The Atlantic's recent publication on a possible Yemen strike involving members of the Trump administration has been declared a "hoax" by President Trump's team. They argue that the content of the article did not reveal any “war plans” or classified information as initially alleged.
Fox News reported that The Atlantic's article claimed to expose "war plans" from a Signal chat involving administration officials about a strike in Yemen, but the Trump administration refutes these claims as exaggerated and misleading.
On Monday, The Atlantic published details of what it described as a significant discussion on the messaging service Signal purportedly involving high-level Trump administration officials.
The publication suggested that these conversations involved detailed plans about a potential attack in Yemen. However, the Trump administration soon countered these assertions, labeling the story a fabrication.
The central contention revolves around the definition of "war plans." National Security Advisor Mike Waltz offered a robust refutation, asserting that the chat in question did not include any specific information that could constitute an actual war plan.
He emphasized the absence of details such as locations or methods: "No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS.” On the other hand, The Atlantic defended the report by suggesting even limited information, like Hegseth’s messages about the timing of operations, could escalate risks.
A spokesperson from The Atlantic furthered this point, stating, "If this information – particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen – had fallen into the wrong hands... American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger." Meanwhile, the Trump administration maintained its stance that these details did not equate to a war plan.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vocally objected to The Atlantic’s characterization of the Signal chat, noting its lack of critical operational details, saying, "Those are some really s---- war plans." He criticized The Atlantic for not representing genuine military strategy.
As more became known, The Atlantic adjusted its stance. In a follow-up piece published Wednesday, they shifted from labeling the content as "war plans" to using "attack plans" as a descriptor. However, this change did little to quell the criticisms emerging from Trump’s camp.
The background to this issue lies in a memo from 2023 by the Department of Defense, which emphasized the importance of cautious use of messaging apps like Signal, especially for the transmission of non-public information.
While the app provides end-to-end encryption, concerns remain about the potential for data exposure if messages fall into unintended hands.
Incidentally, the Signal chat thread in question included specific mentions, such as Hegseth's notification about the launch of jets for the proposed Yemen strike. These communications, although highlighted by The Atlantic, were deemed by the Trump administration as benign and non-impactful on the actual operations.
President Trump indicated to NBC News that a staffer in Waltz's office inadvertently added a journalist from The Atlantic to the highly sensitive chat. Trump assessed the situation, describing it as an "error" with no substantive effect on the Yemen strike. He reiterated his confidence in Waltz, referring to the matter as a learning moment for his advisor: "He’s not getting fired."
Trump's statements stand as a testament to the administration's belief in its own narrative–that any information shared over the Signal chat was neither classified nor strategically vital.
According to Trump, the occurrence was largely a non-issue regarding the Yemen operation, attributing the inclusion of the journalist in the chat to a simple mistake rather than a breach of protocol.
Karoline Leavitt, a representative of the Trump camp, made strong remarks by pointing out that The Atlantic article was authored by a known "Trump-hater," suggesting that the story was driven by personal bias rather than factual integrity.
To many observers, this incident highlights the precarious balance between safeguarding national security interests and maintaining transparency regarding governmental actions. As both sides present their narratives, the convergence of media reporting and political accountability continues to shape the discourse on military communication protocols.
