An episode with all the characteristics of a coordinated operation is currently shaking the heart of American intelligence. The so-called ChatGate—that is, the infiltration of a journalist into an ultra-classified Signal chat involving 18 senior Pentagon officials—has taken on increasingly ambiguous contours. Not only because of the chat’s content, which discussed an imminent missile strike against the Houthis in Yemen, but above all for the way in which this information was leaked.
The details that have emerged in recent hours—such as the possibility that a prominent journalist was present for days inside an encrypted conversation containing military intelligence—are not just disturbing: they are highly suspicious.
A Turn That Smells of Intelligence
Mainstream media have clung to the sensational aspects of the story: emojis in the conversations, informal language, institutional embarrassment. But the truly explosive fact has been largely downplayed: The New York Times gained access to the precise physical location of the chat participants during key moments of the discussion.
And it doesn’t end there. On March 27 and 28, Der Spiegel reported that extremely sensitive personal data of the officials involved—phone numbers, emails, passwords—had surfaced online, accessible through past data breaches and specialized search engines. At the same time, outlets such as La Repubblica joined the media chorus, labeling the officials as “amateurs” and fueling a debate over their competence, a narrative that was quickly echoed by the Democratic Party.
But is it really credible to reduce everything to mere incompetence? Is it truly plausible to turn a blind eye, ignore the context, and dismiss the affair as a simple operational misstep?
And yet, when it came to Trump, even the faintest rumor sparked full-blown Russiagate, immediately invoking internal conspiracies and intelligence interference.
The reality is that—despite many pretending not to see it or outright refusing to even consider the possibility—this type of information is simply not accessible to ordinary investigative journalists. Access to real-time geolocation data and such detailed personal records is the exclusive domain of top-level intelligence services.
So, who gave that data to The New York Times? Who had a vested interest in undermining and discrediting a select group of officials directly involved in Trump’s foreign policy?
The suspicion is not only legitimate—it is well-founded. We may be looking at an internal operation orchestrated by U.S. intelligence agencies—or worse, a joint operation involving other members of the Five Eyes alliance, the intelligence-sharing network composed of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
And it wouldn’t be the first time. Similar parallel operations have previously interfered with the political direction of U.S. administrations. And every time a potential thaw with Moscow appears on the horizon, the hostility of circles linked to the military-industrial complex—particularly in the UK—reliably re-emerges with renewed intensity.
Infiltration Techniques: A Highly Sophisticated Attack
If we rule out the possibility that Waltz himself voluntarily added the journalist to the chat—a claim Waltz has denied, stating he has no memory of doing so—then, given the current climate and the well-known precedents of Russiagate, along with the ongoing lawfare operations against Trump and his allies, the false flag hypothesis gains significant traction.
The objective? To make the presidential staff appear as a group of amateurs, incapable of safeguarding national security—thus discrediting the entire framework of Trump’s foreign policy from within.
From a technical standpoint, this reconstruction is entirely plausible: the journalist’s presence in the chat cannot be explained as a simple leak. This is something far more sophisticated, more deliberate. And if we follow the golden rule of investigative journalism—cui prodest? (who benefits?)—the direction becomes increasingly clear.
Possible Techniques: A Brief Operational Overview
At this point, it is helpful to offer a brief overview of the main techniques that could have been employed to infiltrate a journalist into a classified military chat without the participants being aware.
We are not talking about routine breaches, but rather tools used by elite-level intelligence operations. The following table summarizes the most plausible hypotheses:
| Technique | Description | Level of Sophistication | Likely Actor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Man-in-the-Middle Attack (MITM) | Interception of communication between the device and the server, manipulating traffic. The infiltrator appears only to themselves. | High | State intelligence with infrastructure access |
| 0-Day Exploit + Custom Malware | Use of an unknown vulnerability to install malware that creates a fake chat interface, invisible to other participants. | Very High | Specialized cyber units (e.g., Mossad, NSA) |
| Account Spoofing or SIM Cloning | Creation of a fake identity replicating a real user, gaining unauthorized access to the chat. | Medium-High | State or para-state actors |
| Backdoor Access in Signal | Use of a hidden vulnerability within the app or operating system, accessible only by those with privileged knowledge or developer-level access. | Extreme | Top-tier intelligence agencies (Five Eyes) |
| Insider Leak | A participant in the chat intentionally shares access or records the conversation using external tools. | Medium | Coerced or infiltrated insiders |
| DNS or Mobile Network Manipulation | Redirecting traffic through controlled nodes by tampering with DNS or cellular networks. | High | Entities with access to telecom infrastructure |
| Data Harvesting from OSINT + Leaks | Gathering and correlating personal data (emails, passwords, location) from past breaches and open sources. | Medium | Intelligence contractors or cyber units |
As we can see, none of these techniques are within reach of mere activists or independent journalists. This is the heart of cyber warfare—waged by states or entities closely tied to them.
At this point, the only real question is no longer “How did it happen?”, but rather: Who wanted it to happen right now—and at whose expense?
A Scandal Useful to the Internal Enemy
Who benefits from all this?
Certainly not foreign enemies—not immediately, at least. Rather, those who stand to gain are the actors within the system who seek to sabotage Trump’s diplomatic agenda—an agenda centered on de-escalating conflict in the Middle East and re-opening a path toward Russia.
The group involved in the chat was precisely the strategic team working on shaping a new, more restrained, and less interventionist U.S. foreign policy. In other words, the exact opposite of what the deeply rooted global hegemony apparatus still desires.
The publication of this information—packaged as a carefully orchestrated media scandal—served a very specific purpose: to undermine the credibility of Trump’s team and corner the President, forcing him to consider removing key figures.
It was a surgical operation, disguised as a data breach, with real consequences on international politics.
Trump Under Pressure: Loyalty Put to the Test
According to internal sources, President Trump is torn between loyalty to his advisors and the growing pressure, strategically amplified by the media and members of Congress.
The “youthful” tone used in the chat—including emojis—is now being weaponized to portray the team as unprofessional. But that’s merely a pretext. The true issue is political: those who want to block the Trump-Russia axis are willing to stop at nothing.
An Act of Silent War?
When a journalist manages—or is made—to enter a secure military chat without the participants noticing, we’re no longer dealing with a simple security lapse.
We’re facing a potential act of internal cyber warfare: a covert maneuver aimed at delegitimizing an administration by undermining its command and control from within.
This is the new frontier of political conflict—not through leaks or opposition research, but through high-precision digital infiltration, carried out by state or parastatal actors with clear objectives and powerful tools.
ChatGate is not just a cybersecurity scandal.
It is a window into an undeclared domestic war—an offensive by the Deep State against a politically inconvenient line of foreign policy—perhaps the only one that could truly bring the Ukraine disaster to a close and reposition the United States toward a less aggressive stance on the world stage.