U.S. Strategizes Yemen Bombing in Leaked Signal Group Chat

Washington, D.C. — Just before 2 p.m. Eastern Time on March 15, the U.S. initiated airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, a move that was anticipated by some analysts following a series of communications among senior national security officials.

The acknowledgment of impending military action surfaced after an insider disclosed the existence of a Signal messaging group involving high-ranking officials, including members of the Trump administration. The individual, who received a text about the operation prior to its commencement, noted their surprise at the apparent lack of security surrounding such serious discussions.

During that week, the situation intensified as the Houthis, an Iran-backed faction, escalated attacks on Israel and disrupted international shipping. The Biden administration faced criticism for its perceived ineffectiveness in addressing these threats. The incoming Trump administration had previously vowed a stronger military stance against the Houthis, amplifying the urgency surrounding the planned operations.

On March 11, the journalist received a connection request from a Signal user identified as Michael Waltz, reportedly Trump’s national security adviser. After accepting the request, the journalist was added to a chat titled “Houthi PC small group” on March 13, where messages suggested imminent coordinated actions against the Houthis.

A message from Waltz outlined a principles group for coordination concerning the Houthis, indicating that the plan would likely unfold over the next 72 hours. Connected to this chat were several other notable officials, including the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, as well as a range of policy advisors.

A subsequent message on March 14 prompted discussions among participants regarding the urgency and potential consequences of the planned strikes. These messages reflected concerns about public perception, economic impacts, and military strategy.

JD Vance, a participant in the chat, raised doubts about the timing, cautioning against escalating oil prices and public misunderstanding about the necessity of military action. Other officials echoed this sentiment, deliberating on the possible ramifications of the proposed airstrikes.

It was reported that by March 15, Waltz communicated specifics about the operation, including tactical details and timelines. The discussion on the chat was deemed a breach of common practices regarding national security, raising questions about the app’s use for sensitive information sharing.

After the strikes commenced, Waltz and others celebrated the military response in the chat, suggesting satisfaction with the operation despite the serious threats to operational security. The Houthi-controlled Yemeni health ministry reported significant casualties from the airstrikes, which remains unverified by independent sources.

National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes confirmed the authenticity of the Signal group, emphasizing the importance of safely reviewing the inclusion of the journalist in the conversations. The notion of a national security adviser discussing military operations via an unregulated messaging application raised significant legal and ethical concerns.

Experts noted that Signal should not be used for discussions pertaining to classified military actions, warning that doing so could violate the Espionage Act or federal records laws. The text exchanges have triggered discussions about the protocols surrounding communication in matters of national defense.

Advocates from across the political spectrum have voiced their apprehensions regarding information security, highlighting the severe implications for national safety posed by such informal exchanges among top officials.