Recently shared signal messages show that Trump counselors have discussed ymen attack plans

Atlantic releases more chat text after Trump’s authorities claimed that none of this was “confidential information”

Atlantic magazine has published new messages from a chat group that includes high US employees, where they discuss operational details of plans to bomb the Yemen.

The initial revelations of the magazine and its editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, which was accidentally added to the Signal messaging app chat, caused a great indignation in the US, with the Trump government facing devastating attacks on the disastrous leak of confidential information.

However, the magazine did not include specific details of the attack in its initial article, saying it did not want to endanger national security. But several Trump government officials, responding to the scandal, said none of the information in Signal’s chat chain was “confidential information”-although Atlantic describes it as operational details of the US attack on the Iêmen Houthi militia, which has attacked ships in the Red Sea.

In a new article published on Wednesday-hours before the House Intelligence Committee’s hearing with two chat participants, US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe-Atlantic said he was releasing this information.

“There is a clear public interest in publicizing the type of information that Trump’s advisers included in non -safe communication channels, especially since important management figures are trying to minimize the importance of messages that have been shared,” the magazine said.

The magazine then reproduced numerous text chat messages between Pentagon’s head Pete Hegseth-who said on Tuesday that “no one was sending text messages with war plans”-and high intelligence officials, including Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, which was in Russia at the time.

They included US bombing details, drone releases, and attack target information, including climatic conditions descriptions.

They also mention specific weapons to be used, times for attacks and references to a “target terrorist”, presumably a militant Houthi. There is more discussion about the confirmation that a target was killed and the use of various emojis.

“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 should be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic,” Atlantic wrote.

Trump government officials claimed yesterday that the messages contained any confidential information. Gabbard and Ratcliffe, who were chat participants, said the leak contained no confidential information.

Atlantic also cited an email response from White House Secretary Karoline Leavitt, after the magazine contacted the Trump government to say it was considering publishing all the email chain, in which she said the chat did not include confidential information, but also that the White House did not want the messages to be disclosed.

“As we repeatedly affirmed, there was no classified information transmitted on the group’s chat,” Leavitt wrote. “However, as the CIA director and the National Security Counselor expressed today, that does not mean that we encourage the disclosure of the conversation.”

Donald Trump, when asked on Tuesday about the leak, also said: “It was not confidential information,” adding that the leak was “the only failure in two months.”

After the story was published, Leavitt once said in X that “these were not ‘war plans’. All this story was another scam written by a Trump hat that is well known for his sensational version.”

Waltz also wrote on social networks: “No place. No source and method. No war plan,” adding: “Foreign partners had already been notified that the attacks were imminent. Conclusion: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”

Democrats will probably use the intelligence committee hearing to require an explanation of how operational military plans are not confidential information and as a detailed description of an imminent attack, observing used planes and drones, not war plans.

Last week, the NPR reported that the Pentagon warned its team specifically against the use of signal because of its safety vulnerabilities. In a Pentagon “Opsc Special Bulletin” sent on March 18, he warned that Russian hacker groups could try to explore vulnerability.

Messages on the signal chat have been configured to automatically delete in less than four weeks. The Federal Records Act usually determines that government communication records are kept for two years.

The Atlantic said it retained the name of Ratcliffe’s chief of staff on request, but published the messy messages. He said he usually did not publish information about military operations if this could harm US people, but that the Trump administration accusations that he was “lying” led him to believe that “people should see the texts to reach their own conclusions.”

“There is a clear public interest in publicizing the type of information that Trump’s advisers included in non -safe communication channels, especially since important management figures are trying to minimize the importance of messages that were shared,” the magazine wrote.

Originally published by The Guardian on 26/03/2025

By Chris Michael