Image source, Getty Images

Three emojis: a fist, an American flag, and fire.

That's the update allegedly provided by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz in the group chat, minutes after explosions rocked Yemen on 15 March.

The US strikes killed 53, including five children, according the Houthi rebels.

President Donald Trump labelled the action as "decisive and powerful", blaming the Houthi's attacks on shipping in the Red Sea as the cause.

Explosions were reported by the group in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, and in the northern province of Saada.

Strikes continued over the weekend, and Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said his militants would target US ships in the Red Sea as long as the US continued its attacks on Yemen.

Gail Helt, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst, tells the BBC's Newsday that any US security lapses will be welcomed by the intelligence services of other governments.

"There needs to be a re-assessment of how these communications are being handled, how classified information broadly is being handled," she explains.

She says US officials "are playing fast and loose with national security here and that's going to make us vulnerable", citing rumours that tech billionaire Elon Musk was going to be given a briefing on China that he "has no business getting".

This will "embolden" enemies of the US, Helt adds, who will at some point "get really lucky".

Image source, EPA

As we wait to learn more about the leaked chat, here's a brief breakdown of how key US political figures have reacted to the report:

Republicans

• President Donald Trump: He said yesterday he knew nothing about the incident, and is "not a big fan of The Atlantic" - whose editor-in-chief first reported on the leak. The president labelled the strikes "very effective"
• Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth: When pressed by journalists on the chat, he said: "Nobody was texting war plans and that's all I have to say about that"
• House Speaker Mike Johnson: He told reporters that adding the journalist was a mistake, the administration is addressing what happened, and will "make sure it doesn't happen again"

Democrats

• Senate leader Chuck Schumer: He called it "one of the most stunning" military intelligence breaches in a long time, calling for an investigation
• House leader Hakeem Jeffries: The Trump administration is arrogant and incompetent, he said, writing that the Democrats will "grill several national security officials" this week under oath to "expose" them
• Hillary Clinton: Former rival to Trump for the presidency in 2016, Clinton was simple in her reaction: "You have got to be kidding me"

While revealing the Signal chat security leak, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg redacted some of the most sensitive information.

He suggested that some of the knowledge in the group text could be used to harm the American military if made public, and declined to name an active intelligence operative who was part of the small Signal group.

Despite this, we’ve still been able to gather three key takeaways from the conversation between several accounts appearing to be members of the current administration:

• An account appearing to be JD Vance disagreed with Donald Trump, suggesting that the planned strikes on the Houthis were a “mistake”, and arguing that Trump wasn’t aware of how “inconsistent” the strikes would be with his message on Europe
• Another account, purportedly US Defence Secretary Pete Hesgeth, condemned “European free-loading” - describing it as “PATHETIC”, and suggesting that the US is the “only ones on the planet” who could target the Houthis in this way
• Emojis were often-utilised in official communication. When news of the bombing broke, the account named Waltz responded with a fist, an American flag, and fire. Earlier on, others had used the prayer emoji when the account associated with Vance said he was praying for victory

Image source, Source: The Atlantic

Image source, EPA

A top official in the Biden administration says there “needs to be consequences” after the group chat leak was exposed.

Daniel Koh, formerly a deputy cabinet secretary, says the use of a privately-run app doesn’t align with the president's goal of keeping Americans as safe as possible.

“If we’re going to start using outside, private, unvetted sources as our way of doing national security in the future, we’ve got a problem,” he tells BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“What kind of example does this set if there aren’t consequences?” he adds, saying that the use of unofficial messaging sources is a "trend of this administration that should concern everyone".

According to a US Department of Defence memorandum, Signal should not be used for communicating private information.

As we understand just how unusual an event the group chat leak is, we've been reading through a 2023 memorandum of understanding, where the US Department of Defence lists Signal as an "unmanaged messaging app".

This means, according to the document, that the app should not be used for "accessing, transmitting, storing, or processing non-public DoD information".

The memorandum explicitly lists Signal alongside other messaging apps, including iMessage and Whatsapp, that should not be used unless authorised via a request that shows its use is "critical to fulfilling mission operations".

Image source, Source - The Atlantic

Senior Republican Nicolee Ambrose is blaming Joe Biden's administration for neglecting US national security infrastructure while in power.

“I know of several instances where perhaps cyber threats were repeatedly discussed and some Democrat officials chose not to take action," she tells the BBC World Service's Newsday.

Ambrose says she has personally witnessed "systems that were compromised because Democrats did not take the necessary steps to secure these systems from cyber threats".

Tom Gerken
Technology reporter

Image source, Getty Images

We've been talking a lot about Signal, the app that was used to discuss war plans.

Signal is a free messaging app, but don’t be surprised if you’ve never heard of it. It’s nowhere near as popular as WhatsApp and Messenger, which boast billions of users.

Signal, by contrast, has an estimated 40-70 million monthly users, who use it primarily for the advanced security features the platform prides itself on.

Signal allows anyone to inspect the code it uses to check it for vulnerabilities, it collects minimal info from its users, and perhaps more importantly, it isn’t run for profit like its rivals.

It’s owned by the Signal Foundation, a US-based non-profit, and makes its money through donations rather than advertisements which can track users.

All of this means cybersecurity experts and journalists look favourably upon Signal - but it’s still only as secure as the device it is running on and the person using it. If someone gains access to your phone with Signal open - or if they learn your password - they’ll be able to see your messages.

For that reason, no messaging app can take the place of secure government channels.

Image source, Getty Images

A clear theme that emerged from the group chat was a lack of warmth towards Europe.

The account named Vice-President JD Vance wrote: "I just hate bailing Europe out again."

It's not an unfamiliar sentiment from Vance. In February, he launched an attack on European democracies in a speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Vance accused European governments of retreating from their values and said they are supressing free speech and are the reason for mass migration.

The 20-minute speech was met with fierce criticism from Europe, and labelled as "not acceptable" by German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, characterised Vance as "trying to pick a fight" with Europe.

Days later, he took the lead in attacking Ukraine's President Zelensky, when they met alongside President Trump.

For now, Europe is yet to react to this round of apparent bashing from the US.

Image source, Source - The Atlantic

Among the messages reported by Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg is that US officials in the Signal chat had also discussed the potential for Europe to pay for US protection of key shipping lanes.

"Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes," the account associated with White House National Security Advisor Michael Waltz wrote on 14 March.

The message continued, saying that at Trump's request, his team was working with the defence department and state department "to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans".

At one point in the thread the JD Vance account, the name of the vice-president, griped that the strikes would benefit the Europeans, because of their reliance on those shipping lanes, adding: "I just hate bailing Europe out again."

The user identified as Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, responded three minutes later: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC."

Image source, Source - The Atlantic

Image source, Reuters

Editor-in-chief of the Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg says he received an invite on the encrypted messaging app Signal from an account purporting to be White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz on 11 March, four days before the US launched what it described as a "decisive and powerful" series of air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

Also in the chat, Goldberg reports, were accounts that matched the names of Vice-President JD Vance, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Ratcliffe.

He says top officials from various agencies also appeared to be added.

As we've reported, the White House has confirmed that a journalist seems to have been inadvertently added to a group chat in which US national security officials discussed plans for a strike against the Houthi rebel group.

"At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic," Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said in a statement to the BBC. "We are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.

"The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy co-ordination between senior officials," he said.

A stunning failure of operational security by the Trump administrationpublished at 08:07 Greenwich Mean Time

08:07 GMT

published at 17:07

17:07

Anthony Zurcher
North America correspondent

There are few US presidential actions more sensitive, more fraught with peril, than when and where to use American military force.

If such information were obtained by American adversaries in advance, it could put lives – and national foreign policy objectives - at risk.

Fortunately for the Trump administration, a group chat with information about an impending US strike in Yemen among senior national security officials on the encrypted chat app Signal did not fall into the wrong hands.

Unfortunately for the Trump administration, the message thread was observed by an influential political journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg.

That an outsider could inadvertently be added to sensitive national defence conversations represents a stunning failure of operational security by the Trump administration.

And that these conversations were taking place outside of secure government channels designed for such sensitive communications could violate the Espionage Act, which sets rules for handling classified information.

Kayla Epstein
US reporter

On 15 March, the US launched what it described as a "decisive and powerful" series of air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

Four days earlier, on 11 March, Jeffrey Goldberg writes that he received a connection request on the encrypted messaging app Signal from an account that purported to be White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz's.

Signal is used by journalists and Washington officials because of the secure nature of its communications, the ability to create aliases, and send disappearing messages.

Two days later, Goldberg said he was added to a Signal chat entitled "Houthi PC small group".

A number of accounts that appeared to belong to cabinet members and national security officials were included in the chat, Goldberg reported.

Accounts labelled "JD Vance," the name of the vice-president; "Pete Hegseth," the Defence Secretary; and "John Ratcliffe," the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; were among names in the chat. Top national security officials from various agencies also appeared to be added.

Goldberg says he watched as the group chat discussed targets and timings for military strikes. And those plans appeared accurate when US later launched air strikes on Houthis in Yemen that matched details from the group chat.

Welcome back to our live coverage as the White House confirms that a journalist was accidentally texted classified US military information.

The Trump administration is facing political uproar after the Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he had been added to a Signal message group in which US national security officials planned a military strike in Yemen.

The group apparently included Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, as well as White House National Security Advisor Michael Waltz.

Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, said he had seen classified military plans for US strikes on Houthi rebels, including weapons packages, targets and timing, two hours before the bombs struck.

The report sparked a firestorm of criticism from opposition Democrats and concerns among several Republicans.

We'll bring you live updates, analysis and reaction to this extraordinary story during the UK morning and as the US wakes up, so stay with us.

We'll be pausing our live coverage shortly, and will start back up again in a few hours' time.

Congress is expected to grill Trump officials over the incident in an upcoming Senate intelligence hearing.

Two key witnesses set to appear at that hearing were reportedly members of the Signal chat: Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, director of the CIA.

Thanks for joining us.

Image source, Getty Images

Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, a Washington DC-based magazine that publishes articles on politics, business and the economy, foreign affairs, culture and the arts, technology, and science.

He has worked there since 2007, when he joined as a national correspondent before taking over as editor-in-chief in 2016. The magazine won its first Pulitzer Prizes under his leadership in 2022, as well as a variety of other awards.

And, as we know now, Goldberg was also part of a classified conversation where senior US government officials discussed military strikes on a foreign country.

Read the full story of how he ended up here on The Atlantic's website, external.

Image source, Getty Images

In the messages revealed by the Atlantic one of the most notable things was Vice President JD Vance's disagreement with Trump's Yemen strategy.

Vance argued, in the messages, the administration didn't need to rush to attack Yemen and he experienced concern over what should be expected of the Europeans and others for the US doing this.

“3% of US trade runs through the Suez. 40% of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message,” Vance reportedly wrote in a message.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now," Vance says in a later message. "There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

After pushback from other members of the Trump administration, Vance appears to address Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying "If you think we should do it let's go".

"I just hate bailing Europe out again," Vance writes.

"This is blatantly illegal and dangerous beyond belief," Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren says of the group chat breach. "Our national security is in the hands of complete amateurs," she said on social media.

"What other highly sensitive national security conversations are happening over group chat? Any other random people accidentally added to those, too?"

Republican Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski said: "Think about what we would do if Biden were president and this came out... we would raise the roof", according to a reporter for Semafor, external.

"It's going to be interesting to see if anybody loses their job over this," she added.

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono posted: "Egregious, reckless, and illegal. No amount of spin can change that."

Max Matza
US reporter

"It’s baffling. It’s shocking. It’s dangerous," says Samar Ali, a professor of politics and law at Vanderbilt University, saying that the text chain appeared to be "a clear violation of our national security laws and our archive norms".

Sensitive government communications are required to take place in a sealed-off room called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), Ali says.

Ali says these rooms are “virtually impossible to penetrate,” unlike the messaging app Signal.

Ali speaks from experience, recalling when she once used a SCIF to hash out negotiations between the US and EU.

One question Ali raises with me is what accountability those involved in the Signal chat might face? She notes that she would have lost her job and security clearance if she committed similar violations.