omms security has long been a concern in the U.S. government, especially when high-level officials rely on informal digital platforms to coordinate policy. But a recent leak—caused not by espionage, but by a messaging group mistake—has reignited scrutiny over how the Trump administration handles classified military strategy.
Hegseth: "Nobody was sending war plans"
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth firmly denied allegations that he sent war plans regarding Yemen via encrypted chat app Signal.
His statement came in response to reporting by The Atlantic, whose editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, claims he was mistakenly added to a private group chat involving top White House officials discussing upcoming strikes on Houthi rebels.
“Nobody was sending plans of war, and that’s all I have to say about it,” Hegseth told reporters after landing at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, brushing off the gravity of the revelations.
But while dismissing the incident, Hegseth also lashed out at Goldberg, calling him a “very discredited so-called journalist” and accusing him of repeatedly “selling hoaxes.” “He’s the kind of guy who deals in trash. That’s what he does,” the Defense Secretary added.
White House acknowledges authenticity of messages
Despite Hegseth’s deflection, the National Security Council (NSC) has confirmed that the messages appear to be authentic. NSC spokesman Brian Hughes admitted that top officials, including Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, had used Signal to coordinate the Yemen attack—a breach of protocol, considering the existence of secure, government-approved communication systems for handling defense-sensitive material.
As reported by 20minutos, the messages reportedly included detailed information about planned airstrikes: which weapons would be used, specific targets, and even the timing of the assault.
A self-inflicted breach
The scandal began when Waltz, according to The Atlantic, accidentally included Goldberg in the private chat. The group allegedly comprised other high-level names, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
The journalist reportedly refrained from publishing the most sensitive contents of the exchange, noting they contained information that could relate to active intelligence operations.
The White House has so far declined to explain why officials bypassed official communication channels. As criticism mounts, the episode raises larger concerns about operational discipline, security oversight, and the political damage control now facing the administration.
While Hegseth denies culpability and attempts to discredit the media, the messages—and the access given, however accidental—are real. And with pressure mounting in both Washington and allied capitals, this misstep may have deeper implications than the administration is ready to admit.
