Timeline: The Houthi Attack Chat on Signal That Includes A Journalist

A timeline of the fallout since the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic reveals he was inadvertently included on a group chat about plans to attack the Houthis

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.

We live in a political climate where nothing should surprise us anymore. And yet, we were treated to this Monday from Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic:

I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.

It is quite extraordinary. After all, “Bob Woodward has spent an entire career trying to infiltrate groups like this, so how could you possibly just been added to a group chat,” the New York Times’ Rachel Abrams said to Goldberg on The Daily podcast.

And yet, that’s what happened on March 11. Goldberg received a connection request on Signal from National Security Adviser Michael Waltz.

Two days later, he was part of a group chat that included a who’s who in the Trump Administration: Vice President JD Vance, Trump Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Director, Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The topic: Pending American military strikes on the Houthi terrorist militia in Yemen, which reportedly killed 53 people.

Goldberg worried he was being set up, possibly by foreign adversaries, or “a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions,” he writes in The Atlantic.

It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.

But of course he stayed in the chat. As he accurately told Abrams:

You become a journalist because the most interesting place on the planet is a closed door. I got to watch it, one way or the other.

Texts on the group chat debate the merits of attacking now or waiting a month. Vance advocates for waiting, but he’s “willing to support the consensus of the team.”

Hegseth wants to attack, arguing the administration looks decisive if the plans leak, and “we don’t get to start this on our own terms” if Israel strikes first or if its ceasefire with Gaza falls apart.

Then, on March 15 a “TEAM UPDATE” comes from Hegseth that says when the strikes will occur that day. Goldberg does not quote from the update or follow-up texts because “if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel,” he writes in The Atlantic. However, he adds:

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.

The strikes on the Houthis occur as outlined in the group chat. What follows is a timeline of events and reactions since Goldberg’s revelations:

Monday, March 24 — 4:01 PM

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calls for a congressional investigation into the leak. He says “the entire time [of the group chat discussion], nobody seemed to realize that a private citizen without security clearance had access to this conversation. Mr. President, this is one of the most stunning breaches of military intelligence [he has] read about in a very, very long time.”

Monday, March 24 — 5:17 PM

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoes Schumer’s calls for a congressional investigation and accuses the Trump administration of recklessness and incompetence. He also says of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, “he has got to be the most unqualified person to lead the Pentagon in American history,” adding:

This is reckless, irresponsible and dangerous. Who are some of these people that Donald Trump has put into the most sensitive national security positions in America. We were promised that Donald Trump was going to hire the very best. It’s all phony.

Monday, March 24 — 7:24 PM

House Speaker Mike Johnson praises the success of the strikes against the Houthis. He expresses his support and admiration for Waltz, saying he should not lose his job.

“Look, they’ve acknowledged that it was an error and they are correcting it.”

Monday, March 24 — 7:50 PM

Shortly after landing in Hawaii, Hegseth calls Goldberg “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, or the ‘fine people on both sides hoax,’ or ‘suckers and losers hoax.’ This is a guy that pedals in garbage.”

Hegseth insists that “nobody was texting war plans.”

Tuesday, March 25 — 9:16 AM

A day after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that President Donald Trump had “the utmost confidence” in Waltz, Trump confirms that he is standing by Waltz, calling him “a good man” who “has learned a lesson.” He also claims that one of Waltz’s staffers added Goldberg to the chat.

Tuesday, March 25 — 10:21 AM ET to 12:38 PM

During a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee — which was scheduled before The Atlantic’s revelations — Senator Mark Warner, D-VA, (in video above) interrogates Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about their participation in the group chat. They both deny that any classified information was shared in the text chain.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, (below) says he thinks there should be several resignations, starting with Waltz and Hegseth.

“Obviously reckless, obviously dangerous, both the mishandling of classified information and the deliberate destruction of federal records, potential crimes that ought to be investigated immediately.”

He then proceeds to question Gabbard and Ratcliffe, both of whom denied disclosing classified information.

“I have not participated in any Signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information,” Gabbard said.

Tuesday, March 25 — 3:02 PM

Trump reaffirms his faith in Waltz while Waltz sits nearby in a room with U.S. ambassadors. He also states that his team is investigating how Goldberg gained access to the Signal chat. Trump says, “Our national security is stronger now than it’s ever been” and that “there was no classified information as I understand it.” He then defers to Waltz, who says:

The lesson is there’s a lot of journalists in this city who have made big names for themselves making up lies about this president whether it’s the Russia hoax or making up lies about Gold Star families, and [Goldberg] in particularly I’ve never met. Don’t know. Never communicated with, and we are looking into and reviewing how the heck he got into this room.

Trump is then asked if Waltz needs to apologize.

“No, I don’t think he should apologize,” Trump said. “I think he’s doing his best. It’s equipment and technology that’s not perfect, and probably he won’t be using it again, at least not in the very near future.”

Waltz confirms that is correct.

Wednesday, March 26

The Atlantic decides to published texts it previously withheld after seeing that Hegseth told reporters Tuesday that “nobody was texting war plans.” Statements by Gabbard and Ratfcliffe to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and comments that Trump made to reporters also caught their attention. All three said the chat did not include classified information.

From Wednesday’s update in The Atlantic:

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.

Here’s what else The Atlantic says was in those texts from Hegseth that started March 15 at 11:44 a.m.

“TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:

• “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)”

The Atlantic adds the following:

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.

More texts from Hegseth startedcoming at 2:10 p.m:

• “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”

• “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”

• “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”

• “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”

• “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.

• “Godspeed to our Warriors.”

House Intelligence Committee hearing

Gabbard, Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel are among officials appearing before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss global threats to the U.S. The hearing was scheduled before The Atlantic’s revelations. Both Ratcliff and Gabbard continued to maintain there was nothing classified in the chats

“I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information,” Ratcliffe said. “It was permissible to do so. I didn’t transfer any classified information.”

Gabbard called the texts “candid and sensitive”:

The President and National Security Advisor Waltz held a press conference yesterday with a clear message. It was a mistake that a reporter was inadvertently added to a signal chat with high level national security principles, having a policy discussion about imminent strikes against the Houthis and the effects of the strike. National Security Advisor has taken full responsibility for this, and the National Security Council is conducting an in-depth review along with technical experts working to determine how this reporter was inadvertently added to this chat. The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the president's National Security Advisor stated, no classified information was shared. There were no sources, methods, locations, or war plans that were shared. This was a standard update to the National Security cabinet that was provided alongside updates that were given to foreign partners in the region.

The hearing also included a rather testy exchange between Radcliffe and Congressman Jimmy Gomez, D-California. Gomez asked if Hegseth was drinking on the job when the chats occurred. Here’s the video:

And here’s a transcript of the most heated part of the exchange:

Congressman Jimmy Gomez: The main person who was involved in this thread that a lot of people want to talk to is Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and a lot of questions were brought up regarding his drinking habits in his confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?

Tulsi Gabbard: I don't have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.

Congressman Jimmy Gomez: Director Radcliffe, same question. Yes or no?

John Radcliffe: You know, no. I'm gonna answer that. I think that's an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no. I find it interesting that you want to…

JG: Hey, I yield back. It’s my time. (back and forth crosstalk)

JR: No, I’m going to answer. You asked me a question. Do you want an answer?

JG: No, listen, I said yes or no.

JR: You don't want to focus on the good work that the CIA is doing that the intelligence community

JG: Director, I reclaim my time. Director, I reclaim my time. I have huge respect for the CIA, huge respect for our men and women in uniform, but this was a question that's on the top of minds of every American. He stood in front of a podium in Europe holding a drink. So of course we want to know if his performance is compromised. If you were, if people were asking if General Austin was compromised because of a heart issue? I think—

JR: Was his performance compromised because of a successful strike?

JG: I yield back. Mr. I bring my, um

JR: You want to know?

JG: I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time. (crosstalk)

JR: Do you want to talk about accepting responsibility? Do you think he should accept responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer? (crosstalk)

JG: I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time. So here's the thing. This is serious. As somebody we've been briefed in this committee about using Signal, one of the things they basically said, the most secure phone call, the least secure text messaging. And we know that your people are Russians, Chinese are on your phone.

Speaker Johnson

Speaking to reporters later in the day, House Speaker Mike Johnson says the controversy has “been overblown I think by the media. I think this is a mistake, it was acknowledge as such. I’m certain it will not happen again.”

Johnson also said he hadn’t had time to review the additional texts published in The Atlantic.

President Trump

From the Oval Office, President Trump calls the controversy a “witch hunt,” but also says he has no problem with a request by senators, led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, for an expedited inspector general investigation.

Trump made the “witch hunt” comment in response to a reporter asking about criticism that he was downplaying what happened.

I don’t know about downplaying. The press up-plays it. I think it’s all a witch hunt, that’s all. I think it’s a witch hunt. I wasn’t involved in it. I wasn’t there.

A reporter then asked if he still believes nothing classified was shared. Trump’s response:

Well, that’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know. I’m not sure. You’ll have to task the various people that are involved. I really don’t know.

Trump also said Hegseth is doing a great job.

“How do you bring Hegseth into it? He had nothing to do with this,” Trump said, adding that he thinks Signal could be defective.