Translated by Federico Emanuele
March 15, 2025 - The world learned that the United States had launched a series of airstrikes against the Houthi rebels, a group backed by Iran’s ayatollah regime and known for its slogan “Death to America.” The strikes, carried out in Yemeni territory, were reportedly a response to the rebels' raids on Israel and their sabotage of international maritime routes, which sparked panic in global trade.
Yet, The Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg knew of the U.S. plans two hours before the news broke. How was that possible? How could a journalist have access to such sensitive, top-secret information? As Goldberg himself writes in his March 24 article, “some explanations are in order”.
An Embarrassing Mistake
It all began a few days earlier, when Goldberg received a contact request via Signal - an open-source messaging app widely used among American journalists for its superior security compared to more mainstream apps like WhatsApp and Telegram.
The request came from none other than a user identifying himself as Michael Waltz, the Trump administration’s National Security Advisor. Though puzzled by the odd request, Goldberg accepted, assuming Waltz wished to discuss topics such as Ukraine or Gaza. But to his astonishment, he was promptly added to a group chat with an unusual name: Houthi PC Restricted Group.
What followed was a surreal exchange of messages that quickly escalated in disbelief. The chat began with calls to organize a “coordination team on the Houthis within the next 72 hours”, followed by messages from users with unmistakable initials: MAR (Secretary of State Marco Antonio Rubio), JD Vance, TG (likely Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence), Scott B. (Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury), Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense), and even John Ratcliffe, the CIA Director.
Goldberg initially suspected it was a hoax or a disinformation campaign. How had no one noticed an “intruder” in the chat? Why had no one questioned the identity of the new participant marked “JG”? And most baffling of all - if the conversation was real and these individuals were who they claimed to be - why were military attack plans being discussed over a messaging app?
But the messages kept coming, increasingly surreal. JD Vance warned of the risks of striking in such a sensitive region, noting that “3% of U.S. trade passes through the Suez Canal. For Europeans, it’s 40%”. The Vice President expressed concern about public backlash and rising oil prices.
Hegseth responded bluntly: “Whether we strike now or in a few weeks makes no difference... nobody knows who the Houthis are, and besides, they’re Iran’s allies”.
“Europeans Are Parasites”
The conversation soon spiraled into a farcical yet troubling discourse. Vance insisted that only the United States had the means and authority to act decisively and reopen global trade routes. Waltz doubled down, claiming that “European navies are incapable of asserting dominance… Europeans should add this to the list of crises requiring greater defense spending".
Eventually, Vance relented, saying the U.S. would proceed if the majority agreed, though he lamented “having to save Europe again".
Hegseth’s final remark hit with venomous clarity: Europeans are “free-loading” - the most insidious category of parasites.
11:44 AM: Green Light
At 11:44 AM on March 15, Goldberg - still reeling - received another message in the chat from Pete Hegseth: “CENTCOM confirms go-ahead for launch mission”. What followed was a chilling step-by-step sequence: 12:15 PM, the first F-18s are launched; 1:45 PM, MQ-9 drones take off.
“Good luck to our warriors”, read Hegseth’s grimly heroic message. Others chimed in with emojis of American flags, praying hands, fire, and eagles.
Stunned, Goldberg pulled over while driving, searched online for confirmation, and found it immediately: the U.S. government had just announced a series of airstrikes on Houthi bases in Yemen.
Then came another chat message: 1:48 PM, a target had been hit, a building collapsed, and multiple individuals had been identified, Waltz reported. More congratulatory messages followed, along with celebratory emojis.
The chat was real. Not a hoax, not a hyper-realistic simulation. What Goldberg had just witnessed were actual military plans - alongside humiliating commentary.
What If...?
Goldberg and The Atlantic published the screenshots in what is already being dubbed the scoop of the year. The piece, released on March 24, triggered what the media quickly labeled “SignalGate".
The White House swiftly responded, attempting to downplay the event by attacking Goldberg’s credibility. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the article as another stunt by a known Trump critic with a flair for sensationalism.
Yet despite efforts to contain the damage, the Democratic Party launched a barrage od accusations against the Republican administration for what they called a reckless breach of national security.
“No one in this dangerous administration can be trusted to keep Americans safe”, said Delaware Senator Chris Coons on X/Twitter. From New York, Representative Pat Ryan summed up the debacle with one word: “FUBAR” - fucked up beyond all recognition. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island called it “one of the most egregious failures of security and basic judgment I’ve ever seen".
Beyond the outrage and ridicule, this scandal raises urgent questions about modern-day security. Can we truly trust messaging apps—however secure they may seem—for matters of international warfare? What if the wrong person had been added to that chat? What if a phone had simply been lost or stolen? Or worse, fallen into the hands of a hostile actor or terrorist? Is it truly acceptable to discuss military operations and the fates of nations on what amounts to a glorified group chat?
There is little left to say about the Signal chat scandal, which has since gone viral. The screenshots, first published by The Atlantic and then echoed by media outlets across the globe, speak for themselves.What remains is the reckless behavior of an administration that governs as though world affairs were a game. But the American administration is not just any government—it is a global superpower. And such irresponsibility cannot be afforded.
Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025