US President Donald Trump was surprised to learn that his administration’s senior officials and advisers mistakenly revealed battle plans for future military strikes in Yemen to The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief after the reporter was accidentally added to a private Signal group discussion. When asked about the security lapse during a press conference at the White House’s Roosevelt Room on Monday, the surprised commander-in-chief said, “You’re telling me about it for the first time.”
“I know nothing about it. I am not a big admirer of The Atlantic. To me, it is a publication that is about to go out of business. I don’t think it’s much of a magazine, but I have no idea… You’re claiming that they had what?” Trump responded.
He did, however, state that “the attack was very effective” in any event.
The content in the text exchange “contained operational specifics concerning forthcoming strikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, including details on targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing,” The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg said.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has not questioned the texts’ validity. The National Security Council concluded that the SMS chain “appears to be authentic.”
Table of Contents
According to the story, Goldberg received the Signal invitation from Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz. He was then included to a group that included Waltz, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s national intelligence director, two of whom were present prior to the strike.
Goldberg then received messages from other key government officials designating representatives to work on the issue. He further stated that Hegseth communicated information about the strikes to the group chat, including “targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing”.
Did JD Vance oppose US President Donald Trump ?
The messages released by the Atlantic also underlined Vice President JD Vance’s opposition to Trump’s Yemen approach. According to Goldberg’s article, a person identified as Vance expressed reservations about carrying out the strikes on March 14, stating he despised “bailing Europe out again”. He also suggested that the Trump administration did not need to rush to bomb Yemen, claiming that Houthi attacks on ships harmed Europeans more than Americans.
He said that Europe will benefit far more than the United States from the attack targeted at decimating the Houthis and safeguarding Red Sea commerce lines.
“Three percent of US trade passes through the Suez. 40% of European trade does. There is a genuine risk that the public will not grasp what is happening or why it is essential. The most compelling reason to do so, as the President stated, is to send a message,” Vance reportedly wrote in a message.
“I am not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance adds in a subsequent message.
Vance questioned if Americans would appreciate the importance of attacks that could result in “a moderate to severe spike in oil prices” and whether the timing of the operation was a “mistake.”
Following opposition from other officials of the Trump administration, Vance appears to approach Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying, “If you think we should do it, let’s go”.
“I just hate bailing out Europe again,” Vance explained.
“I completely understand your displeasure with European freeloading. “It’s PATHETIC,” Hegseth responded. He went on, “I think we should go.”
you join our tazatimesnews Telegram Channel
you join our whatsapp channel
Next News Read – Thyroid Health : Simple and Powerful Home Treatments to Try
