On March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from an individual identified as Michael Waltz. This situation began two hours before the first bombs exploded, as I had been texted the war plan by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense. The contents of this plan included detailed information regarding weapons packages, targets, and timing, prompting a need for further explanation.
This narrative takes root following the Hamas invasion of southern Israel in October 2023. Shortly after, the Houthis, an Iran-backed terrorist organization known for their motto “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam,” launched attacks on Israel and disrupted international shipping. These actions created significant challenges for global trade, with the Biden administration facing criticism for its ineffective responses. As 2024 unfolded, the incoming Trump administration vowed to take a tougher stance against these attacks.
Upon receiving the connection request from what I assumed was President Trump’s national security adviser, I approached the situation with caution. Given the contentious relationship between the Trump administration and journalists, I considered the possibility that someone could be attempting to mislead or entrap me. After careful deliberation, I accepted the connection, hoping for a legitimate discussion on pressing matters such as Ukraine or Iran.
Just two days later, on March 14, I was invited to a Signal group named the “Houthi PC small group.” The message from “Michael Waltz” detailed a meeting for coordination on Houthi actions over the following 72 hours, with specific instructions for team members to provide points of contact for ongoing coordination. This was unexpected, as such meetings typically involve senior national security officials and are not conducted via commercial messaging apps.
The group, which consisted of 18 individuals including various national security officials, quickly engaged in discussions regarding U.S. military strategy. The nature of the conversations raised several red flags. It was unclear whether this was an authentic government operation or part of a potential disinformation campaign. As I consulted colleagues, doubts about the legitimacy of the Signal group began to mount.
On March 15, the discussion escalated as “Michael Waltz” delivered updates that suggested imminent military action. As the messages flowed, participants debated the implications of timing and strategy, highlighting the risks associated with potential military actions against the Houthis. The conversation indicated a high level of seriousness and urgency, with participants acknowledging the need for operational security.
By March 16, the situation became increasingly bizarre. A message from “Pete Hegseth” contained operational details regarding impending strikes on Yemen, including target information and deployment plans. This alarming revelation underscored the reckless use of a non-secure platform for discussing sensitive military operations. The imminent attacks were scheduled to take place just hours later.
As the bombs began to drop, I witnessed a flurry of messages praising the successful execution of the military action within the Signal group. Reports indicated that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number still awaiting independent verification. The actions taken were notably different from the previous hesitant approaches of the Biden administration, as stated by Waltz during an appearance on ABC’s This Week.
The events surrounding the Signal group raise serious questions regarding national security and legal compliance. The discussion of military strategies on a commercial messaging platform like Signal, which is not approved for sharing classified information, could potentially violate several provisions of the Espionage Act and federal records law. Legal experts emphasized that such discussions should only occur in secure environments designed for classified communications.
Moreover, the addition of a journalist to this sensitive group created new legal issues. The conversations that occurred were marked by an awareness of the need for secrecy, yet the inclusion of an unauthorized participant constituted a significant breach of operational security. This situation exemplifies the risks associated with inadequate communication protocols within high-stakes national security discussions.
The chaotic events surrounding the Houthi military response and the reckless use of Signal for sensitive communications highlight a critical need for accountability and improved security measures within government communication practices. As questions loom about the authenticity of these discussions and the implications of their content, it is vital for U.S. national security officials to adhere strictly to established protocols to safeguard against unauthorized leaks and potential threats.
In the aftermath, I have reached out to key figures involved to clarify the circumstances surrounding this incident. The confirmation of the Signal group’s authenticity raises further concerns about the handling of classified information and the ongoing necessity for secure communication channels in matters of national defense.
