Photo: Intelligencer; Photos: Getty Images
In one of the most stunningly idiotic security breaches of all time, top Trump-administration officials discussed war plans in a private Signal group chat and accidentally invited Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, to the conversation.
You might assume that someone, or perhaps several people, would get fired over this. The officials should have used a secure channel to discuss highly sensitive information (which they all know as they spent years attacking Democrats for allegedly taking risks with government secrets). The group text might have violated the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the mishandling of classified materials. The incident is also incredibly embarrassing and damaging to the administration’s relationship with foreign allies. And, of course, rampant firings are a cornerstone of the Donald Trump brand.
Yet it seems the administration may just … do nothing? So far, the White House has struck a defiant tone in response to The Atlantic’s bombshell report, but some believe firings are inevitable. Here’s the latest news on the Trump administration’s response, and who — if anyone — may take the fall for this colossal screwup.
Option 1: Fire Mike Waltz
The case for ousting Waltz: This whole thing is basically national security adviser Mike Waltz’s fault as he’s the one who accidentally invited Goldberg to the chat. Some have suggested Waltz had the journalist’s contact information saved in his phone because he has been leaking information to him. However, Waltz might just have made a mistake; maybe he meant to invite someone else, such as U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer.
Will it happen?: If anyone gets punished, it’s mostly likely to be Waltz. Some more “America First” conservatives were already suspicious of the former Dick Cheney adviser’s neoconservative past. Politico reported that Waltz’s fate is the subject of much debate in group chats among fellow members of the Trump administration:
“Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” said the [senior administration] official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberation. And two high-level White House aides have floated the idea that Waltz should resign in order to prevent the president from being put in a “bad position.”
“It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser,” the official said.
A person close to the White House was even more blunt: “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a fucking idiot.”
That may be the general consensus among Waltz’s colleagues, but the decision is ultimately up to Trump:
A fourth White House official said they were aware of internal pressure for Waltz to own his mistake — which could mean a possible resignation. But that official said what happens to Waltz largely depends on how Trump personally feels about the matter and noted the involvement of other administration officials in the Signal chat as well.
The White House response: On Monday afternoon, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump still has full confidence in his team.
“As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz,” Leavitt said in a statement.
In a Tuesday phone interview with NBC News, Trump said, “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man.” The president also suggested he doesn’t blame Waltz for adding a journalist to the chat. “It was one of Michael’s people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there,” he said, without elaborating on how he knew that.
Option 2: Fire Pete Hegseth
The case for ousting Hegseth: The Defense secretary was the only person who shared detailed plans about bombing Houthi targets in Yemen on Signal. Goldberg wrote:
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.
In a subsequent interview with the New York Times, Goldberg said, “Up until the Hegseth text on Saturday, it was mainly procedural and policy texting. Then it became war plans, and to be honest, that sent a chill down my spine.”
Will it happen?: It seems unlikely. Several Democratic officials have called for Hegseth’s resignation. Editorials in outlets including the New York Times and National Review have argued the Defense secretary should be ousted as his behavior in the chat was the most egregious.
However, several Republican officials have publicly defended Hegseth. For example, Texas representative Dan Crenshaw said, “It’s mistake, and we have to move on.” He also said he doesn’t think specifics about when and where the U.S. will conduct military strikes “comes close to the level of classified.”
Dan Crenshaw dismisses Hegseth texting war plans to a Signal group that included a journalist: “We gotta move on. If Secretary Hegseth says there was no classified information, I’ll take him at his word.” pic.twitter.com/kI2Pneqgm7
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 25, 2025
House Speaker Mike Johnson said, “No, no, of course not,” when asked on Monday if Waltz or Hegseth should be disciplined.
“Clearly, I think the administration has acknowledged it was a mistake, and they’ll tighten up and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” he added.
The White House response: While speaking with reporters after landing in Hawaii on Monday, Hegseth declared, “Nobody was texting war plans” — though it seems that’s exactly what he did.
He also lashed out at Goldberg, calling him a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist” and suggesting the story may be a hoax. But a National Security Council spokesperson had already confirmed the veracity of the Signal chat to The Atlantic, saying, “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.”
BREAKING: Pete Hegseth answered a question about the Signal Chats:
“So you’re talking about a deceitful and highly discredited, so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the, I don’t know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia,… pic.twitter.com/Q9CSrhCH4M
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) March 24, 2025
Option 3: Punish Everybody in the Chat
The case for punishing everybody: It seems CIA director John Ratcliffe shared the name of an active intelligence official in the chat, and Vice President J.D. Vance disagreed with Trump, saying, “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.” Also, no one in the chat raised concerns about discussing war plans in a commercial messaging app, or asked, “Hey, why is Jeffrey Goldberg in here?”
Will it happen? Could Trump privately chew out the participants? Sure. But he definitely can’t sack everyone involved as he would lose about half his Cabinet. Per The Wall Street Journal:
The Signal chat group that discussed the planned strikes against the Houthis listed 18 users, including Waltz, Hegseth, Vance, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, special envoy Steve Witkoff and a user identified as “MAR,” which appeared to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The White House response: As previously noted, the White House initially said Trump “continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team.” And in his NBC News interview on Tuesday, he seemed to shrug off the whole incident:
Trump said Goldberg’s presence in the chat had “no impact at all” on the military operation.
The president expressed confidence in his team, saying he was not frustrated by the events leading up to The Atlantic’s story. The situation, Trump said, was “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one.”
Like Hegseth, other participants in the chat have claimed they weren’t sharing classified information. On Tuesday, Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were grilled on the group text during a previously scheduled appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Both refused to share the group texts with the committee but insisted they were not classified.
Ratcliffe argued that sharing war plans on Signal is not a security lapse because he the app had previously been approved by the Biden administration.
“It is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes, provided, Senator, that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels,” Ratcliffe said. “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”
Ratcliffe: One Of The First Things When I Was Confirmed As CIA Director Was They Set Me Up With The “Signal” App
“I was briefed on very early by the CIA records management folks about the use of Signal as a permissible work tool.”
More – https://t.co/LMYL2ZqJKj pic.twitter.com/KwjAAaYzS6
— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) March 25, 2025
Option 4: Blame The Atlantic, Punish No One
The case for doing nothing: The second Trump administration is all about attacking the press and seeing what it can get away with. So this response makes sense dramaturgically.
Will it happen?: It seems highly probable. Coincidentally, Trump already lashed out at The Atlantic in a lengthy Truth Social post last week, calling it a “Third Rate Magazine” that peddles in hoaxes and concluding that it “has absolutely no credibility, and would be far better off, in terms of ‘journalism,’ to cease publication.”
Hegseth echoed these attacks in his initial response to the Signal story, laying the groundwork for the White House to blame the messenger.
Several top administration officials told Axios they think the White House can just wait out the storm:
Four top administration officials tell Axios they expect the controversy to die down and Waltz to remain. Four outside advisers concurred.
• “We don’t care what the media says,” a Trump adviser said. “We can easily handle what would kill any other administration. This will blow over.”
• A senior White House official added: “Trump certainly wasn’t pleased with this. But all this talk you see about Waltz not lasting is just way premature. There’s a Washington feeding frenzy. And we all know that you don’t give the mob what it wants.”
Axios also noted Trump “instinctively resists giving adversaries a win,” and that’s certainly how he sees The Atlantic. An outside administration adviser said, “The main thing Mike is definitely gonna get sh*t about is that it was The Atlantic. Man, the boss hates The Atlantic.”
