The Atlantic magazine on Wednesday published text messages from top Trump administration officials laying out minute-by-minute operational details and exact weapons to be used in strikes against the Houthis in Yemen earlier this month– after the White House tried to deny classified details were shared in the bombshell Signal chat snafu.  

The mag’s top editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, published additional snippets of the “Houthi PC small group channel” that revealed specifics of the March 15 strike.

“If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests — or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media — the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds,” the editor wrote, referring to one message fired off by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.”

Goldberg initially revealed Monday that he was inadvertently added March 11 to a Signal message chain in which top Trump administration officials — including Hegseth, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and Vice President JD Vance  — discussed bombing the Houthi terror group in Yemen.

Breaking down the military terms used in Signal group chat

• “Trigger Based” = Sensors used to confirm ID of target
• “Strike Drones on Target” = Drones bomb target
• “Sea-based Tomahawks” = Cruise missiles fired from at least one submarine
• “OPSEC” = Operational security
• “Positive ID” = Terrorist’s ID confirmed
• BDA = Battle damage assessment after strike

Hegseth’s first text – titled “TEAM UPDATE” – featured timestamps of the strikes as they were unfolding.

“TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch,” the message began.

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” Hegseth continued, before adding: “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).”

Goldberg noted the first text was fired off 31 minutes before the first US warplanes launched and the subsequent strikes unfolded.

Hegseth continued to inform the group chat of the play-by-play, writing that at 2:10 p.m., “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),” he wrote.

“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”

“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline),” Hegseth continued, before adding “Godspeed to our Warriors.”

Then, at 1:48 p.m., Goldberg said he received a text from Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, relaying real-time intelligence from the attack site.

Trump and other top administration officials have so far downplayed the text saga, insisting that no sensitive national security materials were ever disclosed.

“There was nothing in there that compromised [sic] and it had no impact on the attack,” Trump told radio host Vince Coglianese on Wednesday after the full texts were released. 

The president called the incident “not a big deal” — blaming a staffer for accidentally adding Goldberg to the chain– and said they could know what the full story of what happened by the end of the day.

“Somebody in my group either messed up or it’s a bad Signal,” Trump said.

Trump’s top lawyer Alina Habba told reporters Wednesday morning that the texts are “something that they’re making a big to do about nothing. A reporter that is trying to get clout.”

Other White House officials rushed to X to say the texts were not “war plans.”

“This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe — who were among the 18 officials included in the Signal messaging channel – were adamant they didn’t divulge classified information when Democrats grilled them during a Tuesday Senate hearing.

At one point, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) quizzed the pair over who determined that the material on the Signal chat wasn’t classified – but no one gave a clear answer.

They both said they didn’t “recall” whether there were “specific weapons systems being named” in the group chat in the hearing — despite the texts now showing that Hegseth spoke about F-18s.

“I don’t recall specific timing,” Gabbard also said. 

The White House has so far stood by the administration’s use of Signal as a mode of communication.

Waltz has denied knowing how Goldberg was added, repeatedly saying he doesn’t know the journalist and has never “communicated” with him. 

The national security adviser claimed Tuesday night on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that the contact information was “sucked” into his phone, arguing that a staffer was not responsible.

“Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number there?” Waltz explained.

“So, of course I didn’t see this loser in the group,” he said of Goldberg. “It looked like someone else.”

“Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened by some other technical means is something we’re trying to figure out.”

It appears likely that whoever added Goldberg to the Signal group confused his “JG” username with that of Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Representative who regularly attends National Security Council meetings. 

The national security adviser doubled down on X Wednesday, insisting the disclosures didn’t amount to anything significant and offering up a nonsequitur defense of his boss.

“No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests,” Waltz wrote.

In his own X post, Hegseth rattled off a near-identical summation of what the leaked war plans didn’t include, pointing the finger at Goldberg and the media at large without accepting a shred of responsibility for the fiasco.

“We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes.”

Despite the key players involved in the scandal’s insistence that the slip-up was no big deal, security experts The Post spoke to had a very different take.

“This was the Secretary of Defense relaying operational information regarding our ongoing actions against a foreign adversary,” said Dan Meyer, partner at Tully Rinckey specializing in national security issues.

“It’s operational data. It’s about an ongoing mission. It was classified, and it doesn’t have to be marked. It doesn’t have to say secret or top secret on it. It was classified.”

Meyer said the threshold for what’s considered classified when it comes to troop movements is actually substantially lower than the top administration officials are leading the public to believe.

“If you’re a sailor on the USS Ronald Reagan and you write home to mama and you say the ship is going to make a port call in Roda, Spain, at the end of the deployment in a month — that’s classified information,” he explained.

“The Secretary of Defense should have known better, not only because he’s the Secretary of Defense, but he’s a veteran. He has been trained in this already,” he added. “He didn’t serve as some special adviser to some donut eater in the E ring. He actually was out there with boots on the ground. So he knew better. And the same with the national security adviser. His whole job is to set up secure communications for the president.”

Michael Pastor, a New York Law School professor specializing in cybersecurity, said the errant texts constitute a shocking breach of security protocols.

“Those of us who are in the cybersecurity community – we don’t tend to shock easily … I’m floored by what I’m seeing here. The individuals on this chat … these are the people who we expect to have the most sensitive and classified and important information of anyone in government,” he said.

“I don’t know if we can grasp the extent of the potential harm here.”

He also pointed out that the messages themselves — as well as the medium in which they were relayed — raise some uncomfortable questions, including whether the use of an unsecured, third-party app for this conversation meant war plans in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza or elsewhere were also being discussed in such a cavalier manner.

“It looked to me like this is the way business is done,” he said.

“Our cybersecurity enemies work 24/7 to inflict harm on our government, on our critical infrastructure and our people. What they are thinking right now is that if the people at the apex  of the national security apparatus in America are this careless with cybersecurity hygiene, can you imagine how many vulnerabilities there must be all the way through the ranks of  the CIA, and the Department of Defense and the State Department.”

Additional reporting by Priscilla DeGregory and Joshua Christenson