Did a White Hat Hacker Add Jeffrey Goldberg to the Trump Admin’s Signal Chat to Protect U.S. Operatives?

In early March 2025, a bizarre security blunder unfolded within the Trump administration’s inner circle. A Signal group chat dubbed “Houthi PC small group”—intended for sensitive geopolitical and possibly military discussions—became a public spectacle when Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, inexplicably appeared among its members. The official story? National Security Adviser Michael Waltz “accidentally” added him. But what if this wasn’t a slip of the finger? What if a white hat hacker—those ethical infiltrators who expose vulnerabilities for the greater good—deliberately slipped Goldberg into the chat to blow the whistle on the Trump team’s reckless security practices, shielding U.S. military and intelligence operatives from the fallout of their negligence?

The setup was a clown show begging for exposure. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, was reportedly in Moscow, possibly tapping away on a personal phone within spitting distance of the Kremlin. Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, was bumbling around India, treating Signal like a foolproof spy gadget. This crew thought an encrypted app could save them from their own incompetence, but Signal’s airtight encryption—boasting no logs or tracking of who adds members—means nothing if your device is a sitting duck. A recent Der Spiegel report, echoed by The Guardian, revealed that password details for Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Gabbard were floating around in hacked data dumps and commercial providers—publicly accessible to anyone with a few bucks and a grudge. Their phones were likely compromised long before Goldberg’s cameo, meaning malicious actors could’ve been eavesdropping on this “secure” chain for weeks.

Enter the white hats. These hackers don’t just break in for kicks—they aim to fix what’s broken. Imagine one infiltrating Waltz’s already-breached phone, spotting the “Houthi PC small group” chat, and clocking the jaw-dropping carelessness: operational details about Yemen strikes, shared by Hegseth, that could’ve tipped off adversaries and endangered American lives. Adding Goldberg—a high-profile journalist with a knack for rattling Trump’s cage—could’ve been their masterstroke. It’s not about humiliation; it’s about forcing accountability. By leaking this to The Atlantic, they’d ensure the world saw the Trump administration’s amateur hour before it cost soldiers or spies their lives.

Who might these white hats be? One possibility is a rogue faction within the U.S. cybersecurity community—think ex-NSA or Cyber Command operatives turned vigilantes, fed up with political appointees treating national security like a group text thread. Groups like Anonymous, though less active lately, have a history of targeting government overreach or incompetence—could a splinter cell have pivoted to protect the rank-and-file? Or perhaps it’s an international outfit, like a European hacktivist collective, aiming to nudge the U.S. into tightening its game amid NATO tensions. Even a lone wolf—a patriotic coder with a moral compass—could’ve pulled this off, leveraging those leaked passwords to stage an intervention.

The Trump team’s reliance on Signal was laughably naive. Witkoff in Moscow? Russian surveillance—FSB or SVR—would’ve pounced on that personal device like flies on honey. They wouldn’t brag about it, though—silence is their leverage, quietly harvesting intel while the admin spilled secrets. Same in India, where Gabbard’s chatter could’ve been scooped up by RAW (Research and Analysis Wing). Neither Moscow nor New Delhi would’ve added Goldberg—why expose their own eavesdropping? That leaves the white hats as the likeliest culprits, acting not for chaos but for clarity.

Fallout: Morale, Loyalty, and Allies

If this theory holds, the ripple effects could shake the U.S. military and intelligence communities to their core. Picture the grunts in Yemen or the spooks in the Middle East—already on edge, dodging Houthi drones or Iranian proxies—learning their leaders were texting battle plans like it’s a fantasy football league. Hegseth’s leaked details, as Goldberg reported, included targets and timing—stuff that, in the wrong hands, could’ve turned a strike into an ambush. Trust in the chain of command would erode fast. Junior officers and enlisted personnel, who face court-martial for far less, might see this as a double standard—loyalty fraying as they wonder why the top brass gets a pass.

The intelligence community, already prickly about political meddling, could turn downright mutinous. Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, both in the chat, oversee agencies where leaks can kill. If their own devices were pwned—passwords floating on the dark web—how can operatives trust them to protect sources or covert ops? Morale might tank, with seasoned agents quietly disengaging or leaking their own gripes to signal dissent. A white hat’s intervention could be seen as a twisted lifeline—proof someone’s watching the watchers—but it’d still sting.

Allies would feel the heat too. Imagine the UK or Israel, key partners in Middle East ops, realizing their U.S. counterparts were this sloppy. London’s GCHQ or Tel Aviv’s Mossad might pull back, sharing less intel to avoid blowback from Washington’s sieve-like security. NATO could get jittery—Poland or the Baltics, eyeing Russia, might question U.S. reliability. If a white hat did this to protect American lives, they’d inadvertently expose a vulnerability that makes allies think twice about trusting Trump’s crew.

The Bigger Picture

The “accident” excuse from Waltz doesn’t pass the smell test—not with compromised phones and a journalist dropping in like a plot twist. A white hat hacker fits the puzzle: someone skilled enough to exploit those leaked credentials, noble enough to aim for exposure over espionage. Their goal? Not to topple the administration, but to slap it awake before its negligence puts boots and brains on the ground at risk. The Trump team’s response—attacking Goldberg while dodging the breach—only fuels the speculation. If this was a white hat job, it’s a warning shot: fix your security, or someone less friendly will exploit it next time.

The military and intel rank-and-file might quietly cheer such a move, even as it dents their faith in leadership. Allies, though, could see it as a red flag—proof the U.S. is a liability until it gets its house in order. Whether this theory’s true or not, one thing’s clear: the “Houthi PC small group” fiasco isn’t just a gaffe—it’s a glaring neon sign that the Trump administration’s playing fast and loose with lives on the line. And maybe, just maybe, a hacker with a conscience decided enough was enough.