President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he was planning to sit for an interview with The Atlantic&#8217;s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, in spite of the fact that Goldberg has used his outlet to perpetuate &#8220;many fictional stories&#8221; about the president and his administration.
Trump declared his intentions in a post on his Truth Social platform, saying that he planned to take the meeting with Goldberg and two of his writers — both of whom he described as unfriendly to the administration — &#8220;out of curiosity.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/9ZtlJfRCfZ">pic.twitter.com/9ZtlJfRCfZ</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1915433979454410756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Later today I will be meeting with, of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor of The Atlantic, and the person responsible for many fictional stories about me, including the made-up HOAX on &#8216;Suckers and Losers&#8217; and, SignalGate, something he was somewhat more &#8216;successful&#8217; with,&#8221; Trump began, referencing one story that had circulated during his first term in the White House before pivoting to the recent SNAFU in which Goldberg had accidentally been added to a Signal chat group where high-level administration officials had discussed plans to retaliate against Houthi terrorists in some detail.
Despite the fact that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz took responsibility for the incident — and that Goldberg&#8217;s addition to the group has been linked to an algorithm-based &#8220;contact suggestion&#8221; feature on his iPhone — Democrats and media still attempted to weaponize the story in their efforts to bring down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
&#8220;Jeffrey is bringing with him Michael Scherer and Ashley Parker, not exactly pro-Trump writers, either, to put it mildly!&#8221; Trump&#8217;s post continued. &#8220;The story they are writing, they have told my representatives, will be entitled, &#8216;The Most Consequential President of this Century.&#8217; I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it’s possible for The Atlantic to be &#8216;truthful.&#8217; Are they capable of writing a fair story on &#8216;TRUMP&#8217;? The way I look at it, what can be so bad – I WON!&#8221;

President Donald Trump

Trump Agrees To Interview With Repeat Hoax-Peddler Jeffrey Goldberg ‘Out Of Curiosity’

Trump Agrees To Interview With Repeat Hoax-Peddler Jeffrey Goldberg 'Out Of Curiosity'

Donald Trump

Media

Military

Pete Hegseth

Politics

Signal

The Atlantic

While Democrats attempt to run up the score with another story about another Signal chat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took to the airwaves on Tuesday morning to make it clear that he has no intention of backing down.
Hegseth spoke with &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends&#8221; anchor Brian Kilmeade about the recent story, in which The New York Times alleges that Hegseth may have disclosed sensitive information in a second <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/defense-department-and-white-house-fire-back-after-latest-hegseth-hit-piece" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Signal chat group</a> — that included his wife, his brother, and his attorney — that he accessed using his personal phone rather than his government phone. National Public Radio (NPR) followed the NYT story with a headline suggesting that President Donald Trump&#8217;s White House was already searching for someone who could replace Hegseth — a claim that both Hegseth and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt have denied.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
MUST WATCH: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth IS ON FIRE 🔥
&quot;I’m here because President Trump asked me to bring war-fighting back to the Pentagon every single day. 
If people don’t like it, come after me, no worries. I’m standing here, the WARFIGHTERS are behind us, our enemies… <a href="https://t.co/AN5WaSwExc">pic.twitter.com/AN5WaSwExc</a>
&mdash; Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) <a href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1914669279347146800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They&#8217;ve come after me from day one,&#8221; Hegseth told Kilmeade on Tuesday morning&#8217;s broadcast, noting that the attacks he&#8217;d endured so far were nothing compared to what had been thrown at President Trump. &#8220;I&#8217;ve gotten a fraction of what President Trump got in that first term. What he&#8217;s endured is super human.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s not hard for me to do this job, I know exactly why I&#8217;m here,&#8221; Hegseth continued. &#8220;To bring war-fighting and the war-fighting ethos back to the Pentagon. To rip out the insidious ideologies and not compromise and not back down. To bring in new press voices into the Pentagon, which we&#8217;ve done. To reestablish standards and accountability. To not tolerate leakers.&#8221;
Hegseth went on with his list, saying that regaining control of the southern border was part of his job, as was getting rid of &#8220;trans lunacy in the military.&#8221;
&#8220;We haven&#8217;t backed down,&#8221; he added, saying that in the past, people came to Washington to &#8220;play the game&#8221; and often got caught up in the lifestyle and the cocktail parties and the status quo, but it was not his intention to have any part of that.
&#8220;I’m here because President Trump asked me to bring war-fighting back to the Pentagon every single day. If people don’t like it, they can come after me, no worries. I’m standing here, the warfighters are behind us, our enemies know they&#8217;re on notice, our allies know we are behind them, and that in this dangerous world, for the American people, is what it is all about,&#8221; he said.

President Trump Holds “Make America Wealthy Again Event” In White House Rose Garden

‘They Can Come After Me’: Defiant Pete Hegseth Says He’s Not Backing Down

'They Can Come After Me': Defiant Pete Hegseth Says He's Not Backing Down

Fox News

The now infamous Signal chat breach — which gave Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg access to a private chat with top officials in President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration — has been linked to the &#8220;automated suggestion&#8221; feature on the iPhone used by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz.
According to a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/06/signal-group-chat-leak-how-it-happened" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> published Sunday by The Guardian, Waltz had intended to include his communications chief Brian Hughes — a former spokesman for Trump — but thanks to an iPhone algorithm that imports potentially &#8220;related&#8221; phone numbers into existing contacts, he also added Goldberg.
To find the connection between Goldberg and Hughes, the investigation had to go back nearly six months to October of 2024 — when Goldberg had sent an email to the Trump campaign about a story The Atlantic planned to publish attacking the president over his behavior toward wounded service members. According to The Guardian&#8217;s report, Hughes had texted then Rep. Waltz (R-FL) — who was serving as the campaign&#8217;s national security surrogate — and had included Goldberg&#8217;s contact information along with the content of his email. Waltz&#8217;s iPhone then associated the included number — Goldberg&#8217;s — with Hughes, adding it to an already saved contact.
Waltz did not contact Goldberg with regard to that story, but instead waited until after it was published and delivered a rebuttal on CNN: &#8220;Don’t take it from me, take it from the 13 Abbey Gate Gold Star families, some of whom stood on a stage in front of a 30,000 person crowd and said how he helped them heal.&#8221;
It was not until March, when Goldberg was included in the Trump &#8220;principals&#8221; group chat — where an imminent strike on Houthi terrorists was discussed in some detail — and then went public with the information, that Waltz was made aware of the mishap. At the time, he told FoxNews that the number had somehow been &#8220;sucked&#8221; into his phone.
&#8220;An iPhone suggestion to update a contact with a phone number seen inside the conversation is what led to Mike Waltz inadvertently saving an Atlantic reporter’s phone number under the name of the person he was chatting with, which was Brian Hughes,&#8221; Marina Medvin posted in reaction to the new report. &#8220;Automated suggestion on tech can be so damn dangerous.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
An iPhone suggestion to update a contact with a phone number seen inside the conversation is what led to Mike Waltz inadvertently saving an Atlantic reporter’s phone number under the name of the person he was chatting with, which was Brian Hughes.
Automated suggestion on tech… <a href="https://t.co/pRZPLPqMRk">pic.twitter.com/pRZPLPqMRk</a>
&mdash; Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1908904288778060076?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Referencing Waltz&#8217;s initial claim — that Goldberg&#8217;s number had been inadvertently saved under someone else&#8217;s name — The Daily Wire&#8217;s Brent Scher weighed in as well. &#8220;So it really did get sucked into Mike Waltz phone… According to @guardian, the WH forensic report says Brian Hughes, who runs Waltz comms, sent Goldberg’s contact last Oct to push back on a campaign story. Apple added the number under Hughes as a &#8216;contact suggestion update.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
So it really did get sucked into Mike Waltz phone…
According to <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@guardian</a>, the WH forensic report says Brian Hughes, who runs Waltz comms, sent Goldberg’s contact last Oct to push back on a campaign story. Apple added the number under Hughes as a “contact suggestion update.” <a href="https://t.co/688DXYiEZl">pic.twitter.com/688DXYiEZl</a>
&mdash; Brent Scher (@BrentScher) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1908895526977667549?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Throughout, Goldberg has stated that he knows Waltz and has spoken with him — a claim that Waltz has repeatedly denied, and that the Guardian reported was neither confirmed nor ruled out by the investigation into how his number got into the Signal chat.

2023 Concordia Annual Summit – September 18

‘So Damn Dangerous’: Signal Chat Breach Linked To ‘Automated Suggestion’ Feature On iPhone

'So Damn Dangerous': Signal Chat Breach Linked To 'Automated Suggestion' Feature On iPhone

Houthis

Mike Waltz

Democrats and media just can&#8217;t quit the Signal story, as evidenced by the broadcasts across multiple networks on Sunday morning. On every show, time was devoted to questions about the apparently-accidental inclusion of Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a Signal chat group in which top officials discussed an imminent attack on Houthi terrorists.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
Despite the fact that the attack discussed in the chat went off without so much as a hitch — and American service members do not appear to have been put in any danger — from ABC News to CNN, hosts and guests discussed whether or not the information discussed in the Signal group amounted to classified information and what should ultimately happen to those who were responsible for it.
On ABC News&#8217; &#8220;This Week,&#8221; anchor Martha Raddatz referred to the mishap as &#8220;jaw-dropping&#8221; and an &#8220;extraordinary national security breach&#8221; — and accused President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration of &#8220;downplaying, deflecting, and at times outright dismissing&#8221; the seriousness of the situation.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“The Trump administration downplaying, deflecting and at times outright dismissing an extraordinary national security breach.” <a href="https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MarthaRaddatz</a> breaks down how Trump officials are responding to the Signal group chat containing Yemen strike details: <a href="https://t.co/5uOLPfh8tt">https://t.co/5uOLPfh8tt</a> <a href="https://t.co/hAlAQs6OwQ">pic.twitter.com/hAlAQs6OwQ</a>
&mdash; This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1906347760116273342?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Raddatz then brought in Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) to discuss the situation, and he claimed that despite assurances from multiple Trump administration officials that nothing discussed in the chat had been classified, he knew better.
&#8220;There is no question, regardless of agency, that this was classified,&#8221; Warner insisted, arguing that American lives could have been lost had the information been leaked to the public sooner. &#8220;It insults the intelligence of the American people when someone says, &#8216;Oh, no, nothing classified here.'&#8221;
Warner noted that the intelligence community had previously warned that Signal should not be used for classified information — and continued to insist that the information discussed by the Trump administration officials was classified, but never gave any specifics regarding what exactly had been divulged that was classified.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“There is no question, regardless of agency, that this was classified.”
Sen. Mark Warner said that if information had been leaked from top Trump officials&#39; Signal chat discussing plans to bomb the Houthis in Yemen, American lives could have been lost. <a href="https://t.co/K6lUzM1jTE">https://t.co/K6lUzM1jTE</a> <a href="https://t.co/mIZpNE1Fla">pic.twitter.com/mIZpNE1Fla</a>
&mdash; This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1906351336188162306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Raddatz followed by bringing in Rep. Mike Turner — who previously chaired the House Intelligence Committee — and he also suggested that the material discussed was classified by virtue of the fact that military plans were included. He did not mention, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did shortly after the story broke, the fact that the military plans did not include coordinates either for the troops involved or the targets, nor did they give the names and locations of the units tasked with carrying out the attacks.
Still, Turner argued that it &#8220;should be considered classified information and it&#8217;s surprising to find it in an unclassified manner.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
GOP Rep. Mike Turner, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said “clearly” subject of military details discussed in the Signal group chat “should be considered classified information and it&#39;s surprising to find it in an unclassified manner.” <a href="https://t.co/oPQ2UURqhG">https://t.co/oPQ2UURqhG</a> <a href="https://t.co/73aXHApjw1">pic.twitter.com/73aXHApjw1</a>
&mdash; This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1906357037929230549?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On CBS News&#8217; &#8220;Face the Nation,&#8221; Sue Gordon — former principal deputy director of national intelligence — weighed in on the incident, and she complained that too much focus was being given to the fact that no tragedy had resulted from the breach.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think we should rest on the fact that nothing bad happened this time. We don&#8217;t know whether that communications path has been penetrated, so we don&#8217;t know whether state actors that have lots of resources are just sitting and lurking,&#8221; she said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
There was &quot;nothing&quot; about the military information discussed in the Trump administration&#39;s Signal group chat that was &quot;appropriate&quot; for being shared on that app, says Sue Gordon, former principal deputy director of national intelligence.
&quot;I don&#39;t think we should rest on the fact… <a href="https://t.co/xeoQl76Lcr">pic.twitter.com/xeoQl76Lcr</a>
&mdash; Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1906382615805849628?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Former CENTCOM commander, Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, pushed back a bit and noted that there was one major component of the story that was getting lost underneath all the noise regarding the Signal chat group — the fact that the Trump administration was successfully taking the fight to the Houthi terrorists in a way that President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration either could not or would not do.
&#8220;I think we have the capability — actually, right now, in Iran&#8217;s weakened state — to threaten them very strongly,&#8221; McKenzie said, adding that he &#8220;wouldn&#8217;t take anything off the table&#8221; with regard to next steps against the Houthis and Iran. The United States, he explained, has &#8220;finally begun to strike the Houthis hard,&#8221; in a way &#8220;that, frankly, eluded the previous administration.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie, former CENTCOM commander, says the &quot;larger story&quot; behind the Signal group chat controversy is that the U.S. has &quot;finally begun to strike the Houthis hard,&quot; at a pace &quot;that, frankly, eluded the previous administration.&quot;
He adds that he &quot;wouldn&#39;t take… <a href="https://t.co/8w9wE150z7">pic.twitter.com/8w9wE150z7</a>
&mdash; Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1906384751407063498?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press,&#8221; Jeffrey Goldberg  claimed that Vice President JD Vance&#8217;s comments in the chat were proof that he didn&#8217;t think President Trump fully grasped the situation.
What Vance actually said in the chat was that he favored delaying the strikes for a month because an immediate strike — besides sending an obvious message to the Houthis — ultimately did more to benefit and bail out Europe than it did for the United States.
&#8220;I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,&#8221; he said, referencing the administration&#8217;s broader position that Europe needed to step up and take an active role in its own defense.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Vance Signal messages suggest he doesn’t think Trump knows what he’s doing, Goldberg says <a href="https://t.co/9P79IZMqjA">https://t.co/9P79IZMqjA</a>
&mdash; Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) <a href="https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1906345176081043831?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And on CNN&#8217;s &#8220;State of the Union,&#8221; Dana Bash brought in Senator James Lankford (R-OK) — who agreed that an investigation into the Signal chat was &#8220;entirely appropriate.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorLankford?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenatorLankford</a> tells <a href="https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DanaBashCNN</a> that it&#39;s &quot;entirely appropriate&quot; for the acting Pentagon inspector general to look into top Trump officials discussing military plans on Signal. <a href="https://t.co/2mYxfcIOfy">pic.twitter.com/2mYxfcIOfy</a>
&mdash; State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSOTU/status/1906338929218863605?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Later on in the broadcast, however, Republican commentator <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-accountability-dems-calling-for-hegseths-ouster-trip-over-awol-lloyd-austin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scott Jennings</a> dismantled the argument that Trump administration heads — particularly Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth&#8217;s and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz&#8217;s — should roll over the breach, pointing out that the bar for such firings had been set by the Biden administration.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨Scott Jennings lays out the plain facts to Dems calling for firings over Signalgate —
JENNINGS: “The bar for firing people like this is really high from the last administration when after the Afghanistan withdrawal, which was a disaster, people died.&quot;
&quot;No accountability was… <a href="https://t.co/eE5n3liLIk">pic.twitter.com/eE5n3liLIk</a>
&mdash; Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1906350055574966505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;If you’re trying to assess ‘what should we do about it,’ I hear Democrats arguing, ‘Well, we should fire Pete Hegseth,’ or, ‘We should fire the National Security Adviser,&#8217;” Jennings said. “The bar for firing people like this is really high from the last administration when after the Afghanistan withdrawal, which was a disaster, people died, no accountability was meted out. After the drone strike that vaporized those poor kids and that family, no accountability. After the secretary of defense went AWOL, no accountability.&#8221;

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Poland

Spin Cycle: But About That Signal Story …

Spin Cycle: But About That Signal Story ...

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

CNN Republican commentator Scott Jennings laid into the Democrats who are calling for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth&#8217;s ouster over the Signal-chat SNAFU that resulted in The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg being added to a chat group discussing military strikes on Houthi terrorists.
In the wake of President Donald Trump&#8217;s assurance that he does not plan to fire anyone over the Signal incident, Jennings joined Sunday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;State of the Union&#8221; and pointed out the hypocrisy of Democrats who were calling for Hegseth&#8217;s head despite remaining silent when military leadership under President Joe Biden made decisions that resulted in the deaths of 13 American service-members. He also pointed out the fact that many had remained silent when then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin effectively went AWOL — leaving a subordinate in charge while he was hospitalized, but failing to apprise even the White House of the situation.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨Scott Jennings lays out the plain facts to Dems calling for firings over Signalgate —
JENNINGS: “The bar for firing people like this is really high from the last administration when after the Afghanistan withdrawal, which was a disaster, people died.&quot;
&quot;No accountability was… <a href="https://t.co/eE5n3liLIk">pic.twitter.com/eE5n3liLIk</a>
&mdash; Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1906350055574966505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;If you&#8217;re trying to assess &#8216;what should we do about it,&#8217; I hear Democrats arguing, &#8216;Well, we should fire Pete Hegseth,&#8217; or, &#8216;We should fire the National Security Adviser,'&#8221; Jennings began. &#8220;The bar for firing people like this is really high from the last administration when after the Afghanistan withdrawal, which was a disaster, people died, no accountability was meted out. After the drone strike that vaporized those poor kids and that family, no accountability. After the secretary of defense went AWOL, no accountability.&#8221;
&#8220;So if you&#8217;re arguing today that we should get rid of Pete Hegseth over a small mistake regarding communications — even while he was expertly executing this military operation against the Houthi rebels, which also the Biden administration didn&#8217;t take up, I just ‚ I don&#8217;t have a lot of time for that argument,&#8221; Jennings continued.
Another panelist pushed back, arguing that by taking questions and calling for a review, Austin had provided &#8220;accountability.&#8221;
Jennings was not convinced: &#8220;Did a single Democrat ask for his resignation?&#8221;

25th Ukraine Defense Contact Group Meeting

‘No  Accountability’: Dems Calling For Hegseth’s Ouster Trip Over AWOL Lloyd Austin

Afghanistan

Lloyd Austin

Scott Jennings

President Donald Trump does not plan on firing anyone over the Signal national security group chat incident, he said in an interview on Saturday.
Trump discussed the matter during brief phone interview with NBC News over the weekend, telling the network: &#8220;I don&#8217;t fire people because of fake news and because of witch hunts.&#8221;
On Monday, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that he had been inadvertently added to a national security group chat in which top Trump officials discussed airstrikes in Yemen. That chat included Vice President JD Vance, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other members of Trump’s inner circle on March 15, as the national security team deliberated launching airstrikes on the Houthis.
Asked by NBC News on Saturday if he still has confidence in Hegseth and Waltz, Trump replied: &#8220;I do.&#8221;
“I think it’s just a witch hunt and the fake news, like you, talk about it all the time, but it’s just a witch hunt, and it shouldn’t be talked [about],” Trump told NBC.
He added: “We had a tremendously successful strike. We struck very hard and very lethal. And nobody wants to talk about that. All they want to talk about is nonsense. It’s fake news.”
Trump has repeatedly said that he isn&#8217;t familiar with the Signal app, when pressed for specifics on whether his team should have been using it.
“I have no idea what Signal is. I don’t care what Signal is,” Trump said again Saturday. “All I can tell you is it’s just a witch hunt, and it’s the only thing the press wants to talk about, because you have nothing else to talk about. Because it’s been the greatest 100-day presidency in the history of our country.”
<div id="attachment_900053" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/just-a-witch-hunt-president-trump-says-he-wont-fire-anyone-over-signal-incident/president-donald-trump-departs-washington" rel="attachment wp-att-900053"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-900053" class="wp-image-900053 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2206737792-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2206737792-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2206737792-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2206737792-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2206737792.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>(Photo by ANDRDW THOMAS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)</div>
The White House confirmed Monday that the chat appeared to be authentic, and has since said that no classified information was shared. Hegseth has also pushed back against the notion that &#8220;war plans&#8221; were shared, and the entire Trump team has aggressively messaged that The Atlantic is a liberal, anti-Trump publication and that Goldberg himself is a hack.
“The National Security Advisor has taken responsibility for this matter, and the National Security Council immediately said alongside the White House Counsel’s Office that they are looking into how a reporter’s number was inadvertently added to this messaging thread,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/karoline-leavitt-hammers-jeffrey-goldberg-at-press-briefing">said this week</a>. “We have said all along that no classified material was sent on this messaging thread. There were no locations, no sources or methods revealed, and there were certainly no war plans discussed.”
&#8220;There&#8217;s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and pushing hoaxes more than Jeffrey Goldberg,&#8221; she added.
“Goldberg is an anti-Trump hater,” said Leavitt. “He is a registered Democrat. Goldberg’s wife is also a registered Democrat and a big Democrat donor who used to work under Hillary Clinton. This is the same Jeffrey Goldberg who infamously lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, which cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American soldiers.”
“And how else has Goldberg discredited himself?” she continued. “By absurdly claiming that President Trump was Vladimir Putin during the 2016 campaign, by peddling the ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ hoax that tried to hijack President Trump’s first term, by inventing the ‘suckers and losers’ hoax to help Joe Biden in the 2020 election, by peddling a hoax about President Trump involving Gold Star families to help Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, which our campaign at the time, vigorously denied.”

White House: Trump

‘Just A Witch Hunt’: President Trump Says He Won’t Fire Anyone Over Signal Incident

White House

ABC News host Sunny Hostin tripped over several of former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin&#8217;s glaring shortcomings and strategic blunders in her efforts to trash current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over a Signal chat group that accidentally included Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg.
Hostin declared on Thursday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;The View&#8221; that nothing akin to the Signal chat mishap had happened while Austin was leading the Pentagon, and argued that was just proof that she had been right when she claimed Hegseth was &#8220;unqualified&#8221; to lead America&#8217;s military.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sunny Hostin claims nothing like this happened under former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin&#39;s watch. She ignored how his incompetence led to 13 service members killed at Abbey Gate. She also boasted about disgraced former Secret Service boss Kimberly Cheatle resigning after the… <a href="https://t.co/ej5bzE4ZJG">pic.twitter.com/ej5bzE4ZJG</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1905279509667983688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;You know, the thing is we all knew that Hegseth was unqualified for this job and he replaced a four-star general with over 40 years of experience, Lloyd Austin,&#8221; Hostin began. &#8220;And this would not have happened and did not happen on Lloyd Austin&#8217;s watch.&#8221;
&#8220;But what I will say is, to your question initially, Whoopi, these people need to be fired,&#8221; Hostin added. &#8220;They need to be held accountable. I remember when, following the July 13th rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when there was an assassination attempt on the president&#8217;s life, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said, &#8216;The buck stops with me,&#8217; and she resigned. She resigned. She didn&#8217;t put it on anyone else.&#8221;
&#8220;Pete Hegseth is the person that is responsible — yeah — he&#8217;s the person, as the Secretary of Defense, he is responsible for everything,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;It was his decision to use that group chat to type out this highly sensitive information.&#8221;
Hostin failed to mention the fact that Austin was the one in charge when American troops were ordered to abandon Bagram Air Base — which could have been more easily defended — and funnel all military and civilian evacuations through the congested streets of Kabul and Hamid Karzai International Airport. That decision left Americans and Afghans alike vulnerable when a suicide bomber attacked near Abbey Gate on August 26, 2021, killing 13 U.S. service members and some 160 civilians — and wounding hundreds more. Not one person in the Biden administration has been held responsible for that — but Hegseth and his team have promised that &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/accountability-will-be-coming-secdef-promises-to-investigate-bidens-afghanistan-boondoggle" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accountability will be coming</a>.&#8221;
Hostin also left out the fact that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pentagon-inspector-general-announces-review-of-austin-going-mia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Austin effectively went AWOL</a> (Absent WithOut Leave) for days, leaving a subordinate in charge while he was hospitalized, but failing to apprise the chain of command — namely the White House — of his situation.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin

‘The View’ Host Steps On Afghanistan-Sized Rake In Her Rush To Slam Hegseth Over Signal Story

'The View' Host Steps On Afghanistan-Sized Rake In Her Rush To Slam Hegseth Over Signal Story

Sunny Hostin

The View

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday while answering questions from reporters that he expects there will be changes moving forward after a Signal chat group of top Trump administration officials leaked because a journalist was accidentally added to the group.
Rubio made the remarks alongside Jamaica&#8217;s Prime Minister Andrew Holness during a joint press conference as he visited the island nation.
&#8220;This thing was set up for purposes of coordinating how everyone was going to call,&#8221; Rubio said. &#8220;When these things happen, I need to call foreign ministers, especially of our close allies. We need to notify members of Congress. Other members of the team have different people they need to notify as well. And that was the purpose of why it was set up.&#8221;
&#8220;Obviously, someone made a mistake,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Someone made a big mistake and added a journalist, nothing against journalists, but you ain&#8217;t supposed to be on that thing. So they got on there and this happened.&#8221;
He said that all he did in the group was identify his point of contact like he was asked and later congratulated the team on its success.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve been assured by the Pentagon and everyone involved that none of the information that was on there, though not intended to be divulged — obviously that was a mistake and that shouldn&#8217;t have happened and the White House is looking at it — but that none of the information on there at any point threatened the operation or the lives of our servicemen,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And in fact, it was a very successful operation, and it&#8217;s an ongoing operation, but that was the intent behind it.&#8221;
Rubio backed up Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth&#8217;s assertion that there were &#8220;no war plans on there.&#8221;
&#8220;This was a sort of description of what we could inform our counterparts around the world when the time came to do so,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Again, I think the White House is looking at this entire thing. How did that journalist get on there? Why was this the appropriate I think there&#8217;ll be reforms and changes made. So this never this was not going to happen again. It can&#8217;t. But I wanted everybody to understand why this thing was even set up in the first place, and also understand very clearly the mission was successful and at no point was it endangered.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SecRubio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecRubio</a>: &quot;Obviously, someone made a mistake — someone made a big mistake and added a journalist — nothing against journalists, but you ain&#39;t supposed to be on that thing.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/CcAepT7fHi">pic.twitter.com/CcAepT7fHi</a>
&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1905008437483733419?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sen. Marco Rubio

Rubio: ‘There’ll Be Reforms And Changes Made’ After Signal Mishap

Marco Rubio

A left-wing federal judge who is already locked in a feud with the Trump administration has been assigned to the lawsuit over the leaked Signal chat where officials discussed impending military actions against Houthi targets in Yemen.
U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has been assigned <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5214036-trump-officials-face-records-lawsuit-over-signal-chat/">the lawsuit</a>, which was filed by an organization that claims the Signal chat violated the Federal Records Act. The communications were released Monday by The Atlantic&#8217;s Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg after he had been inadvertently added to the chat.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
JUST IN: Judge James Boasberg has been assigned to the Signalgate lawsuit. <a href="https://t.co/nrLv9EQNyO">pic.twitter.com/nrLv9EQNyO</a>
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1904884072763044089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
The Trump administration is already locked in a feud with Boasberg over his attempt to prevent the president from expediting the removal of Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador through the use of the Alien Enemies Act.
“Judge Boasberg is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama, his wife has donated more than $10,000 to Democrats, and he has consistently shown his disdain for the president and his policies and it is unacceptable,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-white-house-slams-judge-as-democrat-activist-after-daily-wire-investigation">charged</a> in a press briefing last week.
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) is now seeking to <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/judge-boasberg-impeach-deportation-flights-brandon-gill-2049585">impeach</a> Boasberg over his injunction against the Trump administration’s expedited removal of illegal aliens believed to be tied to Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal organization that the administration has designated as a foreign terror organization.
Boasberg has a history of stonewalling President Trump’s efforts while his wife has engaged in overtly partisan activity, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-obama-appointed-judge-trying-to-stop-trump-from-deporting-criminal-illegals">reported</a>.
Boasberg issued a ruling in 2018 that limited the administration’s ability to detain migrant families who had entered the country, hindering Trump’s attempt to disincentivize illegal immigration by limiting the issuance of parole.
The Obama-appointed judge also granted leniency to the only official charged in connection with the Russiagate hoax. Boasberg spared former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith from prison after he had admitted to altering an email to an FBI agent concerning Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Clinesmith had incorrectly labeled Page as not a source for the CIA, heightening suspicions of the Trump campaign.
Boasberg said that Clinesmith had been forced to endure a “media hurricane,” and only sentenced him to a year of probation and 400 hours of community service.
Boasberg’s wife, Elizabeth Manson, has donated more than $11,000 to Democratic candidates and committees, including to Hillary for America when she faced off against Trump in 2016.
Manson is also the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/liddy-manson-5ba20/">founder</a> of Meadow Reproductive Health and Wellness, an abortion clinic in northern Virginia. “In-clinic abortions are safe, simple medical procedures. At Meadow, our providers offer procedures up to 15 weeks of gestation,” Manson’s clinic <a href="https://meadowrepro.org/">writes</a> on its site. “We offer both telehealth and in-person medication abortion services for patients up to 11 weeks of gestation.”

Judge James Boasberg

Judge Who Blocked Deportation Flights Assigned To Signal Chat Lawsuit

deportation

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

Tren De Aragua

Trump

The White House on Wednesday accused The Atlantic of sensationalizing the content of additional &#8220;attack plans&#8221; messages that the outlet released after administration officials denied sharing classified information in a Signal group chat that its reporter was inadvertently added to.
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly added to a Signal group chat of top Trump military and intelligence officials to monitor airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. The Atlantic’s first article on the chat, published Monday, left out messages that Goldberg said contained sensitive “attack plans” that could damage U.S. national security if released.
The outlet published those redacted messages on Wednesday after Trump officials denied on Tuesday that any classified information was shared in the group chat. “There was no classified information as I understand it,” President Donald Trump <a href="https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1904613513378537843" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> on Tuesday.
The messages released by Goldberg were sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at 11:44 a.m. ET on the morning of March 15, the day of the strike on the Houthis. The messages, sent to the group roughly two hours before the strike was delivered, said:
<blockquote>TEAM UPDATE:
TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.
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.
Godspeed to our Warriors.</blockquote>
Vice President JD Vance slammed Goldberg after the publication of the additional messages, accusing The Atlantic chief of sensationalizing the contents of messages that he had originally kept from the public.
“It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,” the vice president posted on X.
“But one thing in particular really stands out. Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out [CIA Director John Ratcliffe] was simply naming his chief of staff,” Vance said. The Atlantic, at the request of the CIA, kept redacted the name of Ratcliffe&#8217;s chief of staff because the identities of CIA intelligence officers are typically protected.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had. But one thing in particular really stands out. 
Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff. <a href="https://t.co/BUGbX6gZDZ">https://t.co/BUGbX6gZDZ</a>
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1904887094649971146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ratcliffe had testified to Congress on Tuesday that his chief of staff was not operating undercover, and so naming him in the Signal chat was “completely appropriate.”
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz <a href="https://x.com/MikeWaltz47/status/1904888948628877756">posted</a> after after the additional messages were public: “No locations. No sources &amp; methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”
The Atlantic reached out to the White House and top intelligence officials before publishing the additional messages, asking if government officials had any reservations about the outlet doing so. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that no “classified information” was shared in the group, but that the messages contained &#8220;sensitive information” that should not be made public.
“As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release,” Leavitt told The Atlantic in a statement.
After The Atlantic published the additional messages, Leavitt responded to the story on X.
“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans.’ This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin,” Leavitt wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT “war plans.” 
This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin. <a href="https://t.co/atGrDd2ymr">pic.twitter.com/atGrDd2ymr</a>
&mdash; Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1904875629612331123?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

JD Vance

White House Blasts The Atlantic After Release Of More ‘Attack Plans’ Messages: ‘Oversold’

White House Blasts The Atlantic After Release Of ‘Attack Plans’ Messages: ‘Oversold’

Karoline Leavitt

On Monday, Jeffrey Goldberg, the execrable editor of The Atlantic, dropped a bombshell story. Goldberg is basically a stand-in for Barack Obama&#8217;s foreign policy team.
He broke the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">story</a> that he was accidentally included in a Signal chat that was basically comprised of every top member of Team Trump in the national security sphere, ranging from the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, to National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, to Vice President of the United States JD Vance, to Stephen Miller, a top adviser to President Trump.
They were all in a Signal chat discussing the upcoming military strike on the Houthis. Waltz accidentally included Goldberg in this Signal chat.
What exactly happened here? The answer is almost certainly that Waltz meant to include the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
Signal is an encrypted messaging service that is basically supposed to be uncrackable by outside sources. When using Signal — as I myself do — you can choose how your name appears in its identity line. You can either pick your full name or your initials.
My assumption is that Jamieson Greer opted to use his initials, “JG,” and that whoever put together the group selected Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic instead.
This does not mean, as so many folks who do not like Mike Waltz surmise, that he was regularly chatting with Goldberg. It just means that Goldberg was in a list of contacts that included Greer, both of them used their initials “JG,” and he selected the wrong one.
Obviously, the biggest issue is the leak itself. How did this happen?
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2165-member-exclusive">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
President Trump was asked about this yesterday, and said, “I don&#8217;t know anything about it. I&#8217;m not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it&#8217;s a magazine that&#8217;s going out of business. I think it&#8217;s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.” When told the chat was discussing the attack on the Houthis, Trump <a href="https://x.com/yashar/status/1904250234236289151">replied</a>, “The Houthis? You mean the attack on the Houthis? Well, it couldn&#8217;t have been very effective because the [U.S.] attack was very effective. I can tell you that.”
When Hegseth was asked about this, he <a href="https://x.com/DODResponse/status/1904311661629964334" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tore into</a> The Atlantic as well: “So you&#8217;re talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who&#8217;s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again, to include the, I don&#8217;t know, the hoaxes of ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ or the ‘fine people on both sides’ hoax or ‘it&#8217;s suckers and losers’ hoax. This is a guy who peddles in garbage.”
I&#8217;m on board. I think The Atlantic, particularly Goldberg, is not a good representative of the journalistic institution. He was basically a stenographer for Barack Obama. But it was confirmed that the Signal chat involved all these players, and the story was real.
That raises a couple of questions. One is legal. There are people who are attempting to claim that this was somehow violative of criminal law, that this was a breach of Official Records Acts because an auto-delete function can be activated in Signal chats.
The use of terms in The Atlantic piece such as “high side” suggests that there was an entire other thread that was going on inside these sort of classified government rooms. That was preserved. So, there&#8217;s that.
Second, the president of the United States has the ability to simply declassify whatever he wants. So the idea that this is some violation of law is overstated. Is it a scandal? Sure, it&#8217;s a scandal when there&#8217;s a screwup this big. If you accidentally include a journalist in a high-ranking discussion about the precise location of a bombing, that is a major problem, of course. It is a breach of security.
But I am not willing to hear such claims from people on the Democratic side of the aisle who were perfectly fine with the Hillary Clinton email issue. This is one of the lines that the Left is hammering: “You guys, you fussed all about Hillary Clinton and her emails and keeping those on her own private server.”
First, we should recognize that what Hillary Clinton did and what happened here (inviting a journalist into a group chat) are both quite bad. Obviously, that involves high-ranking discussions of national security matters that are classified. That is a giant booboo.
As much as I despise Goldberg as a human being, I think he actually did the responsible thing in not printing, for example, operational details or blowing the operation beforehand, which he certainly could have done.
With that said, the reason that everyone is so casual about the use of classified material these days is because of the original sin of James Comey not prosecuting Hillary Clinton over her emails. That set up an entire permission structure for people to mishandle classified materials — unless you’re a Republican.
That is the way this works. If Hillary Clinton uses classified materials, and she puts them on a private server — which Comey of the FBI openly acknowledged was likely accessed by foreign sources — and no prosecution attends, how can that rule apply to anybody else?
This is why it was so ridiculous when they tried to go after Trump for the mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago at the same exact time that Joe Biden had classified documents in his garage.
This issue is largely played out, in the sense that while something can be a giant screwup, nobody takes it as a criminal-level screwup at this point. That was laid to rest in 2015 and 2016 by the operation to let Clinton off the hook back for her email scandal.
When the Left says, “We&#8217;ve now heard the end about her emails,” the reality is, “But her emails,” was the inciting event for an entire string of mishandling of classified materials on both sides of the aisle.
Some Democrats say this could have cost lives. As it stands, that is hypothetical and did not happen in reality. A giant screwup is not quite the same thing as an intentional move to endanger human life on the American side of the aisle.
It&#8217;s also worth noting that many of the same people who are very upset with this particular situation would have been perfectly happy if the war plan had been leaked by a Trump administration insider and printed on the front page of The New York Times — which happened all the time in the first Trump administration.
What is interesting is the mobilization on one side of the Republican aisle against Waltz in particular, because there are really two issues that are of note with regard to this leak.
One is the leak itself, which obviously is deeply noteworthy. And the administration should make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
But then, there is the second issue, which is what was actually said in the leak. I have noticed that the partisans of Vance are saying that the real story is the leak, while partisans of Waltz are saying that the real story is what was said in the chat.
The answer is both. Both of these things are actual real stories, and neither should be obscured.
People who are fans of the vice president are shifting the focus away from what Vance actually said in the chat, which is another fascinating aspect to this.
This is a window into the open foreign policy debates happening inside the Trump administration. Trump says we are going to reopen freedom of trade and freedom of the seas. We&#8217;re going to strike the Houthis; we&#8217;re not going to be cowards as the Biden administration was.
A consequential discussion ensues in the chat: part of the administration says we need to go punch the Houthis in the mouth, but Vance says we should not punch the Houthis in the mouth and then puts forward a pretty milquetoast delay tactic. Vance posited an open disagreement with President Trump: “I&#8217;m not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.”
It isn’t. Striking the Houthis is not inconsistent with his messaging on Europe.
By the way, the argument that only 3% of U.S. trade runs through the Suez but 40% of European trade does and thus it doesn&#8217;t matter for the United States if trade moves through the Suez Canal is incredibly silly because trade is intertwined. If the price of goods drastically goes up in Europe, then the price of goods in the United States will go up as well — because we trade with Europe.
Vance’s remarks bespeak an entirely different geopolitical strategy than what the Trump administration as a whole has been promoting. When looking past the leak issue to the actual content, Waltz, Hegseth, and Miller reflect the priorities of the president of the United States.
But Vance? Not so much. When he says, “This is really about cramming it down on the Europeans, so why don&#8217;t the Europeans do it,” he knows full well that the Europeans are not capable of taking on the Houthis. He also understands how global trade works.
This really suggests that the vice president has a very different view of foreign policy from Trump’s, a view that he expressed pretty clearly before he was vice president when he said he didn&#8217;t care whether Russia took Ukraine. That is certainly a view that bespeaks of foreign policy and spheres of influence — essentially, that Russia should have its own sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, stretching all the way down into the Middle East, and that the United States should basically remove itself from the world, which may or may not mean a broader sphere of influence for the Chinese.
Vance has a very different foreign policy than the Trump foreign policy. That&#8217;s just reality.
When he makes statements that openly conflict with the President of the United States’ statements, that is another side to this story.
There are two dueling narratives, and it will be interesting to see how it shakes down inside the administration.

Menu