Waltz couldn't seem to answer directly how Goldberg got on the text thread, leading Ingraham to say, 'That's disturbing.'
'That's why we've got the best technical minds, right?' Waltz responded. 'And that's where ... I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where it said one person and then it said a different number.'
As Trump officials continue to point fingers at everyone but themselves, some Republican lawmakers have acknowledged the staggering incompetence taking place.
'Sounds like a huge screwup. I mean, is there any other way to describe it?' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on Monday. 'I don't think you should use Signal for classified information.'
And Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) may have summed it up best in his response: 'Somebody fucked up.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
14 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Viasat Stock Floated Higher Today
It benefited from a growing dispute between President Trump and Elon Musk. If the latter loses federal government business for Starlink, Viasat could potentially poach such clients. 10 stocks we like better than Viasat › Satellite stocks were in vogue in late trading on Thursday, thanks to a rapidly escalating spat between two of the most high-profile individuals in the world. A beneficiary of this was Viasat (NASDAQ: VSAT), which ended up booking a 2.6% gain in its share price on the day. That made it an outperformer in light of the S&P 500 index's 0.5% decline. Earlier in the day, a social media war of words erupted between President Trump and former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk. That occurred just after Musk, on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, leveled criticisms against Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill currently making rather jagged progress through the Senate. In one of several responses on Trump's favored social media platform, Truth Social, the president made what can easily be taken as a direct and unambiguous threat to Musk's various businesses. He wrote that "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts." Among Musk's businesses, which of course include Tesla, are SpaceX and Starlink. The latter company counts federal government agencies such as the Departments of Defense and Commerce as its clients. If such revenue sources were indeed to be cut off suddenly, the move would have quite a detrimental effect on Space X. Its loss would surely be rivals' gain; hence the interest in Viasat. The company provides satellite services that rival those of Starlink. Of course, so far there have been tough words but no action in regards to shutting off the federal taps that flow to Musk's business. Personally, I wouldn't trade Viasat or any potential beneficiary on rhetoric alone right now, but this is a rapidly developing story that's worth monitoring for anyone invested in satellite or space stocks presently. Before you buy stock in Viasat, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Viasat wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Viasat Stock Floated Higher Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
My father helped create public media. He'd say we need it now, more than ever
Now the Trump administration is not only trying to end public media but also attempting to claw back more than $1 billion in public media funds that Congress has already approved. Those who support this move Advertisement But there are problems with that argument. First, commercial media executives understand that attention is currency, and Advertisement Second, paid subscriptions are expensive, and many Americans simply can't afford them. Public media is a bargain by comparison. Third, commercial media companies don't have the incentive to operate in the public's best interest; they do have the incentive to convert eyeballs into revenue sources. For example, in youth programming, the focus is often on the commercials, selling toys and sugary snacks to kids. And content for kids on platforms such as YouTube can range from vapid to dangerous at a time when busy parents often use screen time to supplement entertainment or education. For these parents, it has become exhausting to choose what's OK for their children, and even more exhausting to know which platforms are trustworthy. The truth is, at a time when half of kids don't have access to preschool, federally funded, responsible content is a great investment in the next generation. Lastly, the commercial market has also collapsed for news. According to the Advertisement Access to reliable information is crucial in a democracy. As Bill Moyers once Like libraries and schools, public media offers access to knowledge and critical thinking, which is essential for learning and for democracy. The government should strengthen — not undermine — nonprofit educational media, especially now. I hope that my Dad's call for 'public interest' media prevails, rather than the alternative: an expensive wasteland even more vast — and dangerous — than he could have ever imagined.
