Month: March 2025

On Wednesday, The Atlantic posted a detailed follow-up story, including transcript of text messages and screenshots disclosing the full text chain from the Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

In an article titled “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal,” Goldberg quoted from texts in which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth detailed types of U.S. military aircraft and the timing of recent airstrikes against Houthi militias in Yemen (the texts did not, however, include information about specific targets).

The updated after comes after the White House and top administration officials involved in the chat claimed no “war plans” were discussed. In testimony at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe both claimed no classified material was shared in the group chat. Ratcliffe said his “communications … in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.” They also both testified Tuesday that Hegseth was the “original classifying authority” on the chat.

Goldberg and journalist Shane Harris said in The Atlantic article published Wednesday that “statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump — combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts — have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions.  There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

The screenshots include Hegseth sharing details of the timing and targets of the attack on Houthis in Yemen earlier this month, and were discussed in the chat.  Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, at 11:44 a.m. ET on Saturday, March 15: “TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”  The ensuing message included the timing of the expected strikes and what type of weapons would be used.

Goldberg and Shane Harris wrote: “This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m.  This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi ‘Target Terrorist,’ was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.”

The White House has not denied the authenticity of the message; however, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X Wednesday morning: “The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans. This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”

National security adviser Mike Waltz also wrote on X Wednesday morning: “No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”  Waltz also asserted that the sources of the intelligence were not discussed but did not address the timing or weapons packages used in the strikes.

Editorial credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a government regulationt to regulate “ghost gun” kits that allow people to easily obtain parts needed to assemble firearms from online sellers.

The 7-2 decision came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion saying that the kits can be regulated under the federal Gun Control Act, saying the court had “no trouble rejecting” the arguments made by challengers. Gorsuch wrote:  “The Gun Control Act embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,” and indicated that the ruling is limited, meaning that some products that require “sufficient time, tools and expertise” to create a gun would not necessarily be covered.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Thomas writing: “The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm.’ That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.”

Issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the regulation has been in effect since August 2022 as litigation has made its way through the court system, with the Supreme Court in August 2023 refusing to put it on hold. Manufacturers and sellers have to obtain licenses, mark products with serial numbers, require background checks and maintain records.

The Gun Control Act says the regulations apply to “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may be readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” It also covers the “frame or receiver of any such weapon.” The frame or receiver is the part of a firearm that houses other components, including the firing mechanism.

The legal challenge was brought by Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren, who own components they want to use to build guns. The plaintiffs contended the 1968 Gun Control Act didn’t apply to weapon parts kits and that the administrative action was an overreach.

Editorial credit: creativetan / Shutterstock.com

Two of the Trump administration’s top intelligence officials have denied that classified information was shared in an encrypted group chat, which were being discussed when editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic had been mistakenly added to the conversation.

During a previously-scheduled oversight hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee with FBI Director Kash Patel, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in attendance, Democrats grilled Gabbard and Ratcliffe about the security break, in which The Atlantic’s Goldberg was accidentally included in an 18-member group chat on the commercially available Signal app about U.S. military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. Gabbard and Ratcliffe were in the group chat, per Goldberg. Patel declined to say if the FBI had begun an investigation.

Gabbard and Ratcliffe asserted there was no classified information included in the message chain, with Ratcliffe also stating he believed national security adviser Waltz intended the chat to be “a mechanism for coordinating between senior level officials, but not a substitute for using high side or classified communications for anything that would be classified.”

The White House also continued to downplay the security breach, as Democrats called for the resignation of the national security adviser, Michael Waltz (who set up the group chat) and the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, who reportedly shared classified war plans in it. President Trump defended Waltz, saying in an interview with NBC News that the national security adviser had “learned a lesson, and is a good man” and suggested a staff member was to blame for including a journalist in the secret group chat.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday no classified material was sent to the group chat, and that that “no ‘war plans’ were discussed.”  Leavitt said: “The White House Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump’s top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible.”

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the panel, slammed the incident as “sloppy” and said others would have been fired for the same conduct, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for an investigation, saying in a statement that the use of a non-classified text app “is completely outrageous and shocks the conscience. If House Republicans are truly serious about keeping America safe, and not simply being sycophants and enablers, they must join Democrats in a swift, serious and substantive investigation into this unacceptable and irresponsible national security breach.”

Editorial credit: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com

The White House announced on Tuesday that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to a ceasefire in the Black Sea and to implement a ban on attacks on energy facilities by both countries.

Russia and Ukraine agreed to “ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” the Trump administration said in two separate statements, after U.S. officials held separate bilateral talks with Ukrainian and Russian delegations this week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Additionally, both statements said that Russia and Ukraine would stop striking each other’s energy facilities; The agreements, if implemented, could mark a major step toward a wider deal to end their three-year-long war.

One of the statements spoke about the talks with the Kremlin said the U.S. would help to “restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.” In the second statement, the White House said the U.S. and Ukraine had agreed that America “remains committed to helping achieve the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.”

Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview (per Reuters) that the Kremlin could not trust Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and it would only sign a Black Sea deal if Washington issued an “order” to him to respect it:  “We will need clear guarantees. And given the sad experience of agreements with just Kyiv, the guarantees can only be the result of an order from Washington to Zelenskyy and his team to do one thing and not the other.”

The Kremlin said in a statement published by the Russian state-run news agency TASS: “In accordance with the agreement between the presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States, the Russian and American sides agreed to ensure the implementation of the ‘Black Sea Initiative,’ which includes ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, the non-use of force and the prevention of the use of commercial vessels for military purposes while organizing appropriate control measures through the inspection of such vessels.”

Zelenskyy said it was his country’s understanding that the Black Sea agreement was in effect immediately, but said in news conference he had “questions about how all this will be implemented,” and that there was “no faith in the Russians here, but I believe that we will be constructive.” Zelenskyy also noted that the statements did not specify any actions to be taken if Russia violates the terms of the agreement, adding that Ukraine would appeal directly to the Trump administration for more weapons and more sanctions against Russia in such a case.

Editorial credit: Harmony Video Production / Shutterstock.com