What were the war plans shared on the Signal group chat?

After The Atlantic magazine published a shocking article on Monday, revealing its editor was inadvertently given access to a Signal group chat discussing war plans in Yemen and attacks on Houthi targets, officials in US President Donald Trump’s administration – including national security adviser Mike Waltz – launched a string of attacks on reporter Jeffrey Goldberg and sought to downplay the whole incident.

Waltz suggested to Fox News that the leaked war plans may have come about from Goldberg hacking the Signal app, while White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the reporter is “well-known for his sensationalist spin”, that “no ‘war plans’ were discussed” and that “no classified material” was shared in the messages.

Who is Mike Waltz?

He’s Trump’s national security adviser, who has said he takes “full responsibility” for the Signal scandal.

What did Mike Waltz do?

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Goldberg said on Monday that it was a user “identified as Michael Waltz” that sent him a connection request on Signal which led to him gaining access to the group chat involving Trump officials.

What is Signal?

It’s a popular messaging app known for its focus on security, “with privacy at its core”.

“It is free and easy to use, with strong end-to-end encryption that keeps your communication completely private,” its App Store description reads.

Here's how Atlantic magazine journalist Jeffrey Goldberg responded to the Trump administration’s criticisms

The Atlantic didn’t disclose the exact wording of the messages in its original article, but after Trump officials issued their responses to this report – including “assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts” – the outlet has decided to remove any ambiguity and publish the group chat in its entirety.

A new article published on Wednesday reads: “The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump - combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts - have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions.

“There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

Even after Leavitt emailed The Atlantic to say the White House objected to the release of the whole conversation, the publication decided to share the messages anyway.

Oops.

And here’s what the attack plans that Trump’s advisers shared on Signal actually say:

The key message concerns one sent by an account labelled as Pete Hegseth (the US defence secretary), which gave a detailed breakdown of attacks set to take place hours later.

It reads:

“TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.

“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).”

You don’t need to be aware of what all of the military jargon means to know that unauthorised individuals learning about a detailed timeline of military operations before they’ve even happened – if they are a foreign adversary – is pretty serious indeed.

The Atlantic writes: “As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions.

“If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face.”

How have US politicians, officials and commentators reacted?

Waltz has responded to The Atlantic’s latest release to say that there were “no war plans” disclosed in the group chat and that the “bottom line” is that “President Trump is protecting America and our interests”:

Meanwhile, Taylor Budowich, cabinet secretary and deputy chief of staff at the White House, said the outlet’s new report is a concession that they “LIED to perpetuate yet ANOTHER hoax on the American people”:

Leavitt made a similar argument on her Twitter/X account, writing that the magazine has conceded “these were NOT ‘war plans’” and that “the entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater”:

Additionally, vice president JD Vance has claimed it is “very clear” that Goldberg “oversold what he had”:

Meanwhile, in terms of comments from Democrats, former transport secretary Pete Buttigieg issued a brutal four-word response:

Florida representative Maxwell Frost pointed to one section of the chat – in which ‘JD Vance’ replies “excellent” to a report from Mike Waltz of the Houthi’s “top missile guy” walking “into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed” – as “proof of a blatant war crime”:

And rather helpfully, despite Waltz noting there are “no locations” in the messages, a former fighter pilot of an F-18 jet, Amy McGrath, explained that “launch times on a strike mission ARE ABSOLUTELY CLASSIFIED”:

Yikes.

Why not read…

• Donald Trump confirms what will happen to senior official involved in Signal group chat scandal
• Republicans' hypocritical Hillary Clinton comments resurface amid Trump administration group chat scandal

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

How to join the indy100's free WhatsApp channel

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.