The furor over a headline-making group chat consumed Washington for a second day on Tuesday. President Trump spoke to reporters from the White House about the matter, and it was also the focus of a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill. The central issue is the revelation that many of t he most senior members of the Trump administration used the messaging app Signal to conduct a group chat about a then-imminent U.S. attack on Yemen earlier this month. The controversy came into the public domain in the first place because a journalist — Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic — was added to the chat, apparently inadvertently. The culprit is said to be a staff member affiliated with national security adviser Mike Waltz. Goldberg on Monday published some excerpts from the chat. It included criticisms of Europe from Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and details of the way many members of the group reacted with emojis to express approval of the initial strike against the Houthis. But Goldberg has so far only offered broad contours of another alleged element of the chat — Hegseth providing specific details of the attack a few hours before it took place. The fact that such inherently sensitive information was being communicated in such a forum — and in front of a reporter whom no other participant appears to have noticed — has caused a political storm. Here are how the central players have been affected. National security adviser Mike Waltz The former Florida congressman has incurred the most direct embarrassment from the episode. If he, or someone on his staff, had not mistakenly invited Goldberg to connect on Signal and to join the group chat, presumably the discussion would never have been publicly discovered. Trump has come as close as he ever does to acknowledging a mistake was made. He has referred to the episode as a “glitch,” argued that the media has “made a big deal out of this,” said that Waltz has “learned a lesson” and suggested that it would be better to hold sensitive discussions in person in the White House Situation Room. That being said, it does not appear that Waltz’s job is in imminent danger, as some people thought it might be when the revelations first emerged. Trump praised Waltz as a “good man” on Tuesday morning. The previous day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that Trump “continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.” Waltz has also made expansive efforts to stay in Trump’s good graces. Invited to give some remarks by Trump at the White House on Tuesday, Waltz paid tribute to “your amazing successes.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Hegseth faces three separate dangers. First, it appears that he communicated more sensitive information than the other participants on the call, at least according to Goldberg’s version of events. This is embarrassing in itself. Some experts have also questioned whether it could run afoul of the Espionage Act. Second, Hegseth’s central role risks validating those critics who see him as a lightweight. In the run-up to Hegseth’s confirmation hearings to lead the Pentagon, critics questioned whether a former TV personality with limited and checkered managerial experience was really the best fit for such a key role. Third, Hegseth has been among the most aggressive in trying to push back against Goldberg’s reporting — and his posture has drawn criticism from some unexpected quarters. Asked by reporters about the story on Monday, Hegseth fired back: “You’re talking about a deceitful and highly discredited journalist.” Hegseth also implied, without saying so directly, that there was something false about the story. This attack moved Brit Hume, the chief political analyst for Fox News, to shoot back on social media: “Oh for God’s sake, the administration has already confirmed the authenticity of the message.” Hegseth has denied he or anyone else on the chat was “texting war plans.” Goldberg has said that’s not true. However that shakes out, the Defense secretary may have suffered more damage so far than anyone else. President Trump Trump has one obvious advantage in this saga: He wasn’t on the group chat. When the report first emerged, Trump professed ignorance, saying he had been previously unaware of the matter. Trump has also attacked the media, as is his usual tendency. During his Tuesday remarks to reporters, he called Goldberg a “sleazebag,” alleged without evidence that The Atlantic editor in chief has “made up a lot of stories” and contended ominously that the journalist is “basically bad for the country.” Trump also contended that the media were so focused on the story because, this episode aside, “we’ve had two perfect months.” Setting aside the president’s propensity for hyperbole, it’s tough to see Trump suffering any serious political damage. His base of support has weathered far bleaker episodes than this, from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to his criminal conviction for falsifying business records. The group chat furor is a black eye for Trump — but one that will likely clear up soon enough. Vice President Vance One of the more substantive elements in Goldberg’s original story concerned Vance. The vice president was shown in the group chat expressing some skepticism about an urgent attack on Yemen. Basically, his argument was that Europe had more to gain from a strike against the Houthis than did the United States. At one point, a message from the Signal account in Vance’s name appeared to tell Hegseth: “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” Intriguingly, Vance also suggested that a strike on Yemen without Europe shouldering more of the burden would be out of step with Trump’s previous rhetoric. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance apparently wrote. On one hand, it was pretty mild dissent. On the other, it was notable that a Vance spokesperson told Goldberg, shortly before the original story published: “The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.” Jeffrey Goldberg Goldberg has been in the crosshairs of Trump, Hegseth and Waltz since the story broke. During the same event at which Trump made his “sleazebag” remarks, Waltz alleged that Goldberg “wants the world talking about more hoaxes.” There is no persuasive evidence that there was anything hoax-like about Goldberg’s story. Indeed, neither Trump nor the National Security Council nor Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have disputed that the group chat took place, despite having ample opportunity to do so when speaking about the episode. Goldberg has even received praise from some quarters for not publishing the most sensitive elements of the chat, apparently out of concern for national security. As the smoke clears, one thing is clear: It’s a huge — and bizarre — scoop for The Atlantic editor in chief. ...read more read less