GEOFF BENNETT: Senior Trump administration officials, including the vice president and secretary of defense, used the encrypted commercial messaging app Signal to debate the pros and cons of launching military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

AMNA NAWAZ: And they accidentally invited the editor in chief of "The Atlantic" and "Washington Week" moderator Jeffrey Goldberg to be part of that chat group.

Goldberg revealed the details today in a report published for "The Atlantic," and he joins me now.

Jeff, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, you're added to this group chat.

You see some 18 or so other people on it.

Among them appear to be senior national security and Cabinet officials like Marco Rubio, J.D.

Vance, Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Miller, Steve Witkoff, Michael Waltz.

How did you end up on this chat?

And when do you realize it looks like you were added by mistake?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I was invited a couple of weeks ago to connect with Michael Waltz, the national security adviser.

That didn't strike me as particularly strange, given my job and his job.

A little while later, I'm added to a group chat with the people you just named.

That seemed strange.

But I kind of just ignored it a little bit.

And then it really became a very bizarre situation on Saturday the 15th of March, when I was shared on a text in this group from somebody purporting to be Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

And this text contained operational military information, including the time that bombs were supposed to start dropping on Yemen.

And this was two hours before that time.

So I simply waited and stared at my phone.

And, sure enough, the attack, the American attack on Yemen began to be felt at about 1:30 Eastern or so, 1:50 Eastern.

And that's when I realized that the chain was real.

Until that point, I really had a deep suspicion that I was being spoofed or hoaxed or being led astray on a disinformation campaign, the rationale for which I can't figure out.

But this all seemed so improbable that I simply assumed that it couldn't be real.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I want to point out you share some details.

You report some details of what unfolds on that text chain.

When it comes to these operational details, though, you're very careful with your language.

You write in your piece what appears to be from the account of Pete Hegseth posts -- quote -- "operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing."

This gets posted two hours later.

The bombings begin.

And then what do you see unfold on the group chat?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: A lot of happiness and virtual high-fiving.

There's some reporting, again, material that I didn't feel comfortable reporting because it contained tactical operational information, about the effects of the bombing on various places in Yemen.

Mainly, it was the participants in this group chat, which, as you note, contained most of the national security leadership of the United States congratulating each other and sending emojis, flag emojis, muscle emojis, fire emojis to each other in celebration of a successful mission.

AMNA NAWAZ: We did hear from Brian Hughes.

I know you did as well, the spokesman for the National Security Council, who sent a statement in response when you did reach out.

He said that it appears the message thread was authentic, that they're reviewing how an inadvertent number, presumably yours, was added.

He also says -- quote -- "The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials.

The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our service members or our national security."

Jeff, you have reported on national security for decades.

That this is being held up as an example of a deep and thoughtful policy coordination, had you ever seen anything like this before?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I don't disagree with something that he said.

If you look at the story on TheAtlantic.com, you will see that they are having a live debate, including the vice president of the United States, about the utility of attacking Yemen and the European component of this and various other things.

There's interesting discourse going on.

But, according to everything I understand, they're not supposed to be doing this on commercial messaging apps.

They got quite lucky that they included my phone number in the -- if they're going to pick an errant phone number, I mean, at least it wasn't somebody who supported the Houthis, because they were actually handing out information that I believe could have endangered the lives of American servicepeople who were involved in that operation.

AMNA NAWAZ: I guess the question here too, Jeff, is, what don't we know?

How many other group chats are there?

Do you know how frequently Signal as this kind of -- in this sort of way at that level?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: We don't know that.

I am under the impression from administrations prior to this administration that Signal is often used by national security officials, but mainly as a planning device, what time is the meeting, that sort of thing.

I have never in my life seen a commercial messaging app used to discuss whether and when and how to attack another country.

AMNA NAWAZ: This is a stunning report.

It's available in full at TheAtlantic.com.

That's the editor in chief of "The Atlantic" and the moderator of "Washington Week" right here at PBS, Jeff Goldberg, joining us tonight.

Jeff, thank you.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Thank you.