Trump officials shared secret war plans in chat that included journalist | The Excerpt
On Tuesday’s episode of The Excerpt podcast: Paste BN Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer breaks down what happened when officials shared detailed secret plans for a U.S. strike on Iran-backed militants in Yemen with a group chat of top Trump administration officials that accidentally included a magazine editor. President Donald Trump says countries that buy oil and gas from Venezuela must pay a 25% tariff to the U.S. Postal workers rally nationwide over Trump's plan to dismantle USPS. Paste BN Personal Finance Reporter Daniel de Visé explains how Democrats and Republicans seem to occupy separate realities when it comes to inflation. Hear more about what your fellow Americans think about the economy on this week’s edition of Forum, a new initiative from the Paste BN Opinion team.
Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more Paste BN podcasts right here
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning, I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Tuesday, March 25th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today, the search for answers after Trump's top officials shared secret war plans in a chat that included a journalist. Plus a new tariff is on the way, this one pertaining to Venezuela. And when it comes to inflation, Democrats and Republicans seem to occupy separate realities.
♦
President Donald Trump's top officials shared secret war plans in a chat on the Signal application that included a journalist. I caught up with Paste BN domestic security correspondent Josh Meyer to discuss the ramifications. Hello, Josh.
Josh Meyer:
Hey Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
Interesting story here, Josh. So what exactly happened here with government officials and this Signal chat?
Josh Meyer:
So as far as we can tell, Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Magazine, was added to a Signal chat, which is a commercially available but encrypted app, by Mike Waltz, who's the National Security Advisor at the White House for President Trump. And then after that he watched all this back and forth between somebody identifying themselves as JD Vance, somebody identifying themselves as Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, of course, the defense secretary, and all of these people, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, all talking about whether and when we should be bombing the Houthi militia in Yemen. And so, he wrote in his Atlantic piece about this. I wasn't sure; I didn't believe that it could possibly be real. And then the bombs started falling. And what he meant by that was they said they were going to do it at a specific time and place, and then he watched on social media and found out that that's exactly what they did, which raises, of course, a lot of issues about discussing classified information in a potentially public setting and all sorts of other issues.
Taylor Wilson:
So we firmly can say, Josh, that this editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, saw classified information. Is that fair to say?
Josh Meyer:
That's what he says, yes. In fact, he said that he did not include a lot of it because it certainly indicated that it was classified. Goldberg said that there was information, very specific war planning information, in the chat that he kept out of the article for security reasons. And it does indicate that that's the case. I talked to several former national security officials, including one in the Trump administration who said that this is flat-out illegal. If it is as portrayed by Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor, you can't discuss war plans; you can't discuss operational details via a commercial messaging application. There are very specific government-approved channels that you can and that you have to use to do that. And that these very, very top Trump administration officials did not use them.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, so what sort of questions, Josh, does this now raise about this administration's handling of, I would say not just national security information, but also just how this administration is operating writ large?
Josh Meyer:
That's a good question, Taylor. You know, Trump in the past has really, really criticized Hillary Clinton's use of a private server for her emails when she served as Barack Obama's Secretary of State; that sparked an FBI investigation. And some people even say that that's what lost her the presidential election. But you know, this just shows that these people are being, if anything, less careful about that. They accidentally invited a journalist, somebody that they didn't know, to this top-secret chat, and then were discussing all of these war plans. And then, as Goldberg notes, once he dropped out of the chat after he realized that it was real, nobody even followed up to see who he was and why he was on the chat.
So it raises a lot of issues. Jim Himes, who's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he was horrified, "By reports that our most senior national security officials, including the heads of multiple agencies, shared sensitive and almost certainly classified information via a commercial messaging application, including imminent war plans." You really can't express it better than that. And what Himes said, continuing, he said, "If true, these actions are a brazen violation of laws and regulations that exist to protect the national security, including the safety of Americans serving in harm's way." So he's one of several people that's demanding an investigation into this. It just so happens that on Wednesday is the Worldwide Threats Hearing, in which all of these people, the heads of these departments, appear before the House and Senate Intel Committee, at least the House Committee on Wednesday, to answer questions. And Himes said he plans to raise that with them. So that should be pretty interesting.
Taylor Wilson:
Fascinating timing on that one, Josh. So how did the Pentagon defend or explain what happened here, at least in the comments we heard from yesterday? Monday?
Josh Meyer:
We don't have specific comments from the Pentagon yet as far as I can tell, but the White House itself, I mean, people are referring calls to the White House. Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, did confirm that the chat appears to be an authentic messaging chain. And he said, "We are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain." But then he said, "This thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials." I think that that's not really addressing the more serious underlying issue of the national security implications of this. But we'll see if they have any further comment. And I think there's going to be a lot of questions. There's already been people calling for Hegseth's resignation because of this.
Taylor Wilson:
So Josh, what is next here? Will there be any consequences? Just where do we go from here?
Josh Meyer:
One thing that's important to note is the Pentagon just last week announced a zero tolerance policy for leaks of national security information and promised an aggressive investigation including the use of lie detectors and referrals to the appropriate criminal law enforcement entity for any leaks. And they were going after a New York Times report about the planned briefing on war with China that they were going to invite Elon Musk to. The briefing didn't happen, and the Trump administration lashed out at the reporting even though it might have been the reporting that resulted in them not doing the briefing. But these guys at the Pentagon and throughout the Trump administration are very, very serious about finding leaks and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. So we'll see if they investigate and potentially prosecute some of their own top officials. I'm a bit doubtful that that'll happen, but we'll have to wait and see.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, Josh Meyer covers domestic security for Paste BN. Thank you, Josh.
Josh Meyer:
Thanks, Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
Hegseth, speaking to reporters, denied sharing war plans in the group chat, while Goldberg responded to Hegseth's denial in an interview on CNN yesterday by saying that he was texting war plans.
♦
President Trump yesterday said the US will impose a 25% tariff on imports from any country that purchases oil or gasoline from Venezuela, targeting the South American nation for what he called purposefully and deceitfully sending criminals into the United States. He announced the tariff in retaliation to what he characterized as Venezuela intentionally flooding the US with migrants who commit crimes as gang members. He provided no evidence to support the claim. Trump said the tariff will go into effect on April 2nd, when his long-promised reciprocal tariffs affecting all countries will also begin.
♦
Thousands of postal workers and their supporters rallied across the country in recent days to protest proposals to dismantle the US Postal Service over the long term and a USPS agreement to trim 10,000 jobs in the next few weeks. The rallies came after President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to merge the independent agency with the Commerce Department, and Elon Musk suggested the agency be privatized. National Association of Letter Carriers President Brian Renfroe, speaking at a rally in Los Angeles, angrily rejected plans to privatize or slash jobs at the agency. He said, "We had an election in November, and some people voted for President Trump and some people voted for Vice President Harris. Some people voted for other candidates, but you know what? None of them voted for, to dismantle the postal service."
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has led a dramatic effort to restructure USPS in recent years, cutting forecasted cumulative losses over a decade in half from $160 billion to $80 billion. Last week, he notified Congress he has signed an agreement with Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to eliminate the jobs and otherwise address big problems USPS faces. You can read more with a link in today's show notes.
♦
When it comes to inflation, Democrats and Republicans seem to occupy separate realities. I spoke with Paste BN personal finance reporter Daniel de Visé about findings from a University of Michigan consumer survey out this month. And for a closer look at the broader conversation around inflation and the economy. Hello sir, how are you this week?
Daniel de Visé:
I'm well, how are you?
Taylor Wilson:
Pretty good, Daniel. So let's just start here. I mean, what did we learn about consumer confidence here in this survey and really what kind of partisan divide are we seeing when it comes to views on inflation?
Daniel de Visé:
Well, I think this is fascinating that the Republicans and Democrats always see things different when their guy is or woman is, or is not in office. But in the last few months, the Democrats have gone bananas over inflation. Right now the Democrats expect prices to rise by 6.5% over the next year, which is a lot. That would be like almost 2022 level inflation. Republicans, and get this, expect prices to increase by 0.1%, which is basically bubkus. It's no inflation at all.
Taylor Wilson:
Yeah, well, you know we hear about this magic number a lot, Daniel, when it comes to inflation. What is that? And what is the number?
Daniel de Visé:
Everybody talks about where's inflation so that you don't think about it, so you don't feel it at all. Jerome Powell, the Fed chair talks about this. Their inflationary goal is 2% a year. Anything around 2% or thereabouts, you're not going to think about it. Economists would say that when you tip up toward 3%, 4%, certainly 5%, 6% inflation, the media starts writing about it, people start chatting about. It becomes a thing. And maybe even more important is individual products. You think about what people buy most regularly, gasoline, eggs, milk, bread, the hurricane supplies and all that. When prices go up on those things, everybody notices. And so maybe that's the most important thing is, where are prices on milk right now? Where are prices on eggs?
Taylor Wilson:
Well, we're talking Daniel amid this ongoing wave of tariffs. What's the latest there? How do they enter this conversation and kind of consumer confidence around inflation?
Daniel de Visé:
It's very complicated. So last year on the campaign trail, candidate Donald Trump was big on tariffs. He campaigned on a pledge to end inflation. And at rallies, he said things like tariffs, "It's not going to be a cost to you. It's going to be a cost to another country." So I think many Republicans maybe understandably still believe that Donald Trump will reduce inflation literally to zero and that whatever tariffs are coming aren't going to be a cost to American consumers. Democrats are obviously much more skeptical of this just as they're more skeptical of many things that the Trump administration has said and done. But as you know, tariffs are a huge part of the new administration this year. You almost need a tariff tracker to keep up with them all.
Taylor Wilson:
Absolutely. It's a good idea, Daniel. So know this big buzzword recession. Are we hearing anything further about recession forecasts for the rest of the year at this point?
Daniel de Visé:
That it's more likely. Jerome Powell said that maybe anytime there's always maybe a one in four chance of recession hitting this year or soonish, but right now those recession fears are elevated partly because of the tariffs. Maybe at 40%, maybe at one in three. Maybe it's higher than that. But there's certainly a lot of talk about recessions. I would bet you that right now, like today, people are searching on Google the word recession.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, I know you have another piece out on this, Daniel. How should folks be preparing fiscally right now as everyone gets set for, whether it's a recession or something else, whatever is coming down the pike for the economy?
Daniel de Visé:
Well, I don't want to get into advice fatigue here, but it's a good time to remind people always work on debt. If you have really high-rate debt, which would be like credit card debt, this certainly would be a good time to think about it. Think about increasing how much of it you pay off every month. Think about increasing how often you don't use the card. Just hide the card; put it in a block of ice. One of the experts I interviewed made this really good point, which is interest rates. You can stack them all up, from lowest interest rate to highest. This includes your savings accounts, anything that you have invested or borrowed; look at the highest overall rate. If it's a credit card, now is the time to really work on that because you're paying way more for that credit card at the 21% interest than you're getting from your high-interest 4% savings account. So it's a really good time to think about debt.
Taylor Wilson:
We'll have links to a couple of these great recent Daniel pieces in today's show notes. Daniel de Visé covers personal finance for Paste BN. Thanks, Daniel.
Daniel de Visé:
Always a pleasure.
Taylor Wilson:
Hear more about what your fellow Americans think about the economy on this week's edition of Forum, a new initiative from the Paste BN opinion team. We have a link for this week's episode in today's show notes.
♦
60 years ago today, Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of nonviolent protesters completed their 54-mile march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. To fight for voting rights for African-Americans. The march gained national attention due to brutal attacks by state troopers and local law enforcement, especially on March 7th, known as Bloody Sunday. This violence and the media coverage helped to rally support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
♦
Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio. And if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from Paste BN.