Security experts expressed mixed views on the sensitive information shared recently in a Signal group chat, with both agreeing the incident represents a significant security breach despite what appears to be minimal operational impact.
At the center of the debate is whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s messages detailing planned U.S. airstrikes in Yemen constituted a classified war plan.
The Atlantic’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to a group chat on the discrete Signal messaging app, and on Monday published an account of officials accidentally leaking what he called “war plans” to him. He released the full messages on Wednesday.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Richard Newton called the leak “an extraordinary breach of security” that raises serious concerns about operational communications among top national security officials.
While the leaked details about the planned strikes did not necessarily compromise the mission, Newton said there were broader implications of sensitive information being exposed.
Matthew “Whiz” Buckley, a former Navy fighter pilot, characterized the incident as an “unforced error” but maintained that the leak would not have fundamentally altered the military’s operational capabilities.
“The president could have emailed Yemen these plans, and it would not have changed the outcome,” Buckley said on NewsNation’s “Elizabeth Vargas Reports.”
Both military veterans acknowledged that while the specific Yemen strike might not have been critically compromised, the incident highlights dangerous communication practices at the highest levels of national security leadership.
Newton, who previously oversaw global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed that the information shared — including operational planning details and weapon systems information — would likely be classified.
He recommended moving sensitive discussions away from commercial messaging platforms such as Signal and back to secure military communication channels.
Retired Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack cautioned against underestimating the Houthis, describing them as a sophisticated adversary capable of integrating advanced military capabilities.
“Our adversaries are watching and learning,” Zwack said Wednesday on NewsNation’s “CUOMO,” saying that the incident provides unprecedented insight into U.S. military decision-making processes for China, Russia and Iran.
Tracy Walder, a former CIA and FBI agent, provided an even more pointed critique.
She said unequivocally that such a breach would typically result in immediate termination, emphasizing that sensitive operational information should never be shared on platforms such as Signal.
“If I did something like this on Signal and leaked this kind of information prior to an attack happening, I most likely would have been fired,” she told NewsNation.
Walder raised additional concerns about the leak’s potential impact on intelligence gathering, saying that human assets might become less willing to provide critical information if they sense a lack of operational security.
Both experts agreed that the incident could significantly damage international intelligence-sharing relationships, particularly with the Five Eyes alliance, made up of major English-speaking nations.
Zwack stressed the importance of trust in intelligence operations, arguing that such breaches require immediate acknowledgment and corrective action to maintain collaborative relationships with key allies.
“This is all about trust, especially if you’re downrange and you’re really, really relying on each other,” Zwack said. “And yes, screwups happen, but it’s so important to take responsibility and work to clean it up.”
While acknowledging Signal’s potential utility for routine communications, both Zwack and Walder were clear that the platform is not appropriate for sensitive operational details.
“Encrypted does not mean classified, and I think that’s where everybody is getting it wrong,” Zwack said.
Walder pointed out that Signal, despite being encrypted, has been penetrated by multiple foreign intelligence services.
The White House has maintained that no war plans were disclosed, but the text messages reportedly contained precise strike timing and weapons details sent hours before the attack.
