In a surprising twist, an email from Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, has revealed that more individuals were accidentally included in a controversial text message chain involving Trump administration officials. The chain discussed sensitive military plans against Houthi terrorists, raising concerns about security and protocol.
This revelation came to light on March 29, 2025, when Goldberg mistakenly sent a transcript of unreleased texts to Matt Manochio, a writer for The American Spectator. The exchange included notable figures such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, discussing plans that should have remained confidential.
The text chain opened with Vance quoting Socrates, highlighting a philosophical approach to their discussion. Hegseth quickly shifted the tone with a playful comment directed at Gabbard about her hair, showcasing a mix of levity and seriousness in the conversation. Gabbard expressed her concerns about the security of the messaging app they were using, questioning its reliability for discussing sensitive information.
As the conversation progressed, the officials debated military actions, with Hegseth expressing eagerness to take action. Gabbard cautioned against discussing military strategies on what she deemed an insecure platform. The dialogue included various philosophical quotes, emojis, and even a humorous interjection from President Trump, who seemed unaware of the gravity of the conversation.
The mix of serious military discussions and light-hearted banter raised eyebrows and questions about the professionalism of the communication methods used by high-ranking officials. The presence of emojis and casual language in such a serious context has sparked a debate over the appropriateness of their communication tools.
This incident not only sheds light on the inner workings of the Trump administration but also raises concerns about the security of sensitive information. The accidental inclusion of Goldberg in the conversation highlights the potential risks involved when discussing military strategies in informal settings. As the story unfolds, it will be interesting to see how this impacts discussions about communication protocols within government agencies.