Month: March 2025

On Wednesday, The Atlantic posted a detailed follow-up story, including transcript of text messages and screenshots disclosing the full text chain from the Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

In an article titled “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal,” Goldberg quoted from texts in which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth detailed types of U.S. military aircraft and the timing of recent airstrikes against Houthi militias in Yemen (the texts did not, however, include information about specific targets).

The updated after comes after the White House and top administration officials involved in the chat claimed no “war plans” were discussed. In testimony at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe both claimed no classified material was shared in the group chat. Ratcliffe said his “communications … in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.” They also both testified Tuesday that Hegseth was the “original classifying authority” on the chat.

Goldberg and journalist Shane Harris said in The Atlantic article published Wednesday that “statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump — combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts — have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions.  There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

The screenshots include Hegseth sharing details of the timing and targets of the attack on Houthis in Yemen earlier this month, and were discussed in the chat.  Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, at 11:44 a.m. ET on Saturday, March 15: “TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”  The ensuing message included the timing of the expected strikes and what type of weapons would be used.

Goldberg and Shane Harris wrote: “This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m.  This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi ‘Target Terrorist,’ was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.”

The White House has not denied the authenticity of the message; however, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X Wednesday morning: “The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans. This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”

National security adviser Mike Waltz also wrote on X Wednesday morning: “No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”  Waltz also asserted that the sources of the intelligence were not discussed but did not address the timing or weapons packages used in the strikes.

Editorial credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a government regulationt to regulate “ghost gun” kits that allow people to easily obtain parts needed to assemble firearms from online sellers.

The 7-2 decision came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion saying that the kits can be regulated under the federal Gun Control Act, saying the court had “no trouble rejecting” the arguments made by challengers. Gorsuch wrote:  “The Gun Control Act embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,” and indicated that the ruling is limited, meaning that some products that require “sufficient time, tools and expertise” to create a gun would not necessarily be covered.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Thomas writing: “The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm.’ That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.”

Issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the regulation has been in effect since August 2022 as litigation has made its way through the court system, with the Supreme Court in August 2023 refusing to put it on hold. Manufacturers and sellers have to obtain licenses, mark products with serial numbers, require background checks and maintain records.

The Gun Control Act says the regulations apply to “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may be readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” It also covers the “frame or receiver of any such weapon.” The frame or receiver is the part of a firearm that houses other components, including the firing mechanism.

The legal challenge was brought by Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren, who own components they want to use to build guns. The plaintiffs contended the 1968 Gun Control Act didn’t apply to weapon parts kits and that the administrative action was an overreach.

Editorial credit: creativetan / Shutterstock.com