TRUMP CONFIRMS: Yes, we leaked Bombing Plans on Signal. Sorry.

Trump administration officials have

confirmed that the Atlantic was

inadvertently invited to a signal group

chat to discuss war plans against the

Houthis in Yemen. There were rumors that

on one hand maybe the Trump

administration did this on purpose to

inadvertently leak their comms and how

they strategize. But the bigger question

that's coming up is why are they using

Signal? Now, we know that Elon Musk

likes to use signal. So, it's possible

that the use of signal was a suggestion

from Musk or it's something that's been

common through the use uh or used within

the Trump administration. But one of the

downsides of Signal is that you have

well disappearing messages which are

downsides to Americans because you sort

of lack that transparency which

technically you could sort of recoup if

you accidentally leak at all. But it's

very different from what you would

ordinarily see in let's say a financial

and regulatory point of view. See

ordinarily if you work in the finance

space for example you need to document

and preserve your emails and

communications for at least six years at

least. Could be more than that. Uh

sometimes you'll actually even have to

take screenshots of text messages that

you're taking to make sure these things

are being appropriately documented. So

that way if there's ever a Freedom of

Information request or whatever, that

information is available and we can

evaluate whether or not our officials

are actually being uh truthful in what

their actions are and they're operating

with integrity. Now, this apparently

didn't happen because, well, a the

Department of Defense is using Signal,

which again features the sort of

disappearing messages. Uh, but an

Atlantic journalist was really

skeptical, and I'll give you the bottom

line on this basically or just give you

sort of the the TLDDR in case you don't

want to read the whole story. an

Atlantic journalist was invited by

somebody he thought was, you know,

familiar from the Department of Defense.

But he thought, hey, there's a chance

that because Trump's administration

likes attacking the media that maybe

somebody who's affiliated with Trump or

just Republicans in general was trying

to ambush this journalist, invite them

to sort of a fake AI chat and make it

seem like they were part of a chat so

they could run the story and then look

like fools. This has happened

previously. Journalists obviously don't

like that, but you know, then again, you

know, hey, if you screw up and you don't

verify information, you have some blame

as well, right? So, the Atlantic

journalist discusses being invited to

this signal chat with his staff and he's

like, "Okay, this is weird." You know,

maybe this could all be a fraud. I mean,

it's called Houth EPC group. uh and

they're they're you know which is a

principal committees group and there are

plenty of individuals involved in

including people identifying themselves

as being part of Marco Rubio's staff,

secretary of state staff, JD Vance's

staff, Tulsi Gabbard staff for the

director of national intelligence CIA

staff, Department of Defense staff,

individuals who also in some part aren't

named because they are secret agents

essentially for the government. Uh, and

what they do is they discuss war plans

for how they want to attack a Houthy

group in Yemen. Uh, and of course, it's

possible that all of this information

was fake, but at this point, we already

know that the Trump administration

confirmed they accidentally invited an

Atlantic journalist to the text chain.

And nobody asked that journalist why

they were there. It was just sort of no

I guess nobody checked why there was

somebody who wasn't authorized to be

part of this in this chain. And so what

ended up happening was they had strong

doubts that the comments were real. But

they break down sort of a timeline of

what happened. They talk about at 805

how the team had discussions with the

president about whether or not the

department of defense should actually

end up uh attacking the Houthis in Yemen

and the strategy they're undertaking. JD

Vance takes this position apparently or

his team takes this position of hey you

know we got to be careful getting

involved in so many international

conflicts especially when the benefits

aren't clearly to the upside of the

United States. Uh JD Vance argues that

only 3% of trade runs through the Suez

Canal whereas 40% of European trade

does. So in other words let the

Europeans pay for it or handle it.

However there is some argument that

Donald Trump wants to send a message of

strength. This is where there was a lot

of rumoring around maybe this was really

just a way to sort of showcase how the

Trump administration is trying to be

different from the Biden administration.

That's that's one argument. Another

argument is they just totally made the

mistake. And given the White House has

now confirmed that this was just a

mistake, it was a mistake, which is kind

of an egg on face mistake because if

you're going to be talking literally

about bombing people, you'd think you'd

make sure you're talking to people that

you've confirmed their identity. So

you're not inadvertently leaking your

bombing plans and which weapons or uh

you know uh air stations you're using to

launch these attacks from because

obviously they could leave us disrupted

to counterattacks or open to

counterattacks. You know, China just had

there was sort of this this talk about

China's cable cutter that became really

popular over the uh over the weekend.

There's this talk about China's China

has sort of these these vehicles

essentially these boats uh that uh that

that can cut

95% of the data that runs throughout the

essentially deep sea uh through deep sea

telecommunication cables that help us

with internet connections uh cell phone

calls you know that are then routed over

um uh over cables cable networks

throughout the ocean rather them through

satellites. Uh, and if China can sort of

disrupt the internet or cellcoms or

whatever, then we've got to be really

careful because that is a potential form

of warfare or a strategy that China

could take to strongarm the United

States in the event of some form of

conflict. Uh, and so leaking our plans

is never a great idea. This is why

they're obviously heavily safeguarded.

Uh so going back to the story though,

what's fascinating here uh is they talk

about how they've they've been working

on these time frames and timelines and

how there's an option of just waiting,

but if they wait, there's a risk that

they, you know, jeopardize operational

security because there could be leaks,

which is really ironic because they're

talking about preventing leaks while

literally inadvertently leaking

everything that they're talking about.

They end up deciding to go ahead with

the attack and the journalist is like,

"Okay, this this is odd." Like, let's

see if the attack actually happens. And

you could see some of this conversation

here about the the president's desire to

reopen shipping lanes. This, mind you,

is really important, as well as some of

the comments here, like, "And if there

are things we can do up front to

minimize the risk to Saudi oil

facilities, we should do it." You kind

of see some alignment here with goals.

You're trying to make sure oil prices

stay down. You're trying to make sure

shipping prices stay down so you can

cheer disinflation rather than

inflation, right? Higher costs of oil,

higher costs of shipping are all

inflationary pressures which go against

Donald Trump's goals and actually hurt

his goal of of promoting uh you know

economic welfare with smaller government

and frankly a revitalized private

sector. So you you see a lot of Trump

coming through on these conversations

here, but again, the group is painfully

unaware that there's a journalist

listening to everything. Uh and so they

finally get the green light to go ahead

with the attack. Uh you know, Vance's

team apparently writes, "I will say a

prayer for victory." And the journalist

is like, "All right, I'm just going to

look on X to see if there are any any

reports of attacks going on in Yemen."

And sure enough, at the time the attacks

were supposed to occur, the bombings

actually occurred. And so at this point,

the journalist is like, "Oh my gosh,

this is real." Goes back to the signal

chat. And this is what you get.

Excellent. John Radcliffe, a good start.

Michael Waltz, fist emoji, American

flag, fire emoji. Good job, Pete and

your team. So you actually apparently do

have the government now operating

through signal chat. I don't know if

this is part of like a Doge initiative

like the Department of Governmental

Efficiency like hey let's all use signal

but it's probably not great from the

point of view of actually documenting

what our officials are doing since all

this stuff is probably just going to

disappear. I highly doubt they're

backing all this stuff up. The only

thing that's probably being backed up

are well frankly the Atlantic

journalists screenshots. It is really

interesting though because here you do

notice that there's a 4W which implies

that maybe these chats weren't set to

automatically disappear. uh given that

when you look closely at that 4W, it

implies the screenshots were taken 4

weeks after. So basically when they were

planning on running the story compared

to when the actual attacks occurred,

which is interesting because maybe

they're not set to autodisappear and

maybe they are going to document these

conversations. I don't know. Usually

Signal is not associated with the best

of like, oh yeah, let's document all of

your conversations and verify people's

identities. you know, at least if you're

using a service like obviously

hashtagnotsponsored,

uh, you know, if you're using a chat

program like Google chat or something,

you verify that somebody's at least

using pass keys and you're using their

login, uh, and you can verify that

they're using, you know, the sort of

advanced account protection features,

literally called advanced protection

over at Google, uh, just to secure their

accounts. And so there's a greater

chance that the person you're talking to

is actually the person you think you're

talking to. I I you know I'm not sure

what kind of security protocols there

are on signal but it does sort of raise

the question of like why aren't we using

things like the sensitive compartmented

information facility uh to discuss you

know these sort of sensitive things like

why are we using signal now what if

these people had lost their phones how

do you verified that you have the right

people on here now what you could also

do and what I like to do is have a more

secure passcode on my phone I don't like

having a you know a little fourdigit

code so people you kind of look over

your shoulder and see that. Uh, so I use

a much more lengthy password to get my

phone because most of the time I'm using

Face ID anyway, but you can also hold

down the app and then require Face ID or

your passcode to open an app. Even if

the app doesn't have a login function

itself, which is kind of cool, like

notes on your phone, you can cover that

with Face ID, which is kind of cool. So

little, you know, sort of sec things

that you can that you can improve your

own security with. You have security

keys and pass keys, I think, are great.

But uh it's kind of odd to see things

that literally have people's lives

hanging in the balance are being

communicated over signal. So not sure

how I feel about that. Not very good.

But I will say that uh this was not on

my bingo board. I I did not expect to be

making a video on the president uh and

their team basically or the team of the

president having a celebratory yay we

got the Houthies chat on Signal. So, and

I also don't know what courts can do

about this sort of stuff, you know? I

mean, the admin the executive branch has

given so much power. It's I don't think

you're going to get like a John Roberts

who's already kind of hit on Trump a

little bit like, "Hey guys, you know, be

careful here with how much you're

overstepping." I don't think you're

going to get like a John Roberts being

like, "Hey, you need to use Google Chat

sponsored by Google Chat." You know,

so crazy world. But anyway, that's a

breakdown of this article for you. If

you found it helpful, consider

subscribing to the channel and we'll see

you in the next one. Goodbye. Good luck.

Not advertise these things that you told

us here. I feel like nobody else knows

about this. We'll we'll try a little

advertising and see how it goes.

Congratulations, man. You have done so

much. People love you. People look up to

you. Kevin Pra there, financial analyst

and YouTuber. Meet Kevin. Always great

to get your take.