Every morning in Miami, our fieldwork begins the same way. Fresh Cuban coffee and pastelitos – delicious Latin American pastries – fuel our team for another day of evolutionary detective work. Here we’re tracking evolution in real time, measuring

Healthcare.gov, the government health insurance marketplace website, launched in October 2013 only to buckle under the weight^[1] of just 2,000 simultaneous users. As millions of Americans stared at error messages and frozen screens, a political crisis unfolded,

WASHINGTON — The Atlantic released the entire Signal chat among Trump senior national security officials Wednesday, showing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provided the exact timing of warplane launches and when bombs would drop — before the men and women flying those attacks against Yemen’s Houthis this month on behalf of the United States were airborne.

The disclosure follows two intense days^[1] during which Trump's senior most Cabinet members of his intelligence and defense agencies have struggled to explain how details that current and former U.S. officials have said would have been classified wound up on an unclassified Signal chat that included Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg,

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said no classified information was posted to the Signal chat.

Hegseth has refused to say whether he posted classified information onto Signal. He is traveling in the Indo-Pacific and to date has only scoffed at questions, saying he did not reveal “war plans.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday^[2] that it was up to Hegseth to determine whether the information he was posting was classified or not.

What was revealed was jaw-dropping in its specificity and includes the type of information that is kept to a very close hold to protect the operational security of a military strike.

In the group chat, Hegseth posted:

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”

“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”

“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”

“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”

“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”

“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”

“We are currently clean on OPSEC” — that is, operational security.

“Godspeed to our Warriors.”

Goldberg has said he asked the White House if it opposed publication and that the White House responded that it would prefer he did not publish.

Signal is a publicly available app^[3] that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked. It is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of Signal, specifically that Russia was attempting to hack the app, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

One known vulnerability is that a malicious actor, with access to a person’s phone, can link his or her device to the user’s Signal and essentially monitor messages remotely in real time.

Leavitt is one of three Trump administration officials who face a lawsuit^[4] from The Associated Press on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. The AP says the three are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. The White House says the AP is not following an executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

The use of an encrypted, commercial messaging app to discuss plans for U.S. military strikes in Yemen by top Trump administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents a significant security breach that could have endangered the service members involved in the operation, experts and lawmakers said Tuesday.

"There are people whose lives are literally on the line, whether that's service personnel, whether that's intelligence personnel," Michael Williams, an expert on international relations and a professor at Syracuse University, told Military.com in an interview Tuesday. "These guys are supposed to be leaders of the free world, the responsible leaders of the military, the greatest country in the world, and they can't perform basic operational security."

The Atlantic reported Monday that several Cabinet members, including Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, were part of a group chat on the app Signal, where they conferred about plans for then-upcoming strikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels. The magazine found out because Waltz added its editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, to the chat, apparently by accident.

Read Next: Ranger School Is Getting a New Fitness Assessment^[1]

On the morning of the strikes, Hegseth sent a message to the group that included "operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing," Goldberg reported. Goldberg did not disclose the specific information in Hegseth's message or publish screenshots of that portion of the chat, citing the sensitive nature of the information.

While the administration has confirmed the authenticity of the Signal chat, officials are denying that any classified information was shared. Still, they have not directly denied the allegations that specific operational details were sent in the chat.

Military.com asked Hegeseth's office whether he declassified the information he put onto the chat before sharing it but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Experts who spoke with Military.com on Tuesday said it's highly unlikely that operational details at the level Goldberg described would not be classified. And, they added, sharing the information outside of classified systems is incredibly irresponsible.

"It's an extraordinary departure from how we deal with classified information," Eric Carpenter^[2], a law professor at the Florida International University College of Law and a former Army^[3] judge advocate, told Military.com in a phone interview Tuesday.

Carpenter added that, if a service member were to do something similar, they would be facing a court-martial.

Williams and Carpenter both acknowledged that properly dealing with classified information like the specific details of military plans and operations can be burdensome, but the people in the group chat had all the support of the U.S. government behind them.

"They have the capacity with them to do this stuff correctly, and they chose not to, and that's what I didn't get," Carpenter said.

Dan Grazier, a senior fellow for the National Security Reform Program at the nonprofit Stimson Center think tank in Washington, D.C., told Military.com on Tuesday that issues could have easily arisen had the initial strikes that were apparently being discussed in the chat gone wrong and involved civilian casualties or hit the wrong targets.

"Just from self-preservation, the administration would probably like to have a record that shows that, 'No, we didn't intend to strike that target … that was not part of the package ... this is just an error,'" Grazier said.

Since the Signal chat isn't part of a government system, its contents don't automatically become government records.

"And if those records don't exist, then they wouldn't be able to prove that," Grazier said.

Lawmakers from both parties with military and national security backgrounds agreed with the experts.

"This is all classified information," Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst and Defense Department civilian, posted on social media. "Even the fact that they were considering this strike is classified. And for good reason: The time and method of an attack, if intercepted by our enemies, could have gotten American troops killed."

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired Air Force^[4] brigadier general, similarly said the officials on the Signal chat "were jeopardizing the aviators who were dropping these bombs."

"There's the old phrase from World War II: Loose lips sink ships," Bacon told reporters Tuesday. "And so you're doing it in an unclassified way where Russia and China could know about it two hours before the attack? It's not right."

While Waltz's mistake in adding a reporter to the chat was understandable, Bacon added, Hegseth needs to take accountability for sharing classified information in an unclassified setting.

"It was the putting the classified information in there that was wrong," said Bacon, who declined to say whether he believes Hegseth should resign. "The secretary did wrong there, and he should have known that."

At a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that was scheduled prior to the Atlantic story publishing, Gabbard and Ratcliffe both repeatedly and categorically denied that classified information was shared in the chat.

But toward the end of the hearing, they clarified that they meant there was no classified information that originated from the intelligence community they oversee and that they could not speak to whether any information originating from the Defense Department was classified since Hegseth is responsible for overseeing classification at the Pentagon.

Under questioning from Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a former naval aviator, both Gabbard and Ratcliffe also said they could "not recall" specific details about the Signal thread, including whether weapons systems, timing and military units were mentioned.

Still, Gabbard acknowledged there was "discussion around targets in general."

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment on the Atlantic report by Military.com's deadline Tuesday, but Hegseth told reporters traveling with him in Hawaii on Monday that "nobody was texting war plans."

In a sign of how serious the breach was, even some Republicans who have so far been deferential to the Trump administration have expressed concern.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told reporters Tuesday that he and the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, conferred on the issue earlier in the day. While they didn't settle on an exact next step, including whether to make Hegseth testify before the committee, Wicker said he and Reed will "look for some way forward" on a bipartisan committee response.

Still, other top Republicans are brushing off the issue as a harmless mistake.

"That mission was a success," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Monday. "No one was jeopardized because of that. We're grateful for that."

Meanwhile, Democrats are hammering the administration, and some have already moved to demand answers without Republicans.

Reps. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee; Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Jim Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee; and Gerry Connelly, D-Va., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter Monday to Hegseth, Rubio, Gabbard and Waltz with a slew of questions, including whether information in the chat "could have compromised the safety of members of the U.S. armed forces^[5] or those of a U.S. ally or partner."

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., also organized a separate letter to President Donald Trump demanding to know what disciplinary actions will be taken against those in the chat.

"It does not take much imagination to consider the likely ramifications if this information had been made public prior to the strike -- or worse, if it had been shared with or visible to an adversary rather than a reporter who seems to have a better grasp of how to handle classified information than your national security adviser," Kaine and 13 other Senate Democrats wrote in the letter. "This is an astonishingly cavalier approach to national security."

However, the possibility of accountability seemed remote to some of the experts who spoke with Military.com.

"I don't think there'll be any direct political fallout, because this is not an administration that believes in accountability," Williams said.

"There may be some poor, low-level staffer who gets fired, but I think that will be it. ... I doubt there'll be any sort of serious accountability."

Related: The Last Houthi Attack Was Months Ago. But the US Military Has Now Launched an Open-Ended Campaign in Yemen.^[6]

LONDON — As wake-up calls go, the alarms don’t get much louder.

Allies of the United States see the group chat between top U.S. officials about a planned attack^[1] in Yemen that accidentally included a journalist as a jaw-dropping security breach which casts doubt on intelligence-sharing with Washington and the security of joint military operations.

“Scary” and “reckless” was the verdict of one European diplomat about the discussion on the Signal messaging app about strikes on Houthi rebels^[2]. Neil Melvin, a security expert at defense think tank the Royal United Services Institute, called it “pretty shocking.”

“It’s some of the most high-ranking U.S. officials seeming to display a complete disregard for the normal security protocols,” he said.

Beyond the security concerns raised by the leaked chat, U.S. officials addressed the country's trans-Atlantic allies with disdain as Vice President JD Vance complained about “bailing out” Europe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth slammed “pathetic” European “freeloading.”

The criticism is another blow to a long-standing relationship already strained by President Donald Trump’s blunt “America First” approach and disregard for friendly nations.

Melvin said that for America’s allies, “the alarm clock’s been ringing for a long time.”

In public, however, European officials insisted all was well in the trans-Atlantic relationship.

“We have a very close relationship with the U.S. on matters of security, defense and intelligence,” said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman, Dave Pares. “They are our closest ally when it comes to these matters, have been for many years and will be for many years to come.”

France’s Foreign Ministry said “the United States is our ally, and France intends to continue its cooperation with Washington, as well as with all its allies and European partners, in order to address current challenges — particularly in the area of European security.”

A growing divide 

Since taking office, the Trump administration has halted government funding for programs^[3] that support democratic principles around the world and presented a less welcoming face to visitors.

U.S. embassies in at least 17 countries have posted warnings^[4] for would-be travelers that engaging in behavior deemed harmful by the government could get them deported. Several European countries have issued warnings about visiting the United States after international tourists were caught up in Trump’s border crackdown.

Trump has appalled allies with his repeatedly stated aim of taking over Greenland^[5] — an autonomous Danish territory that Vance and second lady Usha Vance^[6] are due to visit this week — and his desire to make Canada^[7] the 51st state.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country has to “take greater ownership” of its own defense in the face of threats: “We have to look out for ourselves.”

Nathalie Loiseau, a member of the European parliament, told the BBC that she was “flabbergasted” by the breach.

“If I was (Russian President) Vladimir Putin, I would feel jobless. Russia has nothing more to do. … You don’t even need to spy on the U.S. administration. They leak by themselves,” she said.

US reliability questioned 

The European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, suggested the security breach could make allies question the reliability of the U.S. as a partner.

The diplomat expressed hope that the Signal lapse was due to a lack of experience in government rather than a deliberate disregard for security.

Asked if he had concerns about sharing intelligence with the U.S. after the Signal incident, Carney said “it’s a serious, serious issue and all lessons must be taken.” He said it would be important to see "how people react to those mistakes and how they tighten them up.”

Britain could be particularly exposed by U.S. security breaches. Its intelligence network is entwined with the U.S. in the Five Eyes alliance, and the countries’ militaries work more closely than those of almost any other nations.

Britain's Royal Air Force provided air-to-air refueling for U.S. planes during the strike on the Houthis, but U.K. Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard insisted British personnel had not been put at risk by the breach.

“We’ve got high confidence that the measures that we have got with our allies, including the United States, remain intact,” he told lawmakers.

Ed Davey, the leader of Britain’s opposition Liberal Democrats, said the lapse showed the Trump administration can't be trusted to protect its own intelligence and "it could only be a matter of time until our own intelligence shared with them is also leaked.”

“This could put British lives at risk," he said.

Alex Clarkson, a lecturer in European and international studies at King’s College London, said “the professionals and old hands” who “contained the damage” during Trump’s first term are largely gone.

“So what we’re having now is … a manifestation of tendencies that were held in check that we already saw in the first round,” he said.

American frustration 

The U.S. has underpinned European security since World War II, and Trump is not the first president to bristle at the burden.

“From the Obama administration (onward), there’s been quite some frustrations in the U.S. security apparatus about the failure of the Europeans … to step up,” Melvin said.

Trump has gone much further than his predecessors in upending the decades-old security arrangements. He has long contended the U.S. needs to completely rethink its relationship with the rest of the world, saying other countries have been “taking advantage” of the nation’s military might by not paying enough for their own defense.

Trump has praised autocrats including Putin and sent chills through NATO during last year’s election campaign with his comment that Russia should “do whatever the hell it wants” to members that don’t meet military spending targets.

“There’s a real sense of divorce, that America is not just disinterested in the trans-Atlantic alliance but views Europe fundamentally as an adversary,” said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It’s very clear at this point, abundantly clear, that it will be next to impossible to count on the United States for the cause of defending democracy in the world,” said Kevin Casas-Zamora, secretary-general of the pro-democracy group International IDEA.

NATO leaders point out that Trump’s criticism and the war in Ukraine have led to a majority of member states meeting the target of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

Trump’s reelection and rapprochement with Putin has hastened European military plans, with nations scrambling to ramp up weapons production and create their own security structures – including a U.K.- and France-led “coalition of the willing” to help guarantee a future ceasefire in Ukraine.

Clarkson said Europe has more strength than many give it credit for, and severing the trans-Atlantic bond would hurt the U.S., too.

“One shouldn’t underestimate European military industrial capacity,” he said. “There are all kinds of things that can go wrong … but there is an element here also that the Americans are awakening a sleeping giant.”

___

Riccardi reported from Denver, Colorado. Associated Press writers Ali Swenson in New York, Chris Megerian in Washington. John Leicester in Paris and Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed.

STORRS, Conn. -- If Paige Bueckers^[1] is feeling the emotions of senior day, she doesn't show it. The UConn^[2] guard walks onto the court at Gampel Pavilion, flanked by her siblings, holding their hands. Her sister sobs, and many of her teammates are...

"This may sound like some high praise, but the last player [who] I saw that was able to do that out of high school? His name is LeBron James."

Julius Hodge knew he and his Division II Lincoln Lions had nearly impossible odds to steal a win over Duke...

In 1990, George Franklin was convicted of murder^[1] and sentenced to life in prison based on the testimony of his 28-year-old daughter Eileen. She described seeing him rape her best friend and then smash her skull with a rock.

When Eileen testified at her father’s trial, her memory of the murder was relatively fresh. It was less than a...

In the 20th century, when a routine infection was treated with a standard antibiotic^[1], recovery was expected. But over time, the microbes responsible for these infections have evolved to evade the very drugs designed to eliminate them.

Each year, there are more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections^[2] in the United States, leading...