👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

The Atlantic has published the full Signal messages at the heart of the growing security scandal, revealing strike timings, military coordination, and the accidental inclusion of journalist Jeffrey Goldberg.

On Day 67, US correspondents James Matthews and Martha Kelner unpack why Goldberg was already unpopular with Trump, and what this episode says about the people driving American military and political decision-making.

Plus, Martha is confronted by Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who praises defence secretary Pete Hegseth… and tells Martha to “go back to your own country”.

If you’ve got a question you’d like James, Martha, and Mark to answer, you can email it to trump100@sky.uk.

Help us understand more about our listeners by taking our survey! 👉 This form 👈 should only take a few minutes to complete, and Sky anonymises the responses as much as possible. Thank you.

Don’t forget, you can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.

US President Donald Trump has announced a new 25% tariff on all imported cars.

Signing an executive order, Mr Trump said the tax would kick in on 2 April – what he has called “liberation day”.

This is when all his retaliatory import tariffs are supposed to take effect, but they have been delayed before.

It comes amid the continued fallout from the Signalgate security breach in Washington.

What was said in the Signal chat?

The move ratchets up the global trade war Mr Trump himself kicked off.

Speaking late on Wednesday, Mr Trump said the proposal: “Will continue to spur growth. We’ll effectively be charging a 25% tariff.”

However, the tariffs could be complicated as even American car makers source components from around the world – meaning they could also face higher costs and lower sales.

The announcement also drew swift condemnation from the European Union and from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who called it a “direct attack” on Canadian workers.

During his second term, Mr Trump has used tariffs frequently as a trade weapon.

He cited plans from South Korean car maker Hyundai to build a $5.8bn (£4.5bn) steel plant in Louisiana as evidence the economic measures would bring back manufacturing jobs.

Despite Mr Trump’s optimism, shares in General Motors fell by about 3% in Wednesday afternoon trading.

Ford’s stock was up slightly, but shares in Stellantis, the owner of Jeep and Chrysler, dropped nearly 4%.

Even American and foreign firms already with domestic plants still rely on Canada, Mexico and other countries for parts and finished vehicles – meaning prices could increase and sales decline as new factories take time to build.

Tariffs are a key part of Mr Trump’s efforts to reshape global trade relations.

He plans to impose what he calls “reciprocal” taxes on 2 April that would match tariffs and sales taxes levied by other nations.

He has already placed a 20% tax on all imports from China.

Similarly, he placed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, with a lower 10% tariff on Canadian energy products.

Signal security breach

As Mr Trump was keen to talk up his tariffs, the rest of Washington was discussing the security breach that rocked the Capitol.

Read more:
Atlantic publishes more texts from group chat
Trump White House rolls out playbook response
JD Vance announces trip to Greenland

In a group called “Houthi PC small group”, specific details of a US attack on Houthis were shared with intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, national security adviser Mike Waltz, vice president JD Vance and more.

However, a senior journalist for the magazine The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was also somehow added to the Signal group chat.

Goldberg published a story first on Monday about the incident.

The White House had sought to downplay the leak of the messages, saying no classified information had been disclosed.

Goldberg then published a follow-up story releasing the messages themselves earlier on Wednesday.

Concerns have been raised about the security of some of the most important members of the US administration using a commercial app.

During a hearing in front of Congress, some members outlined feared security issues with Signal.

A group chat of top US officials – which a journalist was accidentally added to – discussed plans to conduct airstrikes on Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis and fiery critique of “pathetic” Europe.

Editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was added to the “Houthi PC small group” on Signal on Thursday 13 March.

He wrote about what was said in the days that followed in his article The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.

The White House sought to downplay the incident – leading to a second article from The Atlantic going into more detail about discussion it said “veered toward the operational”.

Here’s what we know was said on encrypted messaging service Signal – in a group that included US vice president JD Vance, defence secretary Pete Hegseth, national security adviser Mike Waltz and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Thursday 13 March

This day was seemingly aimed at establishing who would make up the small group.

A message to the group, from Michael Waltz read: “Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.”

The message continued: “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.”

One minute later, the secretary of state Marco Antonio Rubio wrote: “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counsellor of the state department as his representative.

JD Vance wrote: “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, wrote: “Joe Kent for DNI.”

Nine minutes later, treasury secretary Scott Bessent wrote: “Dan Katz for Treasury.”

At 4.53pm Pete Hegseth wrote: “Dan Caldwell for DoD.”

And at 6.34pm, a user called “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” Someone called “John Ratcliffe” then wrote with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group.

Friday 14 March

At 8.05am, Mr Waltz texted the group: “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents [sic] guidance this morning in your high side inboxes,” with “high side” referring to classified computer systems.

“State and DOD [Department of Defence], we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am [morning] a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS [chief of staff], OVP [office of the vice president] and POTUS [president of the United States] are briefed.”

Mr Goldberg says at this point, a “fascinating” policy discussion commenced, during which JD Vance wrote: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.

“3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

At 8.27am, a message arrived from the Pete Hegseth reading: “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.

“Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both.

“We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC – operations security.

“I welcome other thoughts.”

Later in the conversation, Mr Waltz criticised the limited capabilities of European navies, writing: “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”

Mr Vance addressed Mr Hegseth in a message reading: “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

Mr Hegseth replied: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”

An account believed to be the deputy White House chief of staff, Stephen Miller, then said: “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

This was followed by the last text of the day, from Mr Hegseth, who wrote at 9.46am: “Agree.”

Saturday 15 March

At 11.44am, Mr Hegseth posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE”.

The Atlantic initially opted not to share what the update said, with Mr Goldberg writing in his article: “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, Central Command’s area of responsibility.”

But in a follow-up article published on Wednesday, The Atlantic shared more of the conversation from Saturday, including the team update.

It came after the White House had sought to downplay the leak of information about plans to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen – saying no classified information had been disclosed.

The text under Mr Hegseth’s “TEAM UPDATE” message read: “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM [Centcom – or Central Command – is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East] we are a GO for mission launch.”

The text continued: “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package).

“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)”.

Further texts by the Pentagon chief followed, the magazine reported: “1410: 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 also wrote: “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.” And then: “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”.

“We are currently clean on OPSEC” (operational security), he added.

“Godspeed to our Warriors.”

Mr Goldberg said the only person to respond to Mr Hegseth was Mr Vance, who wrote: “I will say a prayer for victory”, along with two prayer emojis.

He said it was at this point that he sat in his car in a supermarket car park, waiting to see if Houthi targets would be bombed.

At 1.48pm, Mr Waltz provided an update, which Mr Goldberg initially did not quote in full.

But in the second article, The Atlantic shared the message, which contained real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital city.

It read: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.”

The Atlantic reported that Mr Waltz was referring to Mr Hegseth, General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command and the intelligence community, or IC.

It said the reference to “multiple positive ID” suggested that US intelligence had confirmed the identities of the Houthi target, or targets.

At 1.54pm, Mr Vance responded to Mr Waltz’s message saying “What?” – apparently confused by its contents.

Mr Goldberg said it was at around 1.55pm that he went on X and searched Yemen, and saw reports of explosions being heard across Sanaa.

At 2pm, Mr Waltz responded on the group saying: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

A minute later, Mr Vance wrote back: “Excellent”.

35 minutes after, John Ratcliffe wrote: “A good start.”

Mr Goldberg said Mr Waltz responded with three emojis: a fist, an American flag and fire.

Later that afternoon, Mr Hegseth posted: “CENTCOM was/is on point. Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.”

Others soon joined in, including Mr Rubio, who wrote, “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” and Susie Wiles, who texted: “Kudos to all – most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.”

Mr Witkoff responded with five emojis: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags.

Tulsi Gabbard responded: “Great work and effects!”

Mr Goldberg said the after-action discussion included assessments of damage done, including the likely death of a specific individual – he did not say who.