• Elon Musk volunteered to help the White House find out how a journalist was added to a Signal chat.
• The White House said Musk's team is assisting with an investigation into the burgeoning scandal.
• In the chat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth disclosed details of an airstrike before it occurred.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, on Wednesday said that Elon Musk is helping to probe how a top official added a reporter to a sensitive national security discussion.

"The National Security Council, the White House counsel's office, and also, yes, Elon's team," Leavitt said in response to a question about who is looking into the matter. "Elon Musk has offered to put his technical experts on this to figure out how this number was inadvertently added to the chat. Again to take responsibility and to ensure this can never happen again."

On Tuesday evening, Michael Waltz, the White House national security advisor who's at the center of the scandal, said Musk had offered his assistance in figuring out what happened. It's the latest role for Musk, President Donald Trump's self-described "tech support" and the de facto DOGE office leader.

"We're going to get to the bottom of it. We have— I just talked to Elon on the way here," Waltz said on Fox News. "We've got the best technical minds looking at how this happened. But I can tell you, I can tell you for 100% I don't know this guy."

While serving as a White House senior advisor, Musk has remained chief executive of Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, published a bombshell report on Tuesday detailing how he had been inadvertently added to a Signal group chat that discussed details of a planned US strike on Houthi rebels. Since then, the White House has tried to downplay the details discussed in a chat that included officials as high up as Vice President JD Vance.

On Wednesday, after Trump said no classified information was disclosed in the chat, Goldberg published screenshots of messages that showed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth naming specific times and weapon systems that would be used. The White House and Pentagon said the airstrikes were successful.

Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon, said his panel is asking an inspector general to probe the matter. Trump recently fired the Pentagon's inspector general, essentially a watchdog within the government, though the role has been filled on a temporary basis.

It's unclear what kind of technical expertise would be necessary to investigate the situation. Goldberg's screenshots show Waltz adding him to the chat. Signal, a secure messaging platform, allows users to add participants to a group chat. On Wednesday, Trump said "a bad signal" could have been at fault.

Trump and his allies have closed ranks around Waltz. The president has called him "a good man" and so far has expressed his faith in the embattled former GOP congressman.

The White House national security advisor is a powerful position, though it does not require Senate confirmation. During his first term, Trump went through four top national security officials and two acting advisors.

• The high-ranking officials of the "Houthi PC small group" chat each have a group text personality type.
• You probably don't talk about bombings, but you might recognize these types with your own friends.
• I'm a JD Vance type.

For a moment, let's pretend that the Signal group chat among high-ranking government officials about a Houthi strike isn't about bombs or war and killing humans. Let's pretend it's about something more relatable to those of us who don't typically discuss war plans globally important stuff.

Something like picking a restaurant for a group dinner or planning a group gift for a friend's wedding or baby shower. Maybe something work-related or a group school project.

From that less dire perspective, I started looking at the Houthi strike text chain again. And the personality types looked familiar to me — I even saw myself.

Reading over the full group chat logs, I realized that I was the JD Vance character in my own group chats. (This is not a compliment, and I have some soul-searching to do.)

The Signal group chat, "Houthi PC small group" started by National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, who seemingly accidentally added The Atlantic's editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, allows us a rare glimpse into the apparent inner workings of military and global policy.

It also gives us a window into the Group Chat Personality Types of a bunch of important government officials.

Which group chat personality are you?

So, let's figure out each person's type — and see if you can identify yourself like I did.

(One caveat: These group chat types are not meant as a reflection of the person's actual personality — just what I see as their chatting style. In fact, some of these contradict what I'd have guessed about some of these people's personality types based on other public information.)

Michael Waltz, national security advisor: The chaotic initiator. Wants credit for having started the group but contributes little actual work. Uses tons of acronyms and slang that not everyone in the group understands. Refers to people outside the group by just a first name in a way that feels name-droppy. Doesn't use full sentences and uses boomer-y abbreviations like "Pls" and "Thx" that suggest he might be using a phone without autocomplete turned on. Over-the-top emoji usage.

Pete Hegseth, defense secretary: The organized one. Voice of reason who has to keep the group project back on track. Uses flattery and mirroring language to keep reining in the wildcards who try to derail things and start trouble.

This is the person in the group chat who will actually send the calendar invite and make the reservation at the restaurant. Also the person who will figure out what everyone owes on Venmo.

Abuses the line breaks and takes up a ton of real estate with each message.

JD Vance, vice president: The derailer. Stumbles in half-aware of what's going on, makes an excuse for why they can't really be involved in the planning, and then — once the plan is nearly set — chimes in with some last-minute objection.

This is the person who suggests, "What if we all did takeout at my place?" after everyone has agreed on a restaurant. Overly casual, emotional, and says stuff that's weirdly too personal. Makes it all about themselves.

(I hate to realize it, but this is 100% me.)

John Ratcliffe, director of the CIA: The credit-seeker. This is the person who didn't read the book for the group project but is trying to make sure they chime in to get credit for it. They might offer to do the coloring on the posterboard, for example.

Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff: The lurker. Gives a really big "wow thanks everyone!" only after all the work is done.

Marco Rubio, secretary of state: The weird typist. Barely talks and, when they do, uses strange punctuation and capitalization. No one is sure how to read it.

Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center: The non-confrontational one. Doesn't want to get into an argument in the main group but thinks someone else is extremely wrong. Will undoubtedly start DMing people on the side about it.

Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor: The usurping side-quester. Comes in late and tries to take control. Brings up some existential conversations that are only vaguely related and bigger than the task at hand. This is the person who starts suggesting the benefits of a 529 contribution instead of everyone chipping in for the stroller system that was on the baby registry.

Steve Witkoff, special envoy: The emoji lover. Communicates almost exclusively in emojis or iMessage thumbs-up reactions.

Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence: The person who had the thread muted the whole time and only chimes in way later.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic: The leaker. The one in the group who spills all the gossip.