WASHINGTON: A journalist was mistakenly included in a private Signal group where US officials discussed Houthi strike plans.
The White House confirmed the incident, which involved top national security personnel.
The group reportedly included high-ranking officials from the White House, Pentagon, and CIA.
The journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, was unknowingly given access to sensitive military discussions.
He later witnessed accurate details of planned strikes being shared in real-time.
Unexpected Access
On 11 March, Goldberg received a request on Signal from an account claiming to be Michael Waltz.
Two days later, he was added to a chat named “Houthi PC small group.”
The chat contained accounts labeled as US Vice President JD Vance and other officials.
Among them were accounts appearing to belong to the Defense Secretary and CIA Director.
The group discussed precise details about military targets and weapons.
Strike Details Shared
Goldberg saw a message detailing the upcoming airstrikes on Yemen.
It included target locations, weapons to be used, and the attack sequence.
One message stated that the first strike wave would occur within two hours.
Goldberg remained skeptical about the chat’s authenticity at first.
However, he later saw reports of explosions in Yemen that matched the discussion.
Confirmation of Attack
As news of the strikes broke, Goldberg checked the Signal chat again.
A user named “Michael Waltz” posted, calling the operation an “amazing job.”
The US had just launched its latest offensive against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Goldberg’s report raises serious concerns about security lapses in classified discussions.
The White House acknowledged the error but did not confirm how it happened.
National Security Concerns
The incident has prompted questions about secure communication among US officials.
Signal is commonly used due to its encryption and message-disappearing features.
Yet, this case highlights potential vulnerabilities in handling sensitive information.
Experts warn such lapses could compromise national security or military operations.
The White House has not commented on possible internal reviews or policy changes.
