‘Fubar!’ Trump officials, Vance leak US war plans for Yemen to US journo

In a startling revelation, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, disclosed that he had prior knowledge of the United States' military strike against Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

According to Goldberg, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth inadvertently sent sensitive details of the planned attack to a messaging group that included him.

Shane Harris, a veteran national security journalist, reacted strongly to the revelation, stating, “In 25 years of covering national security, I’ve never seen a story like this.”

Goldberg detailed the incident in the Atlantic, recounting how he received a request from an individual using the name ‘Mike Waltz’ — which happens to be the name of President Donald Trump’s national security adviser.

Goldberg said he was invited to join a Signal messaging group titled ‘Houthi PC Small Group’.

Initially sceptical, Goldberg suspected it might be a disinformation campaign orchestrated by a foreign entity. However, upon joining the group, he found himself privy to highly classified discussions between senior Trump administration officials, including vice-president J.D. Vance and others.

The messages contained detailed military strike plans, including weapons packages, target locations and timing. Goldberg, taken aback by the breach, immediately deleted the sensitive material, including references to CIA officers and ongoing operations.

“I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans,” Goldberg wrote.

“I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic in such discussions.”

While it wasn't immediately clear when this ‘inadvertent breach’ happened, the US attacks on the Houthis entered its 10th day on Tuesday, 25 March.

After realising the authenticity of the messages, Goldberg quietly left the group and later sought clarification on why he was given access to top-secret war plans. In response, Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, confirmed the legitimacy of the messages.

Hughes confirmed this to the UK’s Guardian as well: “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.”

While acknowledging the breach, Hughes defended the officials involved, arguing that the messages demonstrated “deep and thoughtful policy coordination” and that the military operation was ultimately successful.

President Donald Trump, when questioned about the incident, dismissed it outright, saying, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later issued a statement asserting that Trump still had “the utmost confidence” in his national security team, despite the blunder.

The leaked messages also revealed striking ‘perspectives’ within the senior administration of the United States of America.

According to the Guardian, one exchange featured frustration over the United States shouldering the burden of defending global shipping routes.

A participant identified as ‘Vance’ expressed disdain for the European Union’s reliance on American military support, writing, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

Hegseth reportedly echoed this sentiment, calling the European dependence “PATHETIC”.

The breach has sparked outrage among national security experts and lawmakers.

Democratic representative Pat Ryan, a military veteran, described the situation as “fubar” — a term commonly applied in the armed forces context to the utterly chaotic, or situations gone very, very wrong.

“If House Republicans won’t hold a hearing on how this happened IMMEDIATELY, I’ll do it my damn self,” Ryan said, demanding an urgent investigation.

Amidst mounting criticism of the White House’s handling of the oversight (or lack thereof), concerns linger over whether their insouciance could allow another significant security lapse to occur — with repercussions on operations next time.

The incident certainly raises pressing questions about communication protocols within the highest levels of government, given the potential risks such lapses pose to national security — and indeed, international relations.