Waltz takes responsibility for leaked group chat incident

Department of Research, Studies and International News 26-03-2025

Michael Waltz, national security adviser to Donald Trump, has admitted responsibility for a major security lapse after a journalist was mistakenly added to a private messaging group where high-level U.S. officials discussed classified military operations.

The revelation surfaced after Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, disclosed that he had been included in a Signal group chat where senior members of the Trump administration, such as Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—were coordinating airstrikes on the Houthis in Yemen. Goldberg, unaware of why he had been added, remained in the chat long enough to witness strategic military discussions before the error was detected.

The incident, widely regarded as a major security breach, has drawn criticism from political leaders and intelligence officials, who warn that such lapses pose a serious risk to national security.

Waltz’s Explanation and Deflection

In an interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham, Waltz conceded that he had created the group chat but struggled to explain how Goldberg’s number had been included. “It’s embarrassing, yes. We’re going to get to the bottom of it,” he said, suggesting that he was consulting with technology experts, including Elon Musk, to investigate how the mishap occurred.

Despite claiming full responsibility, Waltz also attempted to deflect blame. He referred to Goldberg as the “bottom scum of journalists” and suggested, without providing any evidence, that the journalist might have somehow inserted himself into the chat. When pressed on the details, Waltz speculated about a technical glitch, asking, “Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number there?” He added, “Of course I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else.”

His comments have done little to quell concerns about the administration’s handling of sensitive information.

Conflicting Statements from Trump

While Waltz insisted that no staff member was responsible for the error, Donald Trump appeared to offer a different version of events. Speaking to Newsmax, Trump suggested that a lower-level staffer working with Waltz had Goldberg’s number and might have inadvertently added him to the chat. However, his explanation was somewhat unclear, as Goldberg had been added to a messaging group rather than a phone call.

Trump also downplayed the significance of the incident, calling it a “glitch” and emphasizing that Waltz had “learned a lesson.” The former president described him as a “good man” and insisted that the breach was not a serious one.

Criticism from lawmakers and national security experts has been swift. Senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee, called the situation an example of “sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled it “one of the most stunning breaches of military intelligence I have read about in a very, very long time.”

Adding to the controversy, Senator Chris Coons pointed out that all officials who had engaged in national security discussions on Signal may have violated federal laws. Goldberg’s report in The Atlantic even raised the possibility that Waltz’s actions could be in violation of the Espionage Act, given that Signal is not an approved platform for sharing classified information.

This incident has amplified concerns about the handling of sensitive intelligence under the Trump administration. The use of encrypted, third-party messaging apps for high-level security discussions has been heavily scrutinized, and critics argue that such practices demonstrate a lack of proper protocol in managing classified material.

As investigations into the breach continue, Waltz’s admission of responsibility does little to diminish the gravity of the situation. The incident has raised urgent questions about whether the administration is taking adequate measures to protect national security—or if more serious lapses could be on the horizon.