'They invited me - now they're attacking me': Signal chat journalist speaks to BBC
When Jeffrey Goldberg published a bombshell story outlining how some of the most senior US officials had mistakenly shared sensitive information with him, he obtained the biggest scoop of the year. The Atlantic editor also became the prime target for every senior Trump administration official in Washington.
In the last couple of days, he's been called a "loser" and a "sleazebag" by President Donald Trump, as well as a liar and "scum" by US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, who appeared to have mistakenly added Goldberg to a group chat earlier this month.
Before he became a political lightning rod, however, Goldberg watched on his phone as cabinet officials - including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, CIA director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard - discussed the sensitive details, timings and targets of an upcoming military operation in Yemen. They did not seem to notice his presence.
In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, he told me it all began when he got a message on his phone, via the publicly available Signal messaging app, which allows users to send each other encrypted messages. It's popular among journalists and government officials. An account under Waltz's name had messaged him, which he assumed was a hoax.
"I wish there was a Le Carré quality here, you know," he said, referring to the late British spy novelist. "But he asked me to talk. I said yes. And next thing I know, I'm in this very strange chat group with the national security leadership of the United States."
As the fall-out of the episode has engulfed Washington, Waltz has taken responsibility for mistakenly adding Goldberg to the group chat, suggesting that he meant to invite somebody else.
He has insisted that he has never met the editor, saying: "I wouldn't know him if I bumped into him, if I saw him in a police lineup".
By Goldberg's account, the two have actually met several times, though he declined to go into detail about their relationship.
"He can say obviously whatever he wants, but I'm not commenting on my relationship or non-relationship," Goldberg told me. "As a reporter, I'm just not comfortable talking publicly about relationships that I may or may not have with people who are news makers."
Still, one thing is clear: you must already have someone's contact information to reach them on Signal, and so Waltz had Goldberg's phone number. The top security adviser has said he has asked Elon Musk, tech billionaire and the White House's government efficiency czar, to investigate how the mistake happened - a move that was ridiculed by Goldberg.
"Really, you're going to put Elon Musk onto the question of how somebody's phone number ends up in someone's phone? I mean you know, most 8-year-olds could figure it out," he said.
The bigger question? "Should you, as national security officials, be doing this on Signal on your phone?" Goldberg said.
In his Monday Atlantic story - the first to report his access to the chat - Goldberg withheld the precise details that were shared around the bombing mission that attacked Houthi rebel targets in Yemen on 14 March. But Trump administration officials downplayed the report, calling him a liar and challenging his claims that classified information was shared.
And so two days later, the magazine printed the full text messages, including several from Hegseth that included operational specifics. I asked him if that was a tough decision to make.
"Once Donald Trump said there was nothing to see here, essentially, and once Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe said there was no sensitive information, no classified information, et cetera - we felt like, hm, we disagree," he said. "They're saying that, and we're the ones who have the texts, so maybe people should see them."
There are text messages in the group chat - sent before the first wave of strikes - detailing exactly when F-18 fighter jets would take off, when the first bombs would drop on Houthi targets and when Tomahawk missiles were going be fired. Hegseth has pushed back, saying they were clearly not "war plans" and none of it was classified information.
President Trump expressed his support for Hegseth on Wednesday, saying he was "doing a great job" and describing Goldberg as a "sleazebag". The White House has also attempted to argue that the information shared was not technically war planning.
Goldberg did not appear swayed by their insults and claims.
"If Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, is texting me, telling me the attack was about to be launched on Yemen - telling me what kind of aircraft are going to be used, what kind of weapons are going to be used, and when the bombs are going to fall two hours after the text is received - that seems sensitive information, war-planning information to me," he said.
This isn't the first time that the veteran editor has been on the receiving end of Trump's ire: in 2020 he published a piece in The Atlantic where senior military officials quoted Trump as having referred to fallen American soldiers as "suckers" and "losers", something the president and his administration have vigorously denied.
I asked him how he felt about the vitriolic personal attacks against him, coming from the very highest levels of the government.
"This is their move. You never defend, just attack," Goldberg said. "So I'm sitting there, minding my own business. They invite me into this Signal chat and now they're attacking me as a sleaze bag, I don't even get it."
Trump has, so far, been defending his national security team and doesn't seem inclined to sack anyone over what he is calling a press "witch-hunt". But Goldberg says there's a widespread feeling in the White House that Waltz made a serious error, as well as deeper concern about how the incident is being handled.
"If you're a Air Force captain, currently working with the CIA and the State Department, and you mishandled sensitive information the way that they've obviously mishandled sensitive information? You'd be fired, you'd be prosecuted," Goldberg said.
He said there is now some "buzz" among the ranks around the apparently differing accountability standards for leaders in the Trump administration.
Goldberg didn't stick around in the chat for the fallout. He decided the responsible thing to do was to leave the group. Some journalists have expressed incredulity that he would voluntarily exit.
But what happens next will play out in the White House and Congress, where Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have demanded an investigation.
"There's a part of me that would love to see what else is happening in there. But there's a lot of different issues here related to law and ethics and all kinds of other issues that I really can't go into, " Goldberg said. "Believe me when I say that I made that decision with good advice from various parties."
Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.