The Atlantic magazine has unveiled the complete text conversation involving senior U.S. national security officials discussing recent strikes on Yemen’s Houthis. This confidential dialogue, unintentionally involving the magazine’s editor-in-chief, was disclosed following a period of intense scrutiny over how classified information ended up in an unclassified chat on the Signal app.
During a hearing on Wednesday, Jim Himes, a senior Democrat on the House’s intelligence committee, expressed concerns that America’s adversaries could have intercepted the chat, potentially endangering military personnel. The chat revealed detailed information provided by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth regarding warplane launches and strike details before the actual operations against the Houthis took place.
Despite mounting allegations, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe maintained that no classified intelligence was shared in the chat. Signal, known for encrypted communication, is not authorized for classified information transmission. FBI Director Kash Patel refrained from commenting on a potential investigation into the security breach.
The chat disclosed precise details of fighter jet launches and sea-based missile operations, prompting calls for Hegseth’s resignation by several Democrats. President Donald Trump initiated military strikes against the Houthis in response to their actions in the Red Sea. The involvement of the journalist in the Signal chat, attributed to an error by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, has sparked controversy and led to criticism from various quarters.
Amidst the unfolding events, questions have been raised about the administration’s handling of sensitive information, with comparisons drawn to past controversies. Democrats have criticized the administration for its perceived mishandling of classified data, citing concerns over security breaches and access to confidential information by unauthorized individuals.
The evolving situation has drawn attention to potential lapses in information security protocols and has reignited debates around accountability and transparency in government communications.
