Annotated analysis of Signal group chat with top Trump officials
We break down the texts between White House officials (and a journalist) detailing timings and targets of a military strike against Houthi militants.
Texts published by the Atlantic magazine revealed Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth posted plans for the timing and weapons to be used in a military strike against Houthi militants. This came after administration officials disputed that any classified information about the military operation had been shared in the chat group
Here is the text chain with key parts annotated.
Michael Waltz: Team-establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.
Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend.
Thx
MAR: Mike Needham for State
JD: Vance Andy baker for VP
TG: Joe Kent for DNI
(“MAR” refers to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and “TG” is Director of National Intelligence)
Tulsi Gabbard: Scott B Dan Katz for Treasury
Pete Hegseth: Dan Caldwell for DoD
Brian: Brian McCormack for NSC
Michael Waltz: Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes.
State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners.
Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed.
(“High side inboxes” refers to a classified system. The US will sometimes notify allies ahead of a planned military operation. Sometimes they will ask for permission to use airspace or other nearby support. Other times, they notify allies because of the implications for that government, either politically or militarily.)
Go or no go now
JD Vance: Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake. 3 per cent of US trade runs through the suez. 4 0 per cent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary.
– The Houthi strikes, which have severely limited shipping transiting the Red Sea, once one of the biggest commercial shipping lanes, have had a much bigger impact on Europe than the US.
The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message. But 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.
Joe Kent: There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.
The Israelis will likely take strikes & therefore ask us for more support to replenish whatever they use against the Houthis. But that’s a minor factor.
I will send you the unclass data we pulled on BAM shipping.
(The Houthis have also launched strikes towards Israel, leading Israel to respond militarily. The Houthis are an Iranian proxy and have received training and arms from Tehran. But they also operate independently from Iran).
John Ratcliffe: From CIA perspective, we are mobilising assets to support now but a delay would not negatively impact us and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership.
Pete Hegseth VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.
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 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.
But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC. I welcome other thoughts.
(Biden conducted roughly 200 strikes intermittently from late 2023, when the Houthis first began conducting strikes on ships, through 2024.)
Michael Waltz: The trade figures we have are 15% of global and 30% of container. It’s difficult to break that down to US. Specific because much of the container either going through the red sea still or around the Cape of Good Hope our components going to Europe that turns into manufactured goods for transatlantic trade to the United States.
Whether we pull the plug or not today European navies do not have the capability to defend against the types of sophisticated, antiship, cruise missiles, and drones the Houthis are now using. So whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.
(Since the attacks began, shipping companies have adjusted their routes. Travelling around the Cape of Good Hope adds roughly two weeks to shipping travel.)
Michael Waltz: As we stated in the first PC we have a fundamental decision of allowing the sea lanes to remain closed or to reopen them now or later, we are the only ones with the capability unfortunately.
From a messaging standpoint we absolutely ad this to of horribles on why the Europeans must invest in their defence.
(PC refers to the principles committee, the top national security officials in the administration. That he refers to this as the first PC suggests there had been prior meetings on this topic).
JD Vance: @Pete Hegseth if you think we should do it let’s go.
I just hate bailing Europe out again.
Let’s just make sure our messaging is tight here. And if there are things we can do upfront to minimise risk to Saudi oil facilities we should do it.
Pete Hegseth: VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.
SM: 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
Pete Hegseth: Agree
Go for mission launch
Pete Hegseth: TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVOURABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/ CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.
(That means the weather is sufficient for the military to meet its target. For example, it is not too cloudy for pilots to see. Jets are taking off from the aircraft carrier.)
1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)
1345: “Trigger Based” F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME) – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s).
(That means what the U.S. military wants to hit is where it is supposed to be and the strikes meet civilian casualties mitigation measures. The U.S. military likely determined that with drones. This could mean that the U.S. plan is in waves or that the fighter jets are in place to immediately respond should the Houthis try to launch missiles or some counter response.)
1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package) 1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier “Trigger Based” targets)
(This indicates that drones, which are armed, could be participating in the strike.)
1536: F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched. MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline) We are currently clean on OPSEC.
(This is supposed to indicate that neither the Houthis nor the media learned about this attack beforehand. Except for the Atlantic – as it turns out).
Godspeed to our Warriors.
JD Vance: I will say a prayer for victory
(Michael Waltz set disappearing message time to 4 weeks. Signal offers a feature that allows users to permanently delete messages).
Michael Waltz: VP. building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.
(The US depends on its pilots as well as drones watching the strike take place to make an initial assessment of the impact of its attack).
JD Vance: What?
Michael Waltz: Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.
JD Vance: Excellent
MAR: Good Job Pete and your team!
Michael Waltz: The team in MAL did a great job as well.
SM: Great work all. Powerful start.
Pete Hegseth: CENTCOM was/is on point. Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.
Susie Wiles: Kudos to all – most particularly those in theatre and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.
Steve Witkoff: (High Five emojis)
TG: Great work and effects!
The Wall St Journal
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout