Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:02 am
Talk About Tennis 2.0
We still talk about tennis. And much more.
https://talkabouttennis2.com/
Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Page 80 of 88
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 2:03 am
Shouldn't they though?
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 2:11 am
Rachel Maddow
@maddow.msnbc.com
"It’s not clear how or why Geier, who is not a physician and has an undergraduate degree from the Univ. of Maryland at Baltimore County, was chosen...
"He was disciplined by Maryland regulators over a decade ago for practicing medicine without a license...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... on-autism/
@maddow.msnbc.com
"It’s not clear how or why Geier, who is not a physician and has an undergraduate degree from the Univ. of Maryland at Baltimore County, was chosen...
"He was disciplined by Maryland regulators over a decade ago for practicing medicine without a license...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... on-autism/
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:41 pm
Adam Kinzinger
@adamkinzinger.bsky.social
Texted LITERALLY WAR PLANS
@adamkinzinger.bsky.social
Texted LITERALLY WAR PLANS
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:46 pm
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:46 pm
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:50 pm
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:55 pm
Anna Bower @annabower.bsky.social
·
1h
Did Steve Witkoff just admit that he uses a personal phone for national security conversations with Cabinet-level officials?
·
1h
Did Steve Witkoff just admit that he uses a personal phone for national security conversations with Cabinet-level officials?
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:58 pm
Hegseth’s Leak Would Have Warned the Enemy. The White House Is Using Semantics to Obscure That.
War plan or battle plan? Classified or not? The answers to those questions amount to a distinction without much of a difference.
By David E. Sanger
David E. Sanger has covered the intersection of national security and technology for four decades at the Times.
March 26, 2025
Updated 2:13 p.m. ET
The White House effort to defend Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday leaned heavily into a semantic argument. What he posted on the now-infamous Signal chat with his national security colleagues was not a “war plan,” they insist.
Technically, they may be right. What The Atlantic published, from the chain in which its top editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently included, is more like a timeline of a pending attack. But it is so detailed — with the time that F/A-18F Super Hornet jets were supposed to launch and the time that MQ-9 Reaper drones would fly in from land bases in the Middle East — that the answer may prove a distinction without a difference.
A full “war plan” would undoubtedly be more specific, with the routings of weaponry and coordinates for targets. But that is not likely to help the defense secretary as he tries to explain away why he put these details on an unclassified commercial app that, while encrypted, was far from the heavily protected, classified internal systems used by the Pentagon.
And it was the time stamps he included in his messages, hours before the attack began, that were critical: Had this information leaked out, the Houthi fighters and missile experts the United States was targeting in Yemen would have had time to escape. Mr. Hegseth’s own references in the Signal chain to “OPSEC” — or operational security — indicated he fully understood the need to keep this timing secret.
And the level of detail was striking: “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” Mr. Hegseth wrote in the chat. “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).”
Clearly this is the most sensitive of battlefield plans. National security veterans say it was almost certainly classified data at the time that Mr. Hegseth sent them to the group chat. Yet the question of classification has been at the heart of the Trump administration’s explanations for why the Signal chat was a minor transgression.
“So this was not classified,” Mr. Trump insisted during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors at the White House on Tuesday. “Now if it’s classified information, it’s probably a little bit different, but I always say, you have to learn from every experience.”
The White House and national security officials will not say who declassified the data or, crucially, whether they did so after the attack was over.
“It’s by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now,” Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, a Democrat, said at a hearing Wednesday morning with top intelligence officials.
None of that deterred Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, from making the case that Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guard infantryman and television commentator who has made a series of missteps in his first two months in office, did not reveal a “war plan.”
“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,’” Ms. Leavitt wrote on X. “This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”
Leaving aside her attacks on Mr. Goldberg, who has covered national security affairs for several decades, Ms. Leavitt’s blast was openly contradicted by the director of the C.I.A., John Ratcliffe, in testimony in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
He acknowledged that the Signal chain, in which he was a participant, was real, and Mr. Goldberg’s description of it was accurate. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who at first tried to evade questions about the Signal chain, later agreed, once Mr. Ratcliffe confirmed his participation.
Both said the information was not classified. But when pressed, they amended their comments to say there was no classified intelligence information in the chat — meaning they were not commenting on whether there were classified Pentagon operational plans.
But to truth-test their comments, consider this one, common-sense test: Had a news organization gone to the Pentagon or the National Security Council before the attack, and said it was considering publishing this kind of timing and detail, would the administration have asked it to withhold the information because it could have compromised the attack? Or because it could have put American pilots at risk if the Houthis, with their missile capabilities, knew they were coming?
The administration almost certainly would have asked them not to publish — and most responsible news organizations would have held that data back, at least until the attack was over. It is a scenario that has played out many times in the past few years, involving everything from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to attacks on Syrian and Iranian sites.
All of which makes it all the more mystifying that more than 18 Trump administration officials discussed that timing on a commercial if encrypted app, whose servers are outside the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/us/p ... house.html
War plan or battle plan? Classified or not? The answers to those questions amount to a distinction without much of a difference.
By David E. Sanger
David E. Sanger has covered the intersection of national security and technology for four decades at the Times.
March 26, 2025
Updated 2:13 p.m. ET
The White House effort to defend Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday leaned heavily into a semantic argument. What he posted on the now-infamous Signal chat with his national security colleagues was not a “war plan,” they insist.
Technically, they may be right. What The Atlantic published, from the chain in which its top editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently included, is more like a timeline of a pending attack. But it is so detailed — with the time that F/A-18F Super Hornet jets were supposed to launch and the time that MQ-9 Reaper drones would fly in from land bases in the Middle East — that the answer may prove a distinction without a difference.
A full “war plan” would undoubtedly be more specific, with the routings of weaponry and coordinates for targets. But that is not likely to help the defense secretary as he tries to explain away why he put these details on an unclassified commercial app that, while encrypted, was far from the heavily protected, classified internal systems used by the Pentagon.
And it was the time stamps he included in his messages, hours before the attack began, that were critical: Had this information leaked out, the Houthi fighters and missile experts the United States was targeting in Yemen would have had time to escape. Mr. Hegseth’s own references in the Signal chain to “OPSEC” — or operational security — indicated he fully understood the need to keep this timing secret.
And the level of detail was striking: “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” Mr. Hegseth wrote in the chat. “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).”
Clearly this is the most sensitive of battlefield plans. National security veterans say it was almost certainly classified data at the time that Mr. Hegseth sent them to the group chat. Yet the question of classification has been at the heart of the Trump administration’s explanations for why the Signal chat was a minor transgression.
“So this was not classified,” Mr. Trump insisted during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors at the White House on Tuesday. “Now if it’s classified information, it’s probably a little bit different, but I always say, you have to learn from every experience.”
The White House and national security officials will not say who declassified the data or, crucially, whether they did so after the attack was over.
“It’s by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now,” Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, a Democrat, said at a hearing Wednesday morning with top intelligence officials.
None of that deterred Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, from making the case that Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guard infantryman and television commentator who has made a series of missteps in his first two months in office, did not reveal a “war plan.”
“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,’” Ms. Leavitt wrote on X. “This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”
Leaving aside her attacks on Mr. Goldberg, who has covered national security affairs for several decades, Ms. Leavitt’s blast was openly contradicted by the director of the C.I.A., John Ratcliffe, in testimony in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
He acknowledged that the Signal chain, in which he was a participant, was real, and Mr. Goldberg’s description of it was accurate. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who at first tried to evade questions about the Signal chain, later agreed, once Mr. Ratcliffe confirmed his participation.
Both said the information was not classified. But when pressed, they amended their comments to say there was no classified intelligence information in the chat — meaning they were not commenting on whether there were classified Pentagon operational plans.
But to truth-test their comments, consider this one, common-sense test: Had a news organization gone to the Pentagon or the National Security Council before the attack, and said it was considering publishing this kind of timing and detail, would the administration have asked it to withhold the information because it could have compromised the attack? Or because it could have put American pilots at risk if the Houthis, with their missile capabilities, knew they were coming?
The administration almost certainly would have asked them not to publish — and most responsible news organizations would have held that data back, at least until the attack was over. It is a scenario that has played out many times in the past few years, involving everything from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to attacks on Syrian and Iranian sites.
All of which makes it all the more mystifying that more than 18 Trump administration officials discussed that timing on a commercial if encrypted app, whose servers are outside the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/us/p ... house.html
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:01 pm
Houthi group chat: What top Trump officials claimed vs. what the texts show
Dave Lawler
The Atlantic has called the Trump administration's bluff, publishing in full the Signal messages about an upcoming attack on the Houthis in Yemen that were inadvertently sent to the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Why it matters: The country's top national security figures argued Goldberg was overhyping the scale of the intelligence breach, and claimed no classified information or "war plans" were shared. Now, the texts are available to the public.
How it happened: After Goldberg published a partial version of the texts, withholding key details for national security reasons, national security adviser Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth swiftly went into shoot-the-messenger mode.
They both attacked Goldberg's integrity and vehemently denied that any war plans were shared, while Waltz even suggested Goldberg may have gained access to the chat through some kind of subterfuge.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed those claims, calling Goldberg a "sensationalist." (She also later objected to the release of the full text chain, per Goldberg.)
Intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified on Tuesday that, to their knowledge, no classified information or details about operational planning were shared over Signal.
Here's how those statements match with what we learned in the subsequent Atlantic story.
"No war plans"
Hegseth: "Nobody was texting war plans."
From the texts: "THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP," Hegseth texted, along with detailed sequencing of the operation.
State of play: Trump administration officials pointed to The Atlantic's use of "attack plans" in its new headline to accuse the magazine of walking back its initial claims about "war plans."
There is a distinction in military parlance: "War plans" are typically more comprehensive, strategic frameworks that account for multiple scenarios, while "attack plans" usually pertain to a specific tactical operation.
Hegseth mocked the "war plans" characterization: "No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods."
Critics say the White House is arguing over semantics, when the fact is plans for a forthcoming military operation were indeed shared on a non-classified system without actually verifying who was receiving them.
Goldberg got "sucked into" the group
Waltz to Fox News: "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy ... gets on somebody's contact and then get sucked into this group. ... Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we're trying to figure out."
The text screenshots from Goldberg's device show a Signal notification that reads: "Michael Waltz added you to the group."
State of play: Waltz has said an investigation is underway, while Goldberg has said his assumption is Waltz himself added him by accident.
"No classified info"
Gabbard under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee: "I can attest to the fact that there were not classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time."
Ratcliffe concurred, though both officials later deferred to Hegseth as the ultimate authority for classifying and declassifying Defense Department materials.
The texts include highly detailed information about the sequencing of an attack that had yet to take place.
Under intelligence community guidelines, information "providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack" should be treated as "Top Secret."
State of play: The president and senior officials like the secretary of defense have considerable discretion over what information is classified, and whether to declassify it after the fact.
But Gabbard and Ratcliffe declined to offer any explanation in the hearing as to why this information would not have been considered classified at the time it was inadvertently shared with Goldberg.
No "weapons packages, targets or timing"
Ratcliffe in the Senate hearing said he was not "aware" of any "information on weapons packages, targets or timing" that was discussed in the chat. Gabbard concurred.
The texts include a detailed sequencing of the timing of the attacks, to include Hegseth's to-the-minute breakdown of when F-18s and drones would take off and drop their payloads.
Hegseth even mentioned the precise minute that the window for striking the primary target's known location would open. He also mentioned at least one weapons package: sea-based Tomahawk missiles.
State of play: Waltz has emphasized that no "sources or methods" were exposed — shorthand for information that could put U.S. intelligence assets or information gathering at risk.
It's also the case that the texts didn't include, say, the specific coordinates for strikes. But they do clearly refer to specific timings and, in a more general sense, to weapons packages and targets.
One text in particular where Waltz refers to the primary target "walking into his girlfriend's building" could potentially have shed light on U.S. intelligence collection methods.
Not a "huge mistake"
Ratcliffe answered "no" when asked if the entire Signal saga had been a "huge mistake." President Trump and others have also downplayed the significance of the breach.
The texts did not leak until after the operation has concluded, likely limiting any harm to national security. But there's a reason Goldberg's accidental inclusion on the chain has dominated the news cycle this week.
Key quote: "The U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg's cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi 'Target Terrorist,' was expected to be killed by these American aircraft," Goldberg writes.
"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."
President Trump's national security adviser accidentally invited the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic to a group text in which top officials debated highly sensitive plans for bombing Yemen, the magazine reported Monday.
Why it matters: The extraordinary breach exposed classified information and private deliberations among the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. government, and raised serious questions about the lax handling of America's secrets by Trump's Cabinet.
Avery Lotz
Updated 6 hours ago -
Politics & Policy
The Atlantic publishes more Signal messages after Trump admin denials
The Atlantic on Wednesday published additional messages Trump administration officials sent in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.
Why it matters: President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration officials strongly denied that "war plans" and "classified materials" were shared — essentially daring The Atlantic to publish info it had previously opted not to release.
The newly disclosed messages include a text from Hegseth with specific times and sequencing of planned U.S. strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The texts and group chat member list released Wednesday do not include the name of CIA director John Ratcliffe's chief of staff at the request of a CIA spokesperson but are otherwise unredacted.
The other side: White House spokesperson Taylor Budowich slammed The Atlantic as "scumbags" in a response posted to X, saying that the publication had "abandoned their bulls**t 'war plans' narrative," highlighting that the new story refers to "attack plans."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that argument, contending in a statement: "The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT 'war plans.'"
"No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS," National Security Advisor Michael Waltz posted Wednesday.
Driving the news: The early discussion Goldberg observed in the conversation titled "Houthi PC small group" concerned the timing and reasoning behind the strikes (and an airing of grievances about the country's European allies).
But on the day of the attack — Saturday, March 15 — "the discussion veered toward the operational," Goldberg and staff writer Shane Harris noted.
The details: At 11:44am ET, Hegseth shared a "TEAM UPDATE" that included specific timing for the launch of U.S. warplanes and the sequencing of strikes.
Included in the breakdown of the strikes Hegseth detailed was the timing of when the "Target Terrorist" would be in his "Known Location" and "WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP."
After sending the timeline, Hegseth wrote, "We are currently clean on OPSEC" — operations security — in a chat that inadvertently contained a journalist.
Vice President Vance responded, "I will say a prayer for victory."
Waltz — who first invited Goldberg to the chat — later told the group, in previously undisclosed messages, that a target building had collapsed.
U.S. intelligence had received "positive ID" of "the first target" walking into "his girlfriend's building," which had collapsed, Waltz wrote.
"Excellent," Vance responded.
Waltz replied with a fist, flag and fire emoji (
) — a trio that has been repeatedly memed in the wake of the fiasco.
Catch up quick: Goldberg, in his initial story, said he would not release the specific attack details Hegseth and Waltz shared to him and other group members, noting that if the plans were obtained by an adversary, they "could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel."
But as Democratic lawmakers and reporters pressed administration officials over the alleged leak of sensitive information, members of the chat remained defiant — despite the White House National Security Council confirming the chat's apparent authenticity.
Hegseth lashed out at Goldberg on Monday in response to the explosive reporting, characterizing him as a "deceitful and highly discredited so-called 'journalist' who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again."
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe testified that there were no specific targets or weapons systems discussed in the Signal chat before a Senate panel Tuesday.
The bottom line: Those and other statements disputing the facts of Goldberg's story led "us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions," Goldberg and Harris wrote.
Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/atlant ... lans-yemen
Dave Lawler
The Atlantic has called the Trump administration's bluff, publishing in full the Signal messages about an upcoming attack on the Houthis in Yemen that were inadvertently sent to the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Why it matters: The country's top national security figures argued Goldberg was overhyping the scale of the intelligence breach, and claimed no classified information or "war plans" were shared. Now, the texts are available to the public.
How it happened: After Goldberg published a partial version of the texts, withholding key details for national security reasons, national security adviser Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth swiftly went into shoot-the-messenger mode.
They both attacked Goldberg's integrity and vehemently denied that any war plans were shared, while Waltz even suggested Goldberg may have gained access to the chat through some kind of subterfuge.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed those claims, calling Goldberg a "sensationalist." (She also later objected to the release of the full text chain, per Goldberg.)
Intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified on Tuesday that, to their knowledge, no classified information or details about operational planning were shared over Signal.
Here's how those statements match with what we learned in the subsequent Atlantic story.
"No war plans"
Hegseth: "Nobody was texting war plans."
From the texts: "THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP," Hegseth texted, along with detailed sequencing of the operation.
State of play: Trump administration officials pointed to The Atlantic's use of "attack plans" in its new headline to accuse the magazine of walking back its initial claims about "war plans."
There is a distinction in military parlance: "War plans" are typically more comprehensive, strategic frameworks that account for multiple scenarios, while "attack plans" usually pertain to a specific tactical operation.
Hegseth mocked the "war plans" characterization: "No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods."
Critics say the White House is arguing over semantics, when the fact is plans for a forthcoming military operation were indeed shared on a non-classified system without actually verifying who was receiving them.
Goldberg got "sucked into" the group
Waltz to Fox News: "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy ... gets on somebody's contact and then get sucked into this group. ... Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we're trying to figure out."
The text screenshots from Goldberg's device show a Signal notification that reads: "Michael Waltz added you to the group."
State of play: Waltz has said an investigation is underway, while Goldberg has said his assumption is Waltz himself added him by accident.
"No classified info"
Gabbard under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee: "I can attest to the fact that there were not classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time."
Ratcliffe concurred, though both officials later deferred to Hegseth as the ultimate authority for classifying and declassifying Defense Department materials.
The texts include highly detailed information about the sequencing of an attack that had yet to take place.
Under intelligence community guidelines, information "providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack" should be treated as "Top Secret."
State of play: The president and senior officials like the secretary of defense have considerable discretion over what information is classified, and whether to declassify it after the fact.
But Gabbard and Ratcliffe declined to offer any explanation in the hearing as to why this information would not have been considered classified at the time it was inadvertently shared with Goldberg.
No "weapons packages, targets or timing"
Ratcliffe in the Senate hearing said he was not "aware" of any "information on weapons packages, targets or timing" that was discussed in the chat. Gabbard concurred.
The texts include a detailed sequencing of the timing of the attacks, to include Hegseth's to-the-minute breakdown of when F-18s and drones would take off and drop their payloads.
Hegseth even mentioned the precise minute that the window for striking the primary target's known location would open. He also mentioned at least one weapons package: sea-based Tomahawk missiles.
State of play: Waltz has emphasized that no "sources or methods" were exposed — shorthand for information that could put U.S. intelligence assets or information gathering at risk.
It's also the case that the texts didn't include, say, the specific coordinates for strikes. But they do clearly refer to specific timings and, in a more general sense, to weapons packages and targets.
One text in particular where Waltz refers to the primary target "walking into his girlfriend's building" could potentially have shed light on U.S. intelligence collection methods.
Not a "huge mistake"
Ratcliffe answered "no" when asked if the entire Signal saga had been a "huge mistake." President Trump and others have also downplayed the significance of the breach.
The texts did not leak until after the operation has concluded, likely limiting any harm to national security. But there's a reason Goldberg's accidental inclusion on the chain has dominated the news cycle this week.
Key quote: "The U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg's cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi 'Target Terrorist,' was expected to be killed by these American aircraft," Goldberg writes.
"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."
President Trump's national security adviser accidentally invited the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic to a group text in which top officials debated highly sensitive plans for bombing Yemen, the magazine reported Monday.
Why it matters: The extraordinary breach exposed classified information and private deliberations among the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. government, and raised serious questions about the lax handling of America's secrets by Trump's Cabinet.
Avery Lotz
Updated 6 hours ago -
Politics & Policy
The Atlantic publishes more Signal messages after Trump admin denials
The Atlantic on Wednesday published additional messages Trump administration officials sent in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.
Why it matters: President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration officials strongly denied that "war plans" and "classified materials" were shared — essentially daring The Atlantic to publish info it had previously opted not to release.
The newly disclosed messages include a text from Hegseth with specific times and sequencing of planned U.S. strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The texts and group chat member list released Wednesday do not include the name of CIA director John Ratcliffe's chief of staff at the request of a CIA spokesperson but are otherwise unredacted.
The other side: White House spokesperson Taylor Budowich slammed The Atlantic as "scumbags" in a response posted to X, saying that the publication had "abandoned their bulls**t 'war plans' narrative," highlighting that the new story refers to "attack plans."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that argument, contending in a statement: "The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT 'war plans.'"
"No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS," National Security Advisor Michael Waltz posted Wednesday.
Driving the news: The early discussion Goldberg observed in the conversation titled "Houthi PC small group" concerned the timing and reasoning behind the strikes (and an airing of grievances about the country's European allies).
But on the day of the attack — Saturday, March 15 — "the discussion veered toward the operational," Goldberg and staff writer Shane Harris noted.
The details: At 11:44am ET, Hegseth shared a "TEAM UPDATE" that included specific timing for the launch of U.S. warplanes and the sequencing of strikes.
Included in the breakdown of the strikes Hegseth detailed was the timing of when the "Target Terrorist" would be in his "Known Location" and "WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP."
After sending the timeline, Hegseth wrote, "We are currently clean on OPSEC" — operations security — in a chat that inadvertently contained a journalist.
Vice President Vance responded, "I will say a prayer for victory."
Waltz — who first invited Goldberg to the chat — later told the group, in previously undisclosed messages, that a target building had collapsed.
U.S. intelligence had received "positive ID" of "the first target" walking into "his girlfriend's building," which had collapsed, Waltz wrote.
"Excellent," Vance responded.
Waltz replied with a fist, flag and fire emoji (
) — a trio that has been repeatedly memed in the wake of the fiasco.Catch up quick: Goldberg, in his initial story, said he would not release the specific attack details Hegseth and Waltz shared to him and other group members, noting that if the plans were obtained by an adversary, they "could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel."
But as Democratic lawmakers and reporters pressed administration officials over the alleged leak of sensitive information, members of the chat remained defiant — despite the White House National Security Council confirming the chat's apparent authenticity.
Hegseth lashed out at Goldberg on Monday in response to the explosive reporting, characterizing him as a "deceitful and highly discredited so-called 'journalist' who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again."
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe testified that there were no specific targets or weapons systems discussed in the Signal chat before a Senate panel Tuesday.
The bottom line: Those and other statements disputing the facts of Goldberg's story led "us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions," Goldberg and Harris wrote.
Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/atlant ... lans-yemen
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:11 pm
Hegseth faces renewed scrutiny after Signal chat disclosures
The episode is an uncomfortable one for Trump’s defense secretary, who has vowed to hold senior military leaders accountable for their mistakes.
Updated
March 25, 2025 at 11:33 p.m. EDT yesterday at 11:33 p.m. EDT
By Missy Ryan and Dan Lamothe
When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived in Hawaii on Monday, making his first trip to the Pacific region as Pentagon chief, he brushed aside a journalist’s questions about a blockbuster magazine article exposing how he and other top Trump administration officials had discussed sensitive military planning using an unclassified communication application, a breach of government security norms.
Hegseth denied that he sent “war plans” to colleagues ahead of a U.S. assault on Houthi militants in Yemen this month and instead attacked Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic — who was accidentally included in the sensitive deliberations on Signal — calling him “deceitful and highly discredited,” even though the White House had already confirmed the apparent authenticity of the exchange initiated by national security adviser Michael Waltz.
The episode revived alarm among Democrats and seasoned national security professionals about Hegseth, a former Fox News firebrand who in the months since his narrow confirmation has sought to fulfill a promise to upend the status quo, hold senior defense officials accountable for mistakes and align the Pentagon more closely with President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda. On Tuesday, it was Hegseth who was singled out by Cabinet colleagues as lawmakers admonished the administration and demanded resignations.
Hegseth, a onetime National Guard soldier who rose to prominence at Fox, has brought an unorthodox, combative style to the Pentagon’s top job, belittling inclusivity initiatives at one of the nation’s most diverse public institutions, attacking critics on social media and disquieting European allies with his pronouncements on Ukraine. Last month, he oversaw the ouster of several senior military officers whom Hegseth had branded unqualified or “woke.”
Like other senior Trump officials, Hegseth has faced judicial pushback in his attempts to implement Trump’s directives to dramatically shrink the administrative state, including his plans to fire probationary Pentagon employees and ban transgender service members.
Trump’s supporters had hailed the administration’s March 15 strikes on the Iranian-backed Houthis, whose assaults on commercial ships off Yemen have dealt a blow to maritime commerce, as evidence of the president’s tougher stance against Tehran. The Houthis also have conducted repeated attacks on U.S. naval and aviation assets, and launched missiles at ally Israel.
It remains unclear whether the U.S. strikes, which officials described as the beginning of a sustained campaign, will be more successful in halting Houthi violence than a similar effort under President Joe Biden.
Trump on Tuesday appeared to downplay the Signal episode, describing Goldberg, the Atlantic journalist, as a “sleazebag” and declaring his support for Waltz, whom the president called a “very good man.” Waltz, a former Green Beret and congressman from Florida, said the White House was reviewing “how the heck [Goldberg] got into this room.” Goldberg reported it was Waltz who, seemingly by mistake, added him to the group chat.
But the incident — in which Hegseth detailed not only the weapons U.S. forces intended to use when attacking Yemen but the planned targets and timing as well, according to Goldberg’s account in the Atlantic — is an uncomfortable one for the Pentagon chief as he and his deputies vow to take a hard line on unauthorized disclosures of national security information. Trump did not mention Hegseth in his remarks at the White House.
The Atlantic, in a statement, said that attempts to disparage Goldberg or the magazine “follow an obvious playbook by elected officials and others in power who are hostile to journalists and the First Amendment rights of all Americans.” In an interview Tuesday with MSNBC, Goldberg called Hegseth’s denial of sharing war plans “unserious.”
The imbroglio dominated a previously scheduled hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, with senior intelligence officials in the Trump administration questioned repeatedly over the Signal group chat and what information Hegseth, in particular, shared there. Some Democrats, including the House minority leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (New York), called for him to resign or be fired.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told lawmakers during the hearing that no classified information was transmitted through the group chat, and she declined when pressed by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) to say whether details of a forthcoming bombing campaign would have been classified.
“I defer to the secretary of defense and the National Security Council on that question,” Gabbard said. She cited a White House review.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) said Hegseth must be asked if he declassified the information at issue and, if so, when. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Gabbard, both of whom appeared to have been participants in the Signal group chat, according to the Atlantic, said they were unaware of whether Hegseth declassified the information shared in the chat before the military operation.
“The secretary of defense is the original classification authority, and my understanding is that his comments are that any information that he shared was not classified,” Ratcliffe said.
“But you have no way to verify that?” Reed responded.
“I don’t,” Ratcliffe said.
Reed responded that the incident was “troubling” and a “great lapse in our intelligence.”
Hegseth, in remarks to reporters in Hawaii on Tuesday, did not address whether classified information was discussed on the Signal chat but reiterated his denial from the day before: “Nobody’s texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”
He sought to highlight the impact of ongoing strike operations against the Houthis. “I know exactly what I’m doing, exactly what we’re directing, and I’m really proud of what we accomplished, the successful missions that night and going forward,” he said.
Former U.S. government officials said that while national security professionals sometimes use Signal and other encrypted platforms to communicate, the apps’ inherent vulnerability to hacking or breach means they should do so only for nonsensitive matters — not for discussing classified or operational topics, whose disclosure could endanger American personnel. The training that government employees receive specifies that even “sensitive but unclassified” information, known as SBU, must not be discussed using commercially available applications like Signal.
They also noted that officials like Hegseth and Waltz typically have dedicated, secure spaces, known as SCIFs, in their homes to review, discuss or share classified information when they are not at the office. When the defense secretary is traveling, he typically has a team of communications personnel who can set up an on-the-go SCIF, including a tent to protect classified information from detection. Even much lower-ranking officials who routinely handle classified information typically have multiple secure laptops or phones at their homes.
“If someone used this example as a teaching moment in an introductory opsec class for people new to the military or government, it would receive laughs as an unbelievable and inconceivable example,” one former senior U.S. official said, using an abbreviation for operational security and speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide a candid assessment.
A 2023 Defense Department memo specifies that agency personnel must not use unclassified systems, whether on government or personal devices, to discuss classified material.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), a former Marine infantryman who like Hegseth served in Iraq, said he probably would have faced court-martial if he had been involved in such a breach while in uniform. Speaking Tuesday on CNN, he described Hegseth’s attacks on Goldberg as a distraction.
“The secretary of defense was unqualified to begin with, and now he’s actually proven himself,” Gallego told the cable news network. “This is a mistake that under any other administration would have ready-made for the secretary of defense to resign. … What does it say to our allies? What does it say to our enemies?”
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts) renewed questions about Hegseth’s past, which included admissions that he struggled with alcohol and paid a settlement to a woman who accused him of sexual assault. That history played a prominent role in his divisive confirmation process, in which Democrats raised questions about his qualifications and his character. The Senate’s razor-thin vote to approve his nomination marked only the second time in history that a vice president was required to break a tie and confirm a Cabinet official.
“‘Accountability is back’: I quote Secretary Pete Hegseth,” said Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran. “That was our secretary of defense, on the record, just a couple of months ago.”
Some Republicans also have voiced concern about the Signal incident. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, told NewsNation that he planned a bipartisan probe of the matter and would seek access to the messages in the chat.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska), a retired Air Force general, said Russia and China are almost certainly monitoring those officials’ phones.
“It’s a security violation,” Bacon told CNN, “and there’s no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff within hours of the actual attacks.”
Alex Horton contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... chat-leak/
The episode is an uncomfortable one for Trump’s defense secretary, who has vowed to hold senior military leaders accountable for their mistakes.
Updated
March 25, 2025 at 11:33 p.m. EDT yesterday at 11:33 p.m. EDT
By Missy Ryan and Dan Lamothe
When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived in Hawaii on Monday, making his first trip to the Pacific region as Pentagon chief, he brushed aside a journalist’s questions about a blockbuster magazine article exposing how he and other top Trump administration officials had discussed sensitive military planning using an unclassified communication application, a breach of government security norms.
Hegseth denied that he sent “war plans” to colleagues ahead of a U.S. assault on Houthi militants in Yemen this month and instead attacked Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic — who was accidentally included in the sensitive deliberations on Signal — calling him “deceitful and highly discredited,” even though the White House had already confirmed the apparent authenticity of the exchange initiated by national security adviser Michael Waltz.
The episode revived alarm among Democrats and seasoned national security professionals about Hegseth, a former Fox News firebrand who in the months since his narrow confirmation has sought to fulfill a promise to upend the status quo, hold senior defense officials accountable for mistakes and align the Pentagon more closely with President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda. On Tuesday, it was Hegseth who was singled out by Cabinet colleagues as lawmakers admonished the administration and demanded resignations.
Hegseth, a onetime National Guard soldier who rose to prominence at Fox, has brought an unorthodox, combative style to the Pentagon’s top job, belittling inclusivity initiatives at one of the nation’s most diverse public institutions, attacking critics on social media and disquieting European allies with his pronouncements on Ukraine. Last month, he oversaw the ouster of several senior military officers whom Hegseth had branded unqualified or “woke.”
Like other senior Trump officials, Hegseth has faced judicial pushback in his attempts to implement Trump’s directives to dramatically shrink the administrative state, including his plans to fire probationary Pentagon employees and ban transgender service members.
Trump’s supporters had hailed the administration’s March 15 strikes on the Iranian-backed Houthis, whose assaults on commercial ships off Yemen have dealt a blow to maritime commerce, as evidence of the president’s tougher stance against Tehran. The Houthis also have conducted repeated attacks on U.S. naval and aviation assets, and launched missiles at ally Israel.
It remains unclear whether the U.S. strikes, which officials described as the beginning of a sustained campaign, will be more successful in halting Houthi violence than a similar effort under President Joe Biden.
Trump on Tuesday appeared to downplay the Signal episode, describing Goldberg, the Atlantic journalist, as a “sleazebag” and declaring his support for Waltz, whom the president called a “very good man.” Waltz, a former Green Beret and congressman from Florida, said the White House was reviewing “how the heck [Goldberg] got into this room.” Goldberg reported it was Waltz who, seemingly by mistake, added him to the group chat.
But the incident — in which Hegseth detailed not only the weapons U.S. forces intended to use when attacking Yemen but the planned targets and timing as well, according to Goldberg’s account in the Atlantic — is an uncomfortable one for the Pentagon chief as he and his deputies vow to take a hard line on unauthorized disclosures of national security information. Trump did not mention Hegseth in his remarks at the White House.
The Atlantic, in a statement, said that attempts to disparage Goldberg or the magazine “follow an obvious playbook by elected officials and others in power who are hostile to journalists and the First Amendment rights of all Americans.” In an interview Tuesday with MSNBC, Goldberg called Hegseth’s denial of sharing war plans “unserious.”
The imbroglio dominated a previously scheduled hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, with senior intelligence officials in the Trump administration questioned repeatedly over the Signal group chat and what information Hegseth, in particular, shared there. Some Democrats, including the House minority leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (New York), called for him to resign or be fired.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told lawmakers during the hearing that no classified information was transmitted through the group chat, and she declined when pressed by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) to say whether details of a forthcoming bombing campaign would have been classified.
“I defer to the secretary of defense and the National Security Council on that question,” Gabbard said. She cited a White House review.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) said Hegseth must be asked if he declassified the information at issue and, if so, when. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Gabbard, both of whom appeared to have been participants in the Signal group chat, according to the Atlantic, said they were unaware of whether Hegseth declassified the information shared in the chat before the military operation.
“The secretary of defense is the original classification authority, and my understanding is that his comments are that any information that he shared was not classified,” Ratcliffe said.
“But you have no way to verify that?” Reed responded.
“I don’t,” Ratcliffe said.
Reed responded that the incident was “troubling” and a “great lapse in our intelligence.”
Hegseth, in remarks to reporters in Hawaii on Tuesday, did not address whether classified information was discussed on the Signal chat but reiterated his denial from the day before: “Nobody’s texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”
He sought to highlight the impact of ongoing strike operations against the Houthis. “I know exactly what I’m doing, exactly what we’re directing, and I’m really proud of what we accomplished, the successful missions that night and going forward,” he said.
Former U.S. government officials said that while national security professionals sometimes use Signal and other encrypted platforms to communicate, the apps’ inherent vulnerability to hacking or breach means they should do so only for nonsensitive matters — not for discussing classified or operational topics, whose disclosure could endanger American personnel. The training that government employees receive specifies that even “sensitive but unclassified” information, known as SBU, must not be discussed using commercially available applications like Signal.
They also noted that officials like Hegseth and Waltz typically have dedicated, secure spaces, known as SCIFs, in their homes to review, discuss or share classified information when they are not at the office. When the defense secretary is traveling, he typically has a team of communications personnel who can set up an on-the-go SCIF, including a tent to protect classified information from detection. Even much lower-ranking officials who routinely handle classified information typically have multiple secure laptops or phones at their homes.
“If someone used this example as a teaching moment in an introductory opsec class for people new to the military or government, it would receive laughs as an unbelievable and inconceivable example,” one former senior U.S. official said, using an abbreviation for operational security and speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide a candid assessment.
A 2023 Defense Department memo specifies that agency personnel must not use unclassified systems, whether on government or personal devices, to discuss classified material.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), a former Marine infantryman who like Hegseth served in Iraq, said he probably would have faced court-martial if he had been involved in such a breach while in uniform. Speaking Tuesday on CNN, he described Hegseth’s attacks on Goldberg as a distraction.
“The secretary of defense was unqualified to begin with, and now he’s actually proven himself,” Gallego told the cable news network. “This is a mistake that under any other administration would have ready-made for the secretary of defense to resign. … What does it say to our allies? What does it say to our enemies?”
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts) renewed questions about Hegseth’s past, which included admissions that he struggled with alcohol and paid a settlement to a woman who accused him of sexual assault. That history played a prominent role in his divisive confirmation process, in which Democrats raised questions about his qualifications and his character. The Senate’s razor-thin vote to approve his nomination marked only the second time in history that a vice president was required to break a tie and confirm a Cabinet official.
“‘Accountability is back’: I quote Secretary Pete Hegseth,” said Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran. “That was our secretary of defense, on the record, just a couple of months ago.”
Some Republicans also have voiced concern about the Signal incident. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, told NewsNation that he planned a bipartisan probe of the matter and would seek access to the messages in the chat.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska), a retired Air Force general, said Russia and China are almost certainly monitoring those officials’ phones.
“It’s a security violation,” Bacon told CNN, “and there’s no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff within hours of the actual attacks.”
Alex Horton contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... chat-leak/
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:27 pm
Who Was in the Signal Group Chat?
The list of members of the chat aligned with some of the most senior members of the Trump administration.
By Talya Minsberg
March 25, 2025
The editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was skeptical when he received a connection request on Signal from someone named Michael Waltz. Could it really be Michael Waltz, the national security adviser? In fact, it was.
The chat, revealed on Monday, has become the focus of intense scrutiny. Ultimately, it included 18 individuals, Mr. Goldberg reported, including several deputies added at the suggestion of their bosses.
The participants discussed a plan to strike Houthi militants in Yemen, the attack’s potential consequences and, eventually, Mr. Hegseth’s reports on its success.
Here are some of the key figures involved:
JD Vance
The vice president has recently positioned himself as something of an attack dog for Mr. Trump. But in the group text, he said appeared to question if Mr. Trump understood the potential consequences of a strike in Yemen. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” he wrote. A spokesman for Mr. Vance has since said that he is “fully aligned with the president.”
Pete Hegseth
The defense secretary, a military veteran and former Fox News host, is accused by Mr. Goldberg of texting in the chat information about weapons, targets and timing of the Yemen attack two hours before it took place on March 15.
Michael Waltz
The national security adviser and former Republican member of Congress is a decorated Special Forces soldier. Mr. Waltz had been taking fire from Republicans of all stripes even before the revelation that he invited a journalist into a sensitive group chat.
Stephen Miller
The White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Trump’s homeland security adviser was identified as “S M” in the Signal chat. He has oversight of domestic policy and homeland security advisers, as well as influence over how Mr. Trump approaches immigration.
In the Signal chat, he told the group the president had given “a green light” for the Yemen strike, according to Mr. Goldberg.
Marco Rubio
Mr. Rubio, who was identified as MAR on Signal, is the secretary of state. The former Florida senator shared congratulatory messages in the thread after the strike on Yemen.
Editors’ Picks
Complete Your Mornings by Dunking Your Face Into Cold Water
When the Office Is an Influencer’s Best Accessory
Howie Rose Is the Sportscaster Mets Fans Deserve
John Ratcliffe
Mr. Ratcliffe is the director of the C.I.A. He served in the first Trump administration as the director of national intelligence and became known as a fierce Trump loyalist. In a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning, he confirmed he was a member of the chat group but claimed his communications on the Signal thread were “permissible and lawful and did not include any classified information.”
Tulsi Gabbard
Ms. Gabbard is the director of national intelligence. She was identified on Signal as TG, was previously a member of Congress and was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
She was among the most surprising of Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees, and was confirmed only after a contentious process in which she was questioned about her previous support of Edward Snowden, a former government contractor turned whistle-blower; her vocal defenses of Bashar-al-Assad, the former Syrian dictator; and her often sympathetic stances toward President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
Steve Witkoff
Mr. Witkoff, President Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and the Middle East, has no diplomatic experience but has known Mr. Trump since the 1980s. Reports showed that he was in Moscow when he was added to the Signal chat.
After the strike, Mr. Witkoff texted five emojis: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags, Mr. Goldberg wrote.
Scott Bessent
The billionaire hedge fund manager turned treasury secretary was identified as Scott B on the group chat. Mr. Bessent is also currently in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after Mr. Trump fired a Biden administration appointee.
Brian McCormack
A former energy consultant, Mr. McCormack is the chief of staff of the National Security Council, under Waltz.
Susie Wiles
The former political aide and Florida strategist is the White House chief of staff. She is part of Mr. Trump’s inner circle and ran his 2024 presidential campaign.
Joe Kent
Mr. Trump’s nominee to run the national counterterrorism center has been acting as a chief of staff to Ms. Gabbard. A confirmation date for Mr. Kent has not been set.
Jeffrey Goldberg
Mr. Goldberg became the editor in chief of The Atlantic in 2016. He’s been at the publication since 2007, and has a storied career as a national security reporter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/us/s ... gures.html
The list of members of the chat aligned with some of the most senior members of the Trump administration.
By Talya Minsberg
March 25, 2025
The editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was skeptical when he received a connection request on Signal from someone named Michael Waltz. Could it really be Michael Waltz, the national security adviser? In fact, it was.
The chat, revealed on Monday, has become the focus of intense scrutiny. Ultimately, it included 18 individuals, Mr. Goldberg reported, including several deputies added at the suggestion of their bosses.
The participants discussed a plan to strike Houthi militants in Yemen, the attack’s potential consequences and, eventually, Mr. Hegseth’s reports on its success.
Here are some of the key figures involved:
JD Vance
The vice president has recently positioned himself as something of an attack dog for Mr. Trump. But in the group text, he said appeared to question if Mr. Trump understood the potential consequences of a strike in Yemen. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” he wrote. A spokesman for Mr. Vance has since said that he is “fully aligned with the president.”
Pete Hegseth
The defense secretary, a military veteran and former Fox News host, is accused by Mr. Goldberg of texting in the chat information about weapons, targets and timing of the Yemen attack two hours before it took place on March 15.
Michael Waltz
The national security adviser and former Republican member of Congress is a decorated Special Forces soldier. Mr. Waltz had been taking fire from Republicans of all stripes even before the revelation that he invited a journalist into a sensitive group chat.
Stephen Miller
The White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Trump’s homeland security adviser was identified as “S M” in the Signal chat. He has oversight of domestic policy and homeland security advisers, as well as influence over how Mr. Trump approaches immigration.
In the Signal chat, he told the group the president had given “a green light” for the Yemen strike, according to Mr. Goldberg.
Marco Rubio
Mr. Rubio, who was identified as MAR on Signal, is the secretary of state. The former Florida senator shared congratulatory messages in the thread after the strike on Yemen.
Editors’ Picks
Complete Your Mornings by Dunking Your Face Into Cold Water
When the Office Is an Influencer’s Best Accessory
Howie Rose Is the Sportscaster Mets Fans Deserve
John Ratcliffe
Mr. Ratcliffe is the director of the C.I.A. He served in the first Trump administration as the director of national intelligence and became known as a fierce Trump loyalist. In a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning, he confirmed he was a member of the chat group but claimed his communications on the Signal thread were “permissible and lawful and did not include any classified information.”
Tulsi Gabbard
Ms. Gabbard is the director of national intelligence. She was identified on Signal as TG, was previously a member of Congress and was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
She was among the most surprising of Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees, and was confirmed only after a contentious process in which she was questioned about her previous support of Edward Snowden, a former government contractor turned whistle-blower; her vocal defenses of Bashar-al-Assad, the former Syrian dictator; and her often sympathetic stances toward President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
Steve Witkoff
Mr. Witkoff, President Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and the Middle East, has no diplomatic experience but has known Mr. Trump since the 1980s. Reports showed that he was in Moscow when he was added to the Signal chat.
After the strike, Mr. Witkoff texted five emojis: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags, Mr. Goldberg wrote.
Scott Bessent
The billionaire hedge fund manager turned treasury secretary was identified as Scott B on the group chat. Mr. Bessent is also currently in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after Mr. Trump fired a Biden administration appointee.
Brian McCormack
A former energy consultant, Mr. McCormack is the chief of staff of the National Security Council, under Waltz.
Susie Wiles
The former political aide and Florida strategist is the White House chief of staff. She is part of Mr. Trump’s inner circle and ran his 2024 presidential campaign.
Joe Kent
Mr. Trump’s nominee to run the national counterterrorism center has been acting as a chief of staff to Ms. Gabbard. A confirmation date for Mr. Kent has not been set.
Jeffrey Goldberg
Mr. Goldberg became the editor in chief of The Atlantic in 2016. He’s been at the publication since 2007, and has a storied career as a national security reporter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/us/s ... gures.html
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:58 pm
Signal
@signalapp@mastodon.world
Right now there are a lot of new eyes on Signal, and not all of them are familiar with secure messaging and its nuances. Which means there’s misinfo flying around that might drive people away from Signal and private communications. 1/
One piece of misinfo we need to address is the claim that there are ‘vulnerabilities’ in Signal. This isn’t accurate. Reporting on a Pentagon advisory memo appears to be at the heart of the misunderstanding: https://npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-533980 ... nerability. The memo used the term ‘vulnerability’ in relation to Signal—but it had nothing to do with Signal’s core tech. It was warning against phishing scams targeting Signal users. 2/
Phishing isn’t new, and it’s not a flaw in our encryption or any of Signal’s underlying technology. Phishing attacks are a constant threat for popular apps and websites. 3/
In order to help protect people from falling victim to sophisticated phishing attacks, Signal introduced new user flows and in-app warnings. This work has been completed for some time and is unrelated to any current events. If you’re interested in learning more, this WIRED article from February 19th (over a month ago) goes into more detail:
https://wired.com/story/russia-signal-q ... ng-attack/ 4/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)
@signalapp@mastodon.world
Right now there are a lot of new eyes on Signal, and not all of them are familiar with secure messaging and its nuances. Which means there’s misinfo flying around that might drive people away from Signal and private communications. 1/
One piece of misinfo we need to address is the claim that there are ‘vulnerabilities’ in Signal. This isn’t accurate. Reporting on a Pentagon advisory memo appears to be at the heart of the misunderstanding: https://npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-533980 ... nerability. The memo used the term ‘vulnerability’ in relation to Signal—but it had nothing to do with Signal’s core tech. It was warning against phishing scams targeting Signal users. 2/
Phishing isn’t new, and it’s not a flaw in our encryption or any of Signal’s underlying technology. Phishing attacks are a constant threat for popular apps and websites. 3/
In order to help protect people from falling victim to sophisticated phishing attacks, Signal introduced new user flows and in-app warnings. This work has been completed for some time and is unrelated to any current events. If you’re interested in learning more, this WIRED article from February 19th (over a month ago) goes into more detail:
https://wired.com/story/russia-signal-q ... ng-attack/ 4/
Threadbane
@Threadbane@newsie.social
@signalapp
The technical level of security of Signal is irrelevant. Even using its vulnerability as an argument against it for secure government communications is merely a red herring, since the main issue is not the security breach, but the the Trump administration skirting government accountability and effectively creating an unaccountable shadow government outside the normal intelligence community..
JamesTDG
@JamesTDG
@Threadbane @signalapp exactly, the security of a tool is only as strong as its connections. It takes only ONE idiot to screw up the security of ANYTHING.
RRB
@rrb@infosec.exchange
@pomubieng @JamesTDG @Threadbane @signalapp they were also concerned about the end points (personal cell pho'nes) being vulnerable.
For example, shoulder surfing of the guy on a plane in Russia. Compare that to using a secure facility
Disco3000
@disco3000@climatejustice.social
@Threadbane @signalapp yep, and accidentally invite a journalist. Which wouldn’t have happened if a tool designed for secure military communications would have been used. There would be no journalist to add, because he wouldn’t have the security clearing. And most probably there would be an approval workflow (e.g. 4-eyes-principle) if someone is being added to a high security communication.
SuperMoosie
@SuperMoosie@mastodon.au
@Threadbane
Military comms are designed to only allow personal that are pre vetted. You can't accidentally invite an outsider. The hardware is also secure.
These people have security comms people that travel with them to set up access to secure comms.
The other thing is Signal is not allowed on official phones and can't be downloaded.
This was on personal mobiles, which are unsecure and likely targeted and compromised by foreign intelligence.
It doesn't matter the encryption if Russia has a keylogger and screen capture software installed on the phone.
One of the party had just gone through Russian customs and would have had to hand their phone over and likely had software put on their phone.
China has also been in the US mobile system. So another way to put software on their phones.
Authoritarian countries have used routinely use spyware to surveil journalists, lawyers, political dissidents, and human rights activists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)
This is not the fault of Signal, but the underlying operating system of the phone. Particularly when up against adversaries with State level resources to target individuals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:02 pm
Two days without visiting the forum, and ... well, you people are in the hands of traitors.
Re: Hello Dante? What Level Is This?
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2025 12:26 am
The article is behind a soft paywall.