Opinion - The ‘Houthi PC small group' chat and the tragedy that was barely averted
Jeffrey Goldberg's lengthy account in The Atlantic of his inclusion into a highly sensitive war planning discussion at the most senior levels of government has quickly made the rounds of both national and international media. Reactions have ranged from total incredulity to hilarity and ridicule.
No one can understand, much less justify, how National Security Advisor Mike Waltz could have enabled a journalist, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to be privy to highly classified conversations that Waltz and his Cabinet-level colleagues held in what was called 'the Houthi PC small group.' It was this group that debated and ultimately recommended that the president approve a carrier-based aerial strike against the Yemeni Houthis.
Even more shocking was that these conversations took place over Signal, an encrypted messaging service that nevertheless is vulnerable to penetration by any sophisticated foreign intelligence service.
Equally puzzling is why none of the 17 other members of the group — which included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, Middle East negotiator Steve Witkoff, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe — alerted their counterparts that Signal was insufficiently secure.
Some of those involved had experience during the first Trump administration and knew, or should have known, that such conversations, if conducted face-to-face, would normally take place in a Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). They should also have recalled that if participants in classified discussions could not gather in one place, as was the case with the preplanning for the operation against the Houthis, those involved would all be located in various secure offices and linked via Secure Video Teleconferencing (SVTC), pronounced 'civits,' or on secure government devices.
Goldberg initially, and not surprisingly, thought that the 'Houthi PC small group' wasn't real and simply an elaborate and sophisticated hoax. When the plans to which he had inadvertently been made privy actually took place, he dropped out of the conversation. As he writes, 'no one seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left — or, more to the point, who I was' since he was only identified by his initials 'JG.'
Goldberg reported the conversations in considerable detail. In particular, he documented Vance's opposition to the operation. That Vance was unable to sway his colleagues and went with the consensus, and that the president sided with their recommendation rather than his, may indicate the limits of the vice president's influence.
Although he was privy to all the discussions leading up to the first attack on the Houthis on March 15, Goldberg carefully avoided revealing elements of the conversations that, as he put it, 'if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel.' All told, however, he concludes that 'I have never seen as breach quite like this' and he argues that Waltz and others may have violated the Espionage Act, federal records laws and other provisions relating to the dissemination of classified information.
Goldberg does not address the question of why those members of the 'Houthi PC small group,' or their deputies who had prior executive branch experience, did not raise a red flag as soon as Signal began to be used. Nor does he query why Hegseth's various military and civilian assistants, and those who supported the other members of the group, did not inform their respective bosses that it is improper, if not illegal, to use Signal for anything other than unclassified routine information.
There can be no denying that responsibility for the security breach must rest with the principals who actually used Signal on their cell phones to discuss highly classified matters. Nevertheless, if a military or civilian assistant fails to keep the boss out of trouble, he or she is not doing his or her job.
There is more than enough blame to go around in what can only be termed a fiasco. It was saved only by the fact that Goldberg acted responsibly even before he realized that he had been included in a conversation to which he did not belong. Someone else might not have been as careful.
If the attack plans on the Houthis had fallen into the wrong hands, the result of the leaked discussions could well have been the tragic and unnecessary loss of American military lives.
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump wants 20,000 troops to hunt, transport immigrants. Cost estimate: $3.6 billion
Trump wants 20,000 troops to hunt, transport immigrants. Cost estimate: $3.6 billion Pentagon and ICE officials have inspected military bases from New Jersey to California as potential sites to detain immigrants. Show Caption Hide Caption California officials take on Trump over National Guard deployment California officials accuse President Donald Trump of inflaming protests by mounting a federal response. WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is reviewing a Department of Homeland Security request to deploy more than 20,000 additional National Guard troops to aid the Trump administration's widening crackdown on illegal immigration around the United States, according to officials and documents. Meanwhile, Pentagon and Customs and Border Patrol officials have inspected military bases in recent months from New Jersey to California as potential sites to detain an expected influx of migrants. Keeping 20,000 National Guardsmen on duty for one year would cost $3.6 billion, according to a U.S. official briefed on the potential deployment. However, it's unclear how many Guardsmen are available to fill the request, according to a Defense official. The moves would shift the military from its mission of defending the nation against foreign enemies toward policing its streets, according to critics such as Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Trump has upped the ante in recent days, ordering the 4,000 California National Guardsmen to Los Angeles and deploying 700 active-duty Marines to the city over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom. That deployment is costing $134 million. 'Using the U.S. military to support immigration enforcement within our own borders would threaten the longstanding American principle of separating law enforcement from military power," Reed said in a statement to USA TODAY. "Such a move would erode civil liberties and set a dangerous precedent for the militarization of American communities. I've voted for billions in smart and focused immigration enforcement, but it is a duty for law enforcement, not the armed forces.' More: LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated the National Guard would soon take on a larger role in domestic security. He told a House committee on June 10 that the United States was entering a new "phase" in which the National Guard would "become a critical component of how we secure that homeland." "The National Guard is a huge component of how we see the future," he said. At Fort Bliss in Texas, the Army has a facility holding about 100 immigrants in a detention facility. A larger facility is being built there to house as many as 5,000 people, according to a U.S. official briefed on the operation but not authorized to speak publicly. Other bases under consideration to detain immigrants include Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Travis Air Force Base and Camp Parks in California, Fort Walker in Virginia and Camp Atterbury in Indiana. Officials visited those bases months ago, but it's unclear if any have been selected to receive detainees, the Defense official said. The location of some of the bases near major metropolitan areas like New York City and San Francisco indicates that immigration sweeps like the one in Los Angeles could take place there, too, the official said. Separately, the request from Homeland Security calls for up to 21,000 National Guard troops whose 'support will encompass both non-law enforcement support functions and sworn law enforcement activities.' There are thousands of National Guard and active-duty troops at the southern border. However, a memo reviewed by USA TODAY acknowledges that it is the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deploy national staff "in support of interior immigration enforcement operations." ICE is carrying out a directive from Trump to find immigrants living in the United States without legal status. Protests have sprung up against the sweeps the agency is carrying out in various neighborhoods. Active-duty troops are generally prohibited from domestic policing under the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law that 'embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. But National Guard troops are rarely subject to the law, and, under the direction of a state's governor, can participate in law enforcement activities. A governor of a state sympathetic to the request from Homeland Security could provide the troops for the request from Homeland Security, according to the U.S. official who is familiar with the request but not authorized to speak publicly about it. The request states that the National Guard troops would be funded under Title 32, the law that leaves the Guardsmen under the control of their state's governor but uses federal taxpayer dollars to fund their activities. The request seeks troops to aid immigration enforcement in five areas, including 'Attempt to Locate' – Fugitives. Homeland Security is seeking as many as 3,500 Guardsmen for investigative units, surveillance and 'Night operations and rural interdiction.' The largest ask for troops falls in the category of 'Transportation Support,' with as many as 10,000 troops needed. These personnel would help transport detainees and 'unaccompanied alien children.' The request also seeks buses, vans and aircraft. As many 2,500 troops fall under the request for help in 'Detention Support.' These Guardsmen would support 'overwhelmed detention facilities.' Among their expected duties: 'riot control.' Other troops are being sought for search and rescue, medical units and public affairs to manage 'public information during high-visibility operations.' The deployment of thousands of additional National Guard troops in immigration enforcement could affect the public's perception of the military, said Lindsay Cohn, a political scientist and expert on the domestic use of the military. Cohn is also an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, but spoke about this issue in a personal capacity and not as a representative of the college or federal government. Homeland Security can justify the request by arguing it lacks the manpower to conduct the sweeps, Cohn said. But raids on schools and businesses are unpopular with the American public. Also, how troops conduct themselves matters a great deal for public perception and confidence, she said. If they behave with restraint, Cohn said, they may be able to maintain an appearance of not "taking sides.' However, given that many in law enforcement personnel dress in military-like uniforms, the public may not differentiate between troops and law enforcement.


Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do in Los Angeles. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. 'A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them,' Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. 'That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable.' California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about 'the scope of the Marines' mission and duties.' Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to 'restore order' and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, 'did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment.' The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,' but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, 'Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.' Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries, including a spree of looting in downtown Los Angeles on Monday night. 'It was heading in the wrong direction,' Trump said Monday. 'It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.' On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's New Pentagon Buddy Might Actually Let Him Order Troops To Fire On American Citizens
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump ramps up his use of the military to quell domestic dissent, he has on his side a Pentagon chief apparently ready to carry out any order Trump gives him, possibly including a potentially illegal one to shoot American citizens. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, specifically asked during his January confirmation hearing whether he would have obeyed a 2020 Trump demand to shoot protesters — as Trump had wanted then-Secretary Mark Esper to do in his first term — would not answer and instead dodged the question. 'I was in the Washington, D.C. National Guard unit that was in Lafayette Square during those events holding a riot shield on behalf of my country. I saw 50 Secret Service agents get injured by rioters trying to jump over the fences, set the church on fire and destroy a statue,' Hegseth said in response to Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono. Related: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week A minute later, Hegseth cited Trump's leadership as the reason he would not provide definitive answers to that or other questions. 'One of the things that President Trump is so good at is never strategically tipping his hand, and so I would never in this public forum give one way or another what orders the president gives to me in any context,' he said. The question and Hegseth's answer may suddenly be relevant again following Trump's orders to the military to protect officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement carrying out raids to arrest migrants who are in the country illegally. Protests grew violent in Los Angeles over the weekend after Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops to the city on Saturday night. He continued threatening to add more troops and possibly broaden the deployment in remarks Sunday after a weekend of golf at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We're going to have troops everywhere,' he told reporters. On Monday, even as California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Trump and Hegseth to rescind the deployment because he had not requested it, as he said the law requires, Trump escalated the situation by adding 700 Marines, a full battalion, to the mix. Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It It is unclear what, precisely, they can accomplish. Federal law prohibits them from arresting people unless Trump were to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act. While he has referred to the protesters as 'insurrectionists' multiple times, he has not used his authority to declare the riot an 'insurrection' against the United States, which would suggest that the participants are trying to overthrow the national government. 'Trump is just abusing his power,' Hirono said Monday. 'At first, it's the National Guard, without reference to the governor, and now that the Marines, what is he trying to prove that he is king. ... It's because he thinks that the rule of law doesn't apply to him, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent for him to be doing all of these things. So it's just, who's to stop him?' Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell blamed Newsom — whom Trump regularly calls 'Newscum' in his remarks and social media posts — for the violence. 'Under Gov. Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership, California's state and local officials have actively subverted federal immigration laws, enabled so-called sanctuary cities, and refused to protect federal law enforcement officers,' Parnell told HuffPost. 'Because of this leadership failure, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stepped up to protect our communities from violent mobs. We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers, even if Gavin Newsom will not.' 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions,' Newsom said in a social media post on Sunday, later adding in a separate post, 'Local law enforcement didn't need help ... Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence.' Trump in 2020 was angry about protests around the country sparked by the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, and particularly those taking place in Washington, D.C., near the White House. According to Esper, Trump wanted the National Guard troops who had been deployed to open fire on the protesters: 'He says, 'Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something.' And he's suggesting that that's what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters,' Esper told CBS News in 2022. On June 1 of that year, both Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley were present with Trump when he ordered Lafayette Square adjacent to the White House cleared so he could have his photo taken holding a Bible in front of a church there. Both Esper and Milley publicly apologized for their presence in the days after and stated that the military had no role in that autumn's election. The remarks incensed Trump and eventually led to Esper's firing after Trump's election loss in November. No such pushback is likely to happen with Hegseth, a former Fox News weekend host, now in charge of the military. 'Secretary Hegseth stands firmly with President Trump and will work with our interagency partners to restore order,' Parnell said. Igor Bobic contributed article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Republicans Are Calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim," And The Backlash From Women Is Too Good Not To Share Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It'