BY COMFORT OGBONNA

President Donald Trump voiced support for his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, on Tuesday after a journalist reported that Waltz had mistakenly included him in a discussion about sensitive war plans on the messaging app Signal.

“Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Trump said in a phone interview with NBC News.

The revelation sparked outrage among Democrats and national security experts, prompting U.S. senators to question top intelligence officials about the incident.

On Monday, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported that Waltz had inadvertently added him to an encrypted Signal group chat on March 13. The chat was allegedly being used to coordinate U.S. military action against Yemen’s rebel group in response to their attacks on Red Sea shipping.

A spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the chat appeared to be authentic, while the White House stated it was investigating how Goldberg’s number was added to the conversation.

Democrats, along with some Republicans, demanded an inquiry into what seemed to be a major security lapse. Sensitive and classified information is not supposed to be shared on commercial messaging apps, and the inclusion of an unknown number raised further concerns.

On Tuesday, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned two officials who were part of the chat—Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—during the panel’s annual Worldwide Threats hearing.

In his opening statement, Senator Mark Warner, the committee’s vice chairman, condemned the breach. He argued that if a military or intelligence officer had done something similar, they would face immediate termination.

“Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members of this administration, and according to reports, two of our witnesses here today, were part of a group chat that discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information—including weapons packages, targets, timing, and even the name of an active CIA agent,” Warner said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back against Goldberg’s report, accusing him of exaggerating the story. She claimed in a post on X that no war plans or classified information had been shared in the chat.

However, Goldberg’s article stated that, just hours before the U.S. launched airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthis on March 15, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted operational details in the group. These allegedly included information on targets, the weapons to be used, and the attack’s sequencing.

Goldberg noted that he withheld those specifics for national security reasons but characterized the use of Signal for such discussions as “shockingly reckless.”

It remains unclear why top officials chose to use Signal rather than secure government communication channels.

Cybersecurity expert Rocky Cole noted that while Signal is widely trusted within security circles, the issue lies in the vulnerability of mobile devices themselves.

“The risk of discussing highly sensitive national security information on Signal isn’t so much that Signal itself is insecure,” Cole explained. “It’s the fact that nation-state threat actors have a demonstrated ability to remotely compromise entire mobile phones. If the phone itself isn’t secure, all Signal messages on that device can be read.”

Goldberg reported that accounts appearing to belong to Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ratcliffe, Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and senior National Security Council officials were included in the chat.

While some Democrats called for those involved in the chat to lose their security clearances or resign, there were no immediate signs that any officials would face consequences.

Instead, White House officials and some Republican allies sought to shift attention to the successful execution of the military operation against the Houthis, arguing that the controversy should not overshadow the effectiveness of the strike.