In the famous film “The tail wags the dog” American political technologists stage a war – not to protect the country, not because of a real threat, but to save the rating of the president, who has fallen into a scandal. “A small victorious war” – that’s what they call it. The strip was a grotesque depiction of American politics, but reality seems to have caught up with the cartoon.
A journalist from The Atlantic accidentally gets into a closed chat of the Signal group, where the upcoming strike on Houthi targets in Yemen is being discussed at the highest level. There is no place in the discussion for questions of security or global stability – instead, the main topics are: how it will “look”, how not to lose face, how to explain to allies. The war does not start in the White House or the Pentagon – it is born in the messenger, between the phrases “we must restore restraint” and “we will look weak”.
This is not a simulation. This is a portrait of decision-making in the new reality. Realities where strategy is fueled by emotional reaction, and “protection of interests” is more like a political-technological case.
Press “send” and rockets fly
Let’s start with a quote – a fragment of Jeffrey Goldberg’s story: “On Tuesday, March 11th, I received a request to connect to Signal from user Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who want more privacy than other text messaging services. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor. However, I did not assume that the request came from the real Michael Waltz. I’ve met him in the past, and while I didn’t find it particularly strange that he could reach out to me, I did find it somewhat unusual given the Trump administration’s fractious relationship with reporters — and Trump’s occasional fixation on me in particular. It immediately occurred to me that someone might be masquerading as Volz to trap me somehow. Today, it is not uncommon for criminals to try to get journalists to share information that can be used against them.
I accepted the connection request, hoping that it was a real national security adviser and that he wanted to talk about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important topic. Two days later, Thursday, at 4:28 p.m., I received a notification that I had been added to the Signal chat group. It was called “a small group of PC Houthis”“.
So, in March 2025, journalist and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, by chance got into into a secret chat on the Signal app created by President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz. The group included key figures of the new Trump administration: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, adviser Stephen Miller and others. They discussed in detail the upcoming military operation, the impact on the world economy and European allies. There was criticism from Vance that the US was “saving Europe” again, but in the end everyone agreed with the decision to attack.
On Saturday, March 15, at 11:44 a.m., US Defense Secretary Hegseth posted a detailed plan for a strike on Yemen in a chat — with targets, types of weapons, and sequence. He directly indicated when the explosions would begin – at 1:45 pm EST. The journalist was watching, and indeed, it was precisely at this time that the explosions began in Sanaa.
After the impact, the chat room exploded with greetings such as “Great job”, “Bravo team”, “God bless”. The result was a message from Volz on TV, where he emphasized the determination of the Trump administration.
Journalistic feedback
The journalist realized that the chat was real. He sent official requests to Volz, Hegseth and others involved in the closed group. US National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes confirmed the authenticity of the chat to Goldberg and said an investigation is underway into how he could have accidentally been included in the group.
The lawyers acknowledged that such use of Signal to discuss the operation potentially violated the Espionage Act and government records retention laws. The Signal app is not certified to transmit classified information. Also, some messages were set to be destroyed after a week or a month, which is against the archiving law.
The Atlantic reminds: Donald Trump once demanded that Hillary Clinton be jailed for using private mail, while now his administration is grossly violating security standards.
The journalist’s conclusion is that he witnessed an unprecedented leak of secret US military plans just in the messenger, accidentally added to the chat by mistake. And this is not a fake, but a real operation, which ended with strikes on Yemen and the death of at least 53 people.
This incident caused a significant uproar in the US, as the use of unauthorized applications to discuss classified information is a serious breach of security.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied, that military plans were discussed in the chat, noting: “No one sent military plans via text message”.
Instead, the US National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the messages and launched an investigation into how Goldberg was accidentally added to the chat.
President Trump said he was unaware of the incident and expressed disbelief in The Atlantic.
War in one click
The well-known Ukrainian journalist Mustafa Nayem, commenting on the case with Goldberg on his Facebook, wrote: the USA definitely has the right and resources to protect its own interests. But it is becoming more and more noticeable that the argumentation for such protection is less and less like a cold analysis of threats and more and more like a mixture of emotional irritation, miscalculations to preserve reputation and claims to allies.
For Ukraine, this case is not a reason for disappointment, but an opportunity to better understand how decision-making mechanisms actually work, even at the highest level. It is alarming at the level and form of these decisions, but certainly should not lead to frustration or resentment that we are not understood there. And they are not obliged to understand, because there are other laws, a different political logic, and other priorities.
Where we have come to expect strategic prudence, the logic of an internal agenda, short-term image gains, or media pressure often prevails. This is a different dynamic — emotional, fast, reactive.
And, perhaps, the biggest paradox is that these mechanisms are becoming less and less formal and more and more reminiscent of the approaches to which we ourselves are accustomed. Earlier, it seemed that “it doesn’t happen like that”. But, as we see, it happens.
Vance vs. Trump
There is a really important detail in Jeffrey Goldberg’s piece that goes beyond the classified data leak scandal. The editor of “The Atlantic” draws attention to the fact that Vice President JD Vance showed contempt for Donald Trump in a private conversation.
In public, Vance is always the voice of the president — amplifying his messages, often even more bluntly and aggressively. But in a closed conversation, he allowed himself a phrase that clearly demonstrates distance and doubts about Trump’s competence: “I’m not sure the president realizes how inconsistent that is with his message about Europe right now.”.
This moment is very revealing – it shows the internal distrust even among Trump’s inner circle and shows the real dynamics of decision-making in the team.
Vance is tired of saving Europe
“In a surprising story about the Signal group coordinating airstrikes on Yemen, Vice President JD Vance once again appears driven by deep anti-European resentment“, — former Prime Minister of Sweden Carl Bildt wrote in X.
The publication gave a similar assessment of Vance’s words The Guardian:
The leaked Signal chat showed not only the chaos in the decision-making process, but also the true attitude of US Vice President JD Vance towards Europe. Vance, while discussing the strike against the Houthis in Yemen, insisted that the US was once again doing what Europe should be doing. He bluntly stated that he is not sure if President Trump understands how much this contradicts his own message about Europe.
Vance opposed an immediate strike, citing risks to the economy and likely rising oil prices. He suggested postponing the operation and first explaining to the public why it was necessary. His arguments confirmed a deep distrust of Europe and a reluctance to “save the Europeans again.”
Analysts and diplomats in Europe consider Vance dangerous for the transatlantic alliance. He was even called “obsessed with the idea of driving a wedge between the United States and Europe.” At the same time, almost no one in the US administration itself openly defends Europe or NATO. Against this background, Steve Witkoff, who is close to Trump, said that the Persian Gulf could become more important for the United States than Europe, because Europe, according to him, is “incompetent.” And Tucker Carlson added: “It would be good for the world, because Europe is dying“.
Lessons for Europe
The publication Bloomberg offers Europeans to think, which comes out with the material “Text messages from US officials confirm the fears of European allies.”
Amid hostile rhetoric, European allies can now think about the consequences of sharing classified information with the Americans, the newspaper notes. “I worry that this negligence will make our allies think twice before sharing sensitive information with us,” Bloomberg quoted Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, as saying.
This story became not just another scandal in Washington, but an alarming signal for the whole world. It turned out that decisions about the start of war can be made not within the walls of the White House or the Pentagon, but in closed chats of messengers – between remarks about image and the fear of appearing weak. For US allies, it’s a reason to wonder how reliable this system remains, when even matters of war and peace are decided by pressing the “send” button.
