The tests corner the pentagon by the chat error of the Yemen attack

Instead of assuming responsibilities, they focused their attacks on the journalist who revealed the incident – added by mistake by the National Security Minister to the Chat – accusing him of lying and exaggerating. While political and media pressure grew, the response was to try to divert attention: Vice President JD Vance announced a striking trip to Greenland -territory that Trump already expressed his desire to annex -and the president himself announced new tariffs to the automobile industry, seeking to mark the agenda with high economic effect measures.

Fierce attacks to the journalist Jeffrey Goldbergwho did not reveal the existence of the group of messages until after the attacks in Yemen concluded successfully and that, in addition, he previously notified the White House before publishing, had a counterproductive effect. Although initially part of the content, its magazine, ‘The Atlantic’ was reserved, ended up spreading most of the shared messages in the group, which reflected an improper tone of a high -level conversation: emoticons, flags, fists, explosions and phrases in capital letters, closer to a chat between friends than to a discussion about confidential military operations.

The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegsethhe wrote, using capital letters as if communicated on social networks, the take-off schedules of the f-18 fighters and the release of Missile Tomahawk. Meanwhile, two other participants -including Vice President Vance and the National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz– They celebrated in real time the destruction of buildings and the death of an objective identified as “the Missile Chief” of the Hutis. In the operation there were half a hundred dead.

«Collapsed building. We had multiple positive identifications. Pete, Kurilla, the intelligence community: great work, ”Waltz wrote. To what Vance responded with an emphatic: “Excellent.” Then came the emojis: fist, flag, fire. At another time, Waltz said the team in the theater of operations had made him “great”, and Susie Wiles, Trump’s Cabinet Chief, wrote: “God bless you.”

In addition to the informal tone and sometimes frivolous, the messages reveal an alarming pattern: high -level comments on strategic decisions, such as the need to demand economic compensation to Europe if the United States “restored freedom of navigation” in the Red Sea. Hegesh, addressing the vice president, said: «I totally share your contempt for European parasitism. It is pathetic ». Again, in capital letters. Another participant, Stephen MillerTrump advisor, he suggested that, if Europe did not pay, the US should “extract an additional economic benefit.”

The severity of the episode is not only in the filtered operational details -with specific dates, schedules and objectives -but in the naturalness with which high positions of the government transmitted that information through unofficial channels, without security protocols or any supervision.

What in any other administration would have been considered a state crisis, in this White House it was dispatched as an anecdote. If the events had occurred under a Democratic government, Trump’s team would have demanded immediate resignations. However, now that those involved are their own officials, minimizes them.

The presidential spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, tried to reduce importance to the case: “No war plans were discussed.” The nuance, however, was revealing: it was not a war, but a specific attack. And, despite this, he acknowledged that the operations against the Houthi rebels in Yemen continue and continue, given that, he said, they have the support of Iran.

Asked at a press conference if that data had to be classified, Leavitt eluded any responsibility and transferred the decision to the Secretary of Defense, which shared the details in the chat. “I refer to the statements of the Secretary of Defense … do you trust him or Jeffrey Goldberg, who is registered as a Democratic voter?” The defense was not technical or institutional: it was purely political. When journalists wanted to know how to describe a series of messages in which coordinates and details of military operations were shared, Leavitt said it was “a debate about policies.” Goldberg, the journalist, who received access to the chat, decided not to publish the messages until they ensure that they no longer represented an operational risk. He did it only after President Trump and several of his officials publicly denied that they had shared “war plans” or sensitive information.

Violation of the Secrets Law

Never before had it been documented that high positions of the Pentagon and the US intelligence agencies shared in real time military plans with that level of detail in an informal channel and without supervision. The posterior reaction of those involved has been minimizing the incident, denying that it was classified information. However, the facts and messages – now public – suggest otherwise.

What is most surprising is not only the content, but the style: while lethal attacks were executed, US national security leaders wrote short messages, with enthusiastic phrases and celebratory emojis, as if it were a conversation about a football match or a meeting between colleagues. That Banality of languagein contrast to the seriousness of the actions they describe, it has aroused criticism both inside and outside the country about the degradation of strategic deliberation standards in the highest circle of American power.

In previously scheduled appearances in the House of Representatives, the United States intelligence chiefs faced a tense and reproach -loaded atmosphere. The revelation of new messages from the Signal Group – in which detailed plans were shared for attacks in Yemen – put the ropes against the ropes Tulsi Gabbard, Intelligence director, and John Ratcliffeof the CIA, who last day, before the Senate, had said that it was not classified information.

Democratic deputy Jim Himes dismantled that argument reading explicit fragments of the conversation, where weapons, schedules and objectives were mentioned. Gabbard replied that he did not remember the details, which caused disbelief. Himes reminded him that, according to the guidelines of his office, that information should be classified as “high secret.” Gabbard insisted that he could not comment more for the existence of a lawsuit.