Sorry, wrong number | Power Line

The Scroll’s Park MacDougald has a good summary of the newsworthy elements in the “sorry, wrong number” event that somehow brought Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg inside the Trump administration’s planning to attack the Houthis. Goldberg posted his account in “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans” (behind the Atlantic paywall). Goldberg himself has not spilled the secrets to which he was privy, only that he found himself on the chat inside the national security team.

Insofar as no comment has been forthcoming from anyone inside the Trump team, I take it that it is roiling the administration. Since Park wrote this, reports have suggested that national security adviser Michael Waltz is at the center of this particular storm. In any event, somebody has some ‘splaining to do.

Park’s account is below the break.

* * * * *

The Trump administration added Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal group chat of senior government officials, then texted him detailed nonpublic information about the forthcoming airstrikes on the Houthis. The group chat—it is not clear who added Goldberg—included Waltz, Rubio, Witkoff, Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and “S M,” likely White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller.

Waltz informed them that he was establishing a group to discuss military options on the Houthis and asked each of the participants to name a staff point of contact for the discussions; most were unremarkable, but it did stick out to us that Hegseth nominated Dan Caldwell and Gabbard nominated Joe Kent. A policy discussion followed, and to make a long story short, on Saturday morning, March 15, Hegseth sent a message to the chat outlining “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”—which Goldberg read. The strikes took place a few hours later.

→While the sloppiness with classified information is one story, more interesting to us was what we learned about the policy positions of the various national security principals. On the Friday before the strikes, Vance messaged the group to say, “I think we are making a mistake,” and went on to argue that by striking the Houthis, the president would effectively be bailing out Europe. He went on:

I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. 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.

Kent chimed in to say he agreed with Vance, and there was nothing “time sensitive” requiring an operation now. Hegseth then weighed in to support the strikes:

Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered.

At that point, Vance relented but said, “I just hate bailing out Europe again.” The Miller account then replied with the following:

As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.

Hegseth wrote “Agreed,” and that ended the discussion.