War by group chat fiasco exposes the shambolic heart of Trump’s White House

The shocking mistake that led to classified information on military strikes being shared with a journalist should have been impossible to make, writes Jon Sopel. The messages also reveal the raw disdain Trump’s team has for their European counterparts

Oh, my. Well, what was your reaction when you heard the US government was discussing classified military information on a group chat? This is probably unworthy, but I laughed; I laughed an incredulous, gob-smacked laugh. I mean of all the people in all of the world to mistakenly add to your Signal group about strikes in Yemen, you choose the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine, a periodical that has been sharply critical of the Trump administration. Not only that, Jeffrey Goldberg really knows his stuff on matters of national security.

So many questions arise. If you know anything about the handling of confidential information in the US, you know this should be impossible. Sure, things leak, and I will write in a moment about what happened when information was leaked to me about a military strike during Trump’s first term. But to add a journalist’s name to this kind of chain? Unthinkable.

Talk to US politicians and they will tell you how they had to go into the SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) to be briefed on something sensitive. An office within an office where no mobile devices can be taken and no phone signals or eavesdropping devices can penetrate. This is where the most confidential information is meant to be communicated.

But here, on a commercial messaging company, the VP, the national security advisor, the secretary of state, the defence secretary, the White House chief of staff, and the treasury secretary were happily sharing the most highly classified information about strikes in Yemen with a journalist.

When the Goldberg story broke, the reactions were utterly predictable. Donald Trump said he didn’t know anything about it when confronted by reporters. And the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth went off on one – he railed against the journalist in question as being an untrustworthy liar. Had it been a less trustworthy journalist, it could have been a lot worse for the administration. Goldberg redacted key operational bits from his piece in deference to the importance of national security.

Reading the full piece in The Atlantic you are left with some other impressions. There is the casualness of the exchanges. A lot of use of emojis to discuss strikes on the Houthis that left over 50 dead – you know the sort of thing: the strong arm emoji, fire, prayer, stars and stripes etc.

But the other thing – and I am sure this is the takeout in Paris, Berlin, Rome and London – is the utter contempt for Europe that drips from the Signal exchanges. JD Vance wonders why the US is getting involved in protecting shipping in the Red Sea, when precious little US trade goes through the Suez Canal – only 3 per cent compared to 40 per cent for Europeans.

When Hegseth replies that it is sending an important message to the Houthis and to the rest of the world, Vance replies: “If you think we should do it, let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

And this is a view Hegseth embraces fully. “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Do I gently point out here that the only country to invoke Article 5 of the Nato Treaty (where an attack on one is an attack on all) has been the US after 9/11 – and then European nations rallied to the call to assist the Americans in Afghanistan. There was then a discussion among the principals small group on how they should invoice Europe for this military action.

Given public pronouncements maybe we shouldn’t be surprised about this hostility. But when JD Vance makes a speech in Munich – as he did at the security conference – we shouldn’t be surprised. It is performative; a way of sending a message. But when you see this is what they’re saying in private, you see the raw disdain in which we Europeans are held.

Also, the most important part of the special relationship between the US and the UK is intelligence sharing. Am sure there will be those at MI6 or GCHQ asking whether there is a need for a rethink about how trustworthy the US side is in these matters.

But it looks like nothing will happen. Trump says he has confidence in his national security team. It wasn’t always like this, though.

During Trump’s first administration, I was in receipt of leaked information that the US was about to launch military strikes against Syria over their use of chemical weapons. It was late afternoon on a Friday. I was told the French and British would be involved in the airstrikes. They would happen later that evening, and at 9pm, the president would address the nation from the White House.

I posted this on what was then Twitter, citing a well-placed source. The White House rubbished my tweet and told reporters to go and enjoy their Friday evening. Sure enough, the strikes happened, and the president gave a televised address at exactly 9pm – I should add to my relief; it would be quite a story to have got wrong.

Three days later I saw on my iPhone that I had a text message from my source. But although I could see I had a message on the front screen, I couldn’t open it when I went into my messages. I rang my informant, and this person said he had the same thing: a message from me that he couldn’t open. The advice from those who know was that our phones had been hacked and that we needed to strip them down and rebuild.

The conclusion was that someone in the US administration was keen to find out who my source was. And this was done by someone who knew how to do this.

But this was during Trump’s first administration. You know, the supposedly chaotic one where things were a daily shambles. Unlike the present one, where there is laser focus on delivery and a professionalism and organisation the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

You could have fooled me.