Washington was rocked Monday by a truly extraordinary story. The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, recounted how he had — apparently inadvertently — been added to a group chat featuring some of the most senior members of the United States government. Even more dra matically, the purpose of the chat, on the messaging app Signal, was to discuss a then-imminent U.S. attack on Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this month. Goldberg said that, through the texts, he had known specifics about the attacks about two hours before they took place on March 15. Goldberg wrote that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sent detailed plans to everyone on the chat. Goldberg did not publish the specifics of that element of the chat. But he said of Hegseth’s messages: “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East.” Here are five big takeaways from the explosive story.  Yes, the chat is real — and bizarre The entire episode that Goldberg describes is bizarre — and troubling from the point of view of those who would take the handling of sensitive information seriously. Goldberg wrote that the chain of events began on March 11 when he got an unsolicited Signal invite from someone named Michael Waltz. Trump’s national security adviser is Mike Waltz, a former Florida congressman. Goldberg was then added to the group chat about Yemen two days later. The group appears to have included virtually everyone at the highest reaches of defense and national security in the Trump administration except the president himself. Waltz, Vice President Vance, Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Department Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe all appear to have been among the participants. So too, apparently, were key figures in Trump’s orbit including White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and key adviser Stephen Miller. Goldberg does not appear to have announced his presence to the other members of the chat, nor did he conceal it. He wrote that he appeared in the chat as “JG,” much as other participants also seem to have been identified that way, including “MAR” [Marco Antonio Rubio] and “SM,” which Goldberg surmises was Miller. The situation was so peculiar that Goldberg himself wondered if he was being set up or led astray by hoaxers. He was not. When Goldberg asked Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, for comment, he responded, “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.” A lot of 'what if' questions Goldberg did not publish anything while military operations were underway. But what if someone less scrupulous had been included on messages of such sensitivity? The Atlantic editor-in-chief wrote that, among other things, Hegseth’s message “contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.” Information like that would have been gold dust for adversaries. So too would insight into what people at the apex of power in Washington were talking about with each other. Then there is the question of using Signal at all for such a matter — and whether any laws may have been broken in the process. As Goldberg notes in his story, the use of Signal to discuss a military strike “may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of ‘national defense’ information.” A separate but related question is whether Waltz’s apparent actions in setting some of the messages to self-delete violated laws about the preservation of official records. One way or another, it’s a mess. Exposed: Tensions with Europe and Vance’s differences with Trump Substantively, the texts published by Goldberg are remarkable because of how they show Vance’s unease with some elements of Trump’s approach, and the Trump group’s general distaste for what they see as Europe’s lackadaisical reliance on the U.S. On the day before the strikes, the account labeled “JD Vance” noted that he was “out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” As Goldberg notes, the vice president was in Michigan on the day in question. Vance noted that vastly more European trade than American trade goes through the Suez Canal. He was implicitly suggesting that the stakes in safeguarding the canal — and the Red Sea, which leads to it and where the Houthis have mounted numerous attacks — were far higher for European nations than for the U.S. The Vance account went on: “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now” — apparently a reference to Trump’s often-repeated insistence that Europe needs to take responsibility for protecting its own interests, with military force if necessary. Vance added, “I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself.” In a separate message soon after, Vance said to Hegseth, “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” To that, the account that appears to be Hegseth replied, “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike [Waltz] is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.” As Goldberg was readying the story for publication, a spokesperson for Vance told him there was no daylight between the president and the vice president. “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy,” William Martin told Goldberg. “The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.” Democrats express outrage, Republicans left red-faced Democrats, who have often charged that Trump lacks basic competence, seized on the story. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), former Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate last November, wrote on social media that Hegseth was “texting out war plans like invites to a frat party.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called the episode “blatantly illegal and dangerous beyond belief.” She added, “Our national security is in the hands of complete amateurs.” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) accused the administration of “incompetence so severe that it could have gotten Americans killed.” The revelation appeared to be deeply embarrassing for the GOP. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) acknowledged that the inclusion of a journalist on such a sensitive matter “sounds like a huge screwup.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters on Monday afternoon, “We’re just finding out about it, but obviously we’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there.” Trump himself pleaded ignorance. Asked about it by reporters on Monday afternoon, he responded, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. … You’re telling me about it for the first time.” Trump contends he still has confidence in Waltz It’s difficult to imagine any high-ranking national security official in a more conventional administration still having a job if they did what Waltz did. But the Trump White House is like no other, and the president swiftly released a statement of support. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that Trump “continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.” Whether this will be enough to quell the storm remains to be seen. ...read more read less