FBI Director Kash Patel on Monday sued The Atlantic for $250 million over what he calls a “malicious and defamatory hit piece” that accused the federal law enforcement chief of having a serious drinking problem.
Patel is acting on a promise he made over the weekend to sue <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/">The Atlantic over a Friday story</a> whose sub-headline read, “Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”
<div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25">
<section class="text-token-text-primary w-full focus:outline-none [--shadow-height:45px] has-data-writing-block:pointer-events-none has-data-writing-block:-mt-(--shadow-height) has-data-writing-block:pt-(--shadow-height) [&amp;:has([data-writing-block])&gt;*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" data-turn-id="request-WEB:707589a6-9f60-4c4f-8fa9-98f1b04b62f3-6" data-testid="conversation-turn-14" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-turn="assistant">
<div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)">
<div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn">
<div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow">
<div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-1" dir="auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="bff3f5b8-fb4d-49aa-b43c-e0a8192212f0" data-message-model-slug="gpt-5-3-mini" data-turn-start-message="true">
<div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden">
<div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling">
The story portrayed an absent FBI chief concerned about his job security and allegedly struggling with substance abuse, which is said to be affecting key investigations, including the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Patel has forcefully denied all allegations of misconduct.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>
&#8220;You wanna attack my character, come at me, bring it on, I&#8217;ll see you in court,&#8221; Patel said in an <a href="https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2045893562026353027?s=20">interview with Fox News</a>. &#8220;We have to fight back against the fake news.&#8221;
The piece, written by reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, cited more than two dozen anonymous sources alleging Patel engages in “excessive drinking,” as well as “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences&#8221; that &#8220;alarmed officials at the FBI  and the Department of Justice,&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/fbi-director-kash-patel-sues-atlantic-court-records-show-2026-04-20/">according to Reuters</a>.
&#8220;Memo to the fake news &#8211; the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop,&#8221; Patel posted on April 18. &#8220;Keep talking, it means I’m doing exactly what I should be doing. And no amount of BS you write will ever deter this FBI from making America safe again and taking down the criminals you love.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Memo to the fake news &#8211; the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop. Keep talking, it means I’m doing exactly what I should be doing. And no amount of BS you write will ever deter this FBI from making America…
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045549772044439803?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2026</a></blockquote>
Patel’s <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291527/gov.uscourts.dcd.291527.1.0.pdf">19-page suit</a> was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., accusing The Atlantic of publishing a &#8220;sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece.&#8221;
&#8220;Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office,&#8221; the lawsuit reads. &#8220;Indeed, Fitzpatrick could not get a single person to go on the record in defense of these outrageous allegations, instead relying entirely on anonymous sources she knew to be both highly partisan with an ax to grind and also not in a position to know the facts.&#8221;
The Atlantic provided the FBI a two-hour window to respond to &#8220;nineteen detailed allegations concerning complex issues of national security, personnel files, security-detail logs, internal facilities logs, and personal conduct,&#8221; according to the lawsuit.
On Monday, The Atlantic vowed to fight the lawsuit, which seeks $250 million in punitive damages.
&#8220;We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,&#8221; the company said in response to the lawsuit.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Statement from The Atlantic: <a href="https://t.co/ZoIldjSbzl">pic.twitter.com/ZoIldjSbzl</a>
— The Atlantic Communications (@TheAtlanticPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlanticPR/status/2046239419422675189?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 2026</a></blockquote>

Kash Patel

We Now Know How Much Kash Patel Is Suing The Atlantic For

Courts

kash patel

Lawsuit

Politics

The Atlantic

Trump Administration

FBI Director Kash Patel is preparing for a full-scale legal battle against The Atlantic after the outlet published a bombshell report he says is riddled with falsehoods, and he’s making clear he intends to take it to the mat.
“Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook,” Patel <a href="https://x.com/S_Fitzpatrick/status/2045273851764859074">told the magazine</a> ahead of publication, a warning that has now escalated into an imminent lawsuit.
The Friday article by Sarah Fitzpatrick, titled “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/">The FBI Director is MIA,</a>” levels a barrage of allegations against Patel, painting a picture of a senior law enforcement official allegedly plagued by instability, heavy drinking, and internal dysfunction. The report claims Patel engaged in “erratic” behavior, suffered bouts of paranoia about his job security, and was frequently absent or unreachable during key moments.
Among the most explosive claims: that Patel is “known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication” in front of colleagues, that members of his security detail have struggled to wake him due to alleged inebriation, and that officials once considered using breaching equipment to access a locked space when he could not be reached. The piece also alleges that meetings had to be delayed due to his condition and suggests his behavior could pose a “national security vulnerability.”
Patel’s legal team has forcefully rejected every one of those claims.
In a <a href="https://x.com/jbinnall/status/2045287437325254768">pre-publication letter</a>, his attorney Jesse Binnall called the allegations “categorically false and defamatory,” emphasizing that most rely on anonymous sources using vague phrasing like “people familiar with the matter.” Binnall argued that such sourcing “could not possibly possess firsthand knowledge” and accused the magazine of reckless disregard for the truth, a key component in proving defamation involving a public figure.
He also pointed to what he described as glaring factual holes, including the alleged “breaching equipment” incident, which he said has “no corroborating public record whatsoever” and appears to be either fabricated or based on a single unreliable source.
Reaction on X was immediate and sharply divided, with Patel allies and critics clashing over the credibility of The Atlantic’s reporting.
FBI media adviser Erica Knight <a href="https://x.com/_EricaKnight/status/2045279436354867267">blasted</a> the article as a recycled collection of rumors that “every real DC reporter chased, couldn&#8217;t verify, and passed on,” while laying out a lengthy defense of Patel’s record. She pointed to internal metrics under his leadership — including tens of thousands of arrests, major increases in violent crime enforcement, and large-scale fentanyl seizures — while dismissing the report’s central claims outright. “The so-called ‘intoxication incidents’ The Atlantic breathlessly reports have happened exactly ZERO times,” Knight wrote, adding bluntly: “Lawsuit is being filed.”
Others with direct ties to Patel echoed that pushback. Clint Brown, who described himself as a “sherpa” during Patel’s transition into the role, <a href="https://x.com/DissidentClint/status/2045310456340840611">said</a> he spent months working closely with him, and never witnessed any of the behavior described in the report. “Your anon sourced story is BS,” Brown wrote, adding that Patel was consistently responsive, detail-oriented, and deeply engaged in his work, often reviewing briefings at all hours.
Patel himself <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045549772044439803">leaned into the fight</a>, framing the controversy as proof he’s doing his job. “Memo to the fake news — the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop,” he posted, adding that criticism would not deter the FBI from “making America safe again.”
On Capitol Hill, the reaction broke along predictable lines. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) seized on the report, <a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2045524585567723876">saying</a> it confirmed Patel is “completely unfit to serve” and calling for his resignation. But Tom Cotton (R-AR), who works directly with Patel as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/2045517520849773053">dismissed</a> the story as a “dishonest smear” and pointed instead to what he described as tangible results from the bureau. Cotton followed up, <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/2045517524926705838">adding</a>, &#8220;Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s really happening: Liberal reporters and disgruntled deep state leakers — who have zero knowledge of what the story alleges — are bitter that the FBI is no longer targeting Catholic parents and pro-lifers.&#8221;
The clash underscores what is quickly becoming more than just a media dispute: a political and legal showdown that is now playing out in real time across both the press and the courts.
Inside the administration, Patel has drawn swift and public backing. “Patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in four years. Anonymously sourced hit pieces do not constitute journalism,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said when reached out to by The Atlantic for comment.
FBI Assistant Director of Public Affairs Ben Williamson, who pushed back on the allegations when first contacted by the outlet, didn’t mince words in his response. He dismissed the report as a reheated collection of long-circulating rumors that had never held up under scrutiny, <a href="https://x.com/_WilliamsonBen/status/2045274603455476140">saying</a>: “This article is a compilation of pretty much every obviously fake rumor I’ve heard the last 14 months except the Atlantic is the only one dumb enough to actually print it.”
Patel himself has gone further, <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045327321192599867">publicly accusing</a> the magazine of acting with “actual malice,” the high legal bar required in defamation cases involving public officials. He went further, saying, “See you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court.”
His team is also demanding that The Atlantic preserve all internal communications, drafts, and source materials related to the story, a clear signal that litigation is not just a threat, but imminent.
For her part, Fitzpatrick is standing by her reporting, citing interviews with more than two dozen sources and insisting the story is accurate. 
Neither side is backing down and so the high-stakes collision between a top federal law enforcement official and a major national publication seems imminent. If Patel follows through, the case could become a major test of modern media practices, particularly the reliance on anonymous sourcing in stories involving national security figures, and whether courts are willing to scrutinize those standards more aggressively.
The next round seems likely to play out in court, where both sides will be forced to back up their claims under oath, and where the consequences could be far more serious than a war of words.

Patel Unleashes On The Atlantic Over ‘Categorically False’ Report Including ‘Locked Room’ Claim

Media

Media Bias

This week, Americans will legally wager an estimated <a href="https://www.americangaming.org/americans-to-legally-wager-3-3-billion-on-march-madness-nearly-half-of-digital-sports-betting-ads-now-come-from-prediction-market-platforms/">$3.3 billion</a> on March Madness, a 54% jump from just three years ago. That number says something important about what happens when you let adults make their own choices in regulated markets rather than pushing them toward offshore bookies in the shadows.
I&#8217;ve spent a decade as a consumer advocate, watching nearly every wave of moralist and neoprohibitionist crusading: alcohol, cannabis, nicotine pouches, fatty food, caffeine, red meat, sports gambling, and prediction markets. Plenty I wouldn&#8217;t touch. Others I moderately enjoy. But I&#8217;ve never once lobbied my congressman to ban any of them — because I&#8217;ve also watched what happens when governments do.
The Atlantic recently published a gripping <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/04/online-sports-betting-app-addiction/686061/">year-long account</a> of sports betting that ends with its writer, McKay Coppins, a Mormon dad from the suburbs, filing a self-exclusion form at 5:00 a.m. after the Super Bowl. The magazine gave Coppins $10,000 to experiment with gambling.
As an inexperienced bettor playing with earmarked money from his bosses, Coppins describes feeling “seduced” and asks how it is that Americans think, “unlike every civilization that came before us, we can beat the house.”
But his ending proves a worthwhile point: the voluntary self-banning request form he eventually signs exists only because sports betting is properly regulated in the United States. Offshore bookmakers don’t have such an off-ramp.
<div id="attachment_1061361" style="width: 875px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1061361" class="size-large wp-image-1061361" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2235428749-1-865x576.jpg" alt="The BetMGM app arranged on a smartphone in New Hyde Park, New York, US, on Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2025. Online gambling has expanded rapidly in the US since 2018, when the Supreme Court freed states to legalize sports betting. Photographer: Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="865" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2235428749-1-865x576.jpg 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2235428749-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2235428749-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2235428749-1.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 865px) 100vw, 865px" />Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
<h3>Compliance Cops</h3>
There is a growing pile of commentary from writers and activists who have cast themselves as chaperones for everyday Americans who might enjoy a little risk. Call them compliance cops: the prediction market writer who <a href="https://nexteventhorizon.substack.com/p/congress-and-prediction-markets">only covers</a> why prediction markets are bad, the crypto journalists fixated only on harsh regulation, or the energy reporter <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/200877/energy-transition-never-happened">more interested</a> in advancing climate mandates than covering the innovations that will actually power tomorrow. And of course, tech journalists who want to <a href="https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/actually-the-left-is-winning-the">ban data centers</a> at the precise time we need them more than ever.
That compliance-cop pattern repeats everywhere. State regulators are issuing <a href="https://www.americangaming.org/americans-to-legally-wager-3-3-billion-on-march-madness-nearly-half-of-digital-sports-betting-ads-now-come-from-prediction-market-platforms/">cease-and-desist orders</a> against prediction markets like Kalshi, which is federally regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but is putting pressure on incumbent sportsbooks. It’s not dissimilar from how taxi permit holders <a href="https://consumerchoicecenter.org/uber-is-winning-the-global-ridesharing-war-and-thats-good-for-consumers/">spent years</a> trying to legislate ride-sharing out of existence. Consumers and new entrants are always the main losers when incumbents write the rules.
Call it the American moralist streak. Call it the prohibitionist impulse. Whatever name it goes by, it persists no matter the product or pastime.
The answer, however, isn&#8217;t to abandon all guardrails. We’re not choosing between Sodom and Gomorrah and the 17th-century Puritanism of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Licensed markets with basic age-verification rules let people access nicotine pouches or cannabis without unregulated alternatives where product safety is a gamble in its own right. Regulated gambling is better than shady offshore sites gaining market dominance with zero accountability.
<h3>Food Bans Or Consumer Choice?</h3>
Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is barnstorming the country demanding bans on synthetic food dyes, restricting SNAP benefits for candy and soda, and redesigning what Americans may eat. This year, 18 states will <a href="https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/maha-rfk-kennedy-state-legislatures-dyes-ultraprocessed-foods/">block SNAP purchases</a> of sugary drinks. Wanting cleaner labels is reasonable — deciding which snacks food-assistance recipients may buy is not.
The MAHA agenda&#8217;s answer is always a new ban or restriction when transparency and consumer choice would better serve the public. Oftentimes, the most effective public health measures aren’t mandates.
The principle is simple: if an activity primarily affects the adult who chooses it, and that adult accepts responsibility, the government&#8217;s job is to minimize harm at the margins, not to decide the activity shouldn&#8217;t exist.
Prohibition never ends demand. Not for alcohol, not for cannabis or gambling, not for the countless pleasures Americans have been told are bad for them. Every failed ban produces the same result: a thriving illicit market, greater danger, and no fewer users. 
I&#8217;ve made my choices. Americans should be free to make theirs — somewhere safe, regulated, and above ground.
* * *
Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gambler

March Madness Sparks Betting Boom — What It Proves About Letting Americans Choose

Americans Have Always Loved Vice. Get Over It.

Free Market

gambling

MAHA

Opinion

sports betting

I have released enough documentaries over the years to recognize an emerging pattern in terms of how the Left will respond. There are really only two options: Either they&#8217;ll ignore my documentary entirely (which is how most of the media responded to &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/am-i-racist?elementPosition=0&amp;row=13&amp;rowHeadline=Comedy+%26+Entertainment&amp;rowType=Portrait+Show+Carousel">Am I Racist?,</a>&#8221; even though it was the top documentary of the decade). Or, in the alternative, they&#8217;ll publish extremely low-effort, highly dishonest articles, where they review some imaginary version of my documentary, put words into my mouth, and take every important scene out of context.
That was the case with &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman?elementPosition=1&amp;row=13&amp;rowHeadline=Comedy+%26+Entertainment&amp;rowType=Portrait+Show+Carousel">What is a Woman?</a>,&#8221; when outlet after outlet accused me of being a &#8220;transphobe&#8221; who engaged in &#8220;hate speech&#8221; — even though 99% of the movie involved me asking basic, straightforward questions to self-described experts in gender ideology. And the other 1% was me asking why those experts were running away from me instead of answering my simple and straightforward questions.
So based on these experiences, when I released the first episode of my newest series at the Daily Wire, which is called &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/real-history-with-matt-walsh?elementPosition=2&amp;row=6&amp;rowHeadline=Featured&amp;rowType=Portrait+Show+Carousel">Real History</a>,&#8221; I was expecting either a total media blackout, or a flood of desperate hit pieces. After all, &#8220;Real History&#8221; is a direct challenge to some of the most important tenets of modern Leftism. 
But interestingly enough, &#8220;Real History&#8221; has not been met with a total media blackout. Nor has it been bombarded with a series of incredibly dumb and lazy smears. Instead, aside from a small number of YouTube videos from historians — which have mostly been positive, and very thorough — the only mainstream response to &#8220;Real History&#8221; has come from The Atlantic magazine, which considers itself to be the bastion of Left-wing intellectual thought.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1735-aoc-utterly-humiliates-herself-on-the-world-stage?elementPosition=1&amp;row=6&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
And right away, that got my attention. It&#8217;s not that The Atlantic is a trustworthy outlet. It&#8217;s obviously not. In fact, they&#8217;ve created numerous high-level hoaxes in just the past couple of years, solely to influence elections. But at the same time, if The Atlantic — and only The Atlantic — is coming after you, then it means you&#8217;ve done something unique. It means that you&#8217;ve rattled the people who, in elite circles of the Democrat Party, are taken very seriously. Now, why might &#8220;Real History&#8221; have done that?
To answer that question, let&#8217;s see what <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/02/slavery-matt-walsh-1619-project/685982/">The Atlantic says</a>, specifically.
<blockquote>Matt Walsh would like you to know you’ve been lied to. Last month, the right-wing provocateur appeared on Megyn Kelly’s show to discuss his new video series, Real History With Matt Walsh. &#8230; In Walsh’s account, the left believes that “America was built on slavery, and it has no right to exist, and every white American carries, somehow, that legacy, that guilt in their blood”; therefore progressives feel they have the “moral justification to just do whatever they want” to white people. Walsh intends to stop this. So in Real History, he relentlessly downplays the brutality of slavery in the United States. Sanitizing slavery has become a core objective of the reactionary right under Donald Trump—a malignant response to the progressive left’s oversimplification of American history for their own present-day ends. But the truest understanding of slavery doesn’t serve any political faction. Rather, it acknowledges the horrors of racial oppression while still allowing us to see beyond them. &#8230; Walsh also notes that the descendants of Africans trafficked to what became the United States are now in better socioeconomic shape than those whose ancestors remained in the Old World or were transported to Latin America or the Caribbean. He draws an odious conclusion from this—American slavery wasn’t that bad—yet the point is not entirely incorrect. Other far more serious thinkers have made versions of it too.</blockquote>
There&#8217;s the sneering that you might expect from The Atlantic. They want you to know that there are &#8220;far more serious thinkers&#8221; than I am. But for all their preening and all their arrogance, it&#8217;s clear that the author of this piece, Thomas Chatterton Williams, has not even watched <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/rhs-260118?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel">Episode 1,</a> &#8220;The Real History of Slavery.&#8221; He couldn&#8217;t be bothered to spend the hour to actually watch the show.
And I can make that claim with confidence, because there is absolutely nothing in the episode — or any episode of the series — that &#8220;relentlessly downplays the brutality of slavery in the United States.&#8221; Instead, the episode is a roughly hour-long look at what slavery entailed, all over the world. And yes, as a matter of historical fact, Africans and the Barbary Pirates and the Ottomans generally treated their slaves far, far worse than Americans and American colonists. Americans weren&#8217;t known for floating canoes in the blood of their slaves, for example. Nor were Americans known for sailing thousands of miles away in order to snatch men, women and children from their homes, throw them onto boats, and sexually assault them. That&#8217;s not &#8220;downplaying&#8221; anything. It&#8217;s the truth. And &#8220;serious thinkers&#8221; — to use The Atlantic&#8217;s terminology — care about the truth, above all else.
But The Atlantic doesn&#8217;t care about the truth. That&#8217;s why, in 2019, they published an article <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/">entitled</a>, &#8220;The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts.&#8221;
What&#8217;s remarkable about this headline is that, indeed, the fight over the 1619 Project was about the facts. All of the history was completely wrong — including their claim that Americans fought the Revolutionary War to preserve slavery. But The Atlantic ran cover for the 1619 Project at the time, because it served the narrative of the Democrat Party. It advanced racial grievances, which they saw — correctly, for a time — as a pathway to power.
The point of &#8220;Real History,&#8221; on the other hand, is not to advance the interests of the &#8220;MAGA movement,&#8221; or anyone else. The point is to communicate historically accurate information that&#8217;s deliberately hidden from us, at every stage in our lives. Schools don&#8217;t talk about it. The media doesn&#8217;t talk about it. Movies don&#8217;t talk about it. Telling the truth is not &#8220;downplaying&#8221; anything. By contrast, it&#8217;s the fake intellectuals in the Left, people like the writers at The Atlantic, who have been downplaying the reality of the African and Ottoman slave trades for generations.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Real History with Matt Walsh | Official Trailer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PQu1n_OC1eE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But according to The Atlantic, so-called &#8220;MAGA revisionists,&#8221; along with the Trump administration, are the problem here. 
So let&#8217;s read on from <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/02/slavery-matt-walsh-1619-project/685982/">their review</a> of &#8220;Real History.&#8221;
<blockquote>Back in March, [Trump] strong-armed a host of institutions by issuing an executive order called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which directs federally funded museums, monuments, and parks to remove materials that promote “corrosive ideology.” Last month, the park service obliged, eliminating an outdoor exhibit at Independence National Historical Park, in Philadelphia, where George Washington’s house once stood. The exhibit honored nine slaves who toiled at the residence &#8230; Trump and his allies seem unwilling to tolerate virtually any acknowledgment that America subjugated Black people. Rather than making a dispassionate case against the idea that the country was founded to enslave Africans, MAGA is taking down plaques commemorating basic facts, such as Washington’s slaveholding. In Real History, Walsh turns the clock back further still.</blockquote>
Notice the sleight of hand here. 
They&#8217;re strongly implying that the Trump administration ordered the park service to remove an exhibit about the fact that George Washington owned slaves. But that&#8217;s actually not true. If you read the Executive Order, it orders the parks service to remove anything promoting a &#8220;corrosive ideology&#8221; that demonizes Americans. And as The Washington Post reported, the parks service interpreted that Executive Order as broadly as possible. It&#8217;s a form of &#8220;malicious compliance.&#8221; 
The Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/09/15/national-parks-slavery-information-removal/">reported:</a>
<blockquote>the removals were in line with President Donald Trump’s March executive order directing the Interior Department to eliminate information that reflects a “corrosive ideology” that disparages historic Americans. National Park Service officials are broadly interpreting that directive to apply to information on racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights or persecution of Indigenous people.</blockquote>
See how that works?
The Trump administration issues an order, telling agencies to stop advancing an anti-white, anti-American agenda. Democrats then remove displays of slavery. And then Democrats say, &#8220;Hey, you made us remove displays of slavery!&#8221;
And by the way, it&#8217;s especially ironic that they lump &#8220;Real History&#8221; in with this. Again, if this guy had watched the show — which he clearly hasn&#8217;t — he&#8217;d know that we talk, at some length, about Washington&#8217;s slaves. And in particular, we talk about his white indentured servants, who ran away around the time of the start of the Revolutionary War. Washington put out advertisements, seeking the return of these white runaways. And there were many more white runaways than black runaways at Washington&#8217;s estate. But no one at The Atlantic wants to talk about this, because it complicates their narrative that only blacks were victimized by slavery in America. So they hide the truth, and then they accuse us of being the liars.
What&#8217;s funny about all of this is that, back in 2019, The Atlantic put out an article stating that &#8220;reparations&#8221; could mean &#8220;telling the truth&#8221; about uncomfortable historical facts. So in that sense, you&#8217;d think they&#8217;d be happy about Real History. You&#8217;d think they&#8217;d consider it a form of reparations. Apparently not. 
In reality, The Atlantic, like so many other bastions of Left-wing &#8220;intellectualism,&#8221; is collapsing in on itself. Their ideology is incoherent. They have no idea what they stand for, or how to construct even the most basic argument about anything they believe in.
This is a big, big problem for the Left in general.

The Atlantic Attacks My Documentary, Says I’m ‘Downplaying’ Slavery

The Atlantic Attacks My Documentary, Says I'm ‘Downplaying’ Slavery

1619 Project

American History

Documentaries

Slavery

US-POLITICS-TRUMP-KIRK-SHOOTING

Christian Faith Was On Full Display At Charlie Kirk’s Memorial And Leftists Are Confused

Bible

Charlie Kirk

Christianity

Democrats

Don Lemon

Leftists

Legacy Media

Liberals

Matt Walsh

memorial

Turning Point USA

New York Times White House Correspondent Peter Baker said that the late conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has become &#8220;a symbol of the toxic culture we&#8217;re in.&#8221;
Baker joined a panel discussion moderated by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, and while he did concede that Kirk was often willing to walk into places where conservatives were not often welcomed, he also suggested that riling people up was a part of Kirk’s “style.”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NYT&#8217;s Peter Baker: Charlie Kirk Said A Lot Of Things That Riled People Up, &#8220;A Symbol Of The Toxic Culture We&#8217;re In&#8221;
Read his remarks: <a href="https://t.co/KoGFydLGC5">https://t.co/KoGFydLGC5</a> <a href="https://t.co/dYj1bkJhwC">pic.twitter.com/dYj1bkJhwC</a>
— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) <a href="https://twitter.com/rcpvideo/status/1966969466937540906?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg began the discussion by introducing Baker and the rest of his panel, and then jumped right into the conversation.
”Let&#8217;s start at the beginning. Peter, and I want everybody to jump in this, let&#8217;s talk a little bit about Charlie Kirk, who he was and what role he played in the broader Republican ecosystem and the broader political ecosystem.”
”So, Charlie Kirk was a 31-year-old we call an influencer, I guess, these days, provocateur would be another word, he — out there galvanizing young voters, particularly on the right, to support Trump,” Baker began. “He actually was not originally a Trump supporter, but became one of his most —“
“That&#8217;s not unusual,” Goldberg interrupted.
“That&#8217;s not unusual in modern conservative politics,” Baker agreed. “But at age 31, he had become, you know, a pretty significant force in young people&#8217;s politics. And he became a friend not only of Trump, but Donald Trump Jr., J.D. Vance, in particular. J.D. Vance was so moved by this event that he ripped up his schedule, flew out to Utah to personally have the casket brought home on Air Force Two to Arizona.”
Baker went on to note the scope of Kirk’s influence — saying that despite never having run for or held any elected office, the TPUSA founder had certainly made his mark among young voters and Republicans.
“Now, he said a lot of things that got a lot of people riled up, right? And that was part of his style about race, about gender, about affirmative action and Islam and things like that,” Baker continued. “But he also enjoyed going to college campuses like the one he was at. Even though he knew an audience there might include people who didn&#8217;t agree with him, and he liked to mix it up. And he&#8217;s, you know, become in this last few days, I think, a symbol of the of the toxic culture that we&#8217;re in right now, [in] politics.”

New York Times

NYT Reporter: Charlie Kirk Became ‘A Symbol Of The Toxic Culture We’re In’

NYT Reporter: Charlie Kirk Became 'A Symbol Of The Toxic Culture We're In'

assassination

Peter Baker

Over the first six months of President Donald Trump&#8217;s second term, nearly everyone in media — from individual journalists and pundits to entire outlets — has scrambled to gain solid footing.
Some have fared better than others as they attempt to navigate what seems to be a constantly shifting landscape. The majority have opted for one or more of a few clear strategies: rewriting history, gaslighting the audience, or attempting to restructure, well, everything. Some have even chosen different strategies for specific issues, jumping back and forth between them whenever necessary.
Let&#8217;s take stock of where journalism is today.
<h3>Rewriting History.</h3>
The key offenders here are the pundits and journalists charging ahead with damning reports on former President Joe Biden&#8217;s obvious cognitive decline — and even publishing books about it — as though they played no role in hiding Biden&#8217;s condition while he was in the White House.
One such book, &#8220;Original Sin,&#8221; came from CNN anchor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jake-tapper-who-ignored-signs-of-bidens-decline-releasing-book-on-the-cover-up">Jake Tapper</a> and Axios reporter Alex Thompson. Both authors defended Biden from conservative attacks while it was clear to anyone capable of basic observation that the former president was a long way off his game.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jake-tapper-who-ignored-signs-of-bidens-decline-releasing-book-on-the-cover-up">reported</a>,with regard to Tapper:
<blockquote>During the 2020 campaign, Tapper came to Biden’s <a href="https://x.com/jaketapper/status/1318570778468777984" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defense</a> multiple times when Republicans criticized him for struggling during his campaign speeches. In January 2020, Tapper <a href="https://x.com/jaketapper/status/1218211112195362818" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reposted</a> a clip of Lara Trump saying she felt “kind of sad for Biden” for struggling to “get the words out.” Tapper commented on Trump’s remarks on social media, writing, “Whatever you think of @JoeBiden and his politics, worth reading this remarkable piece about his stutter,” and linking to an Atlantic article that argued that voters should “be more understanding” of Biden’s gaffes because “he’s still fighting a stutter.”</blockquote>
And on Thompson:
<blockquote>&#8220;Biden’s quirky aphorisms are sometimes weaponized by Republicans to insinuate the 80-year-old president is in mental decline,” Thompson wrote. “But Biden has been using unique phrases for years — but even some of his aides aren’t exactly sure what he means by them.” Thompson added, “There are legitimate questions about Biden’s age and stamina as he runs for a second term — but his off-beat proverbs are just Biden being Biden.</blockquote>
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/an-albatross-on-him-new-book-details-the-strain-hunter-biden-put-on-2024-campaign">next of these books</a> came from Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Dawsey. He addressed the outsized role that the president&#8217;s embattled son, Hunter Biden, had played on the campaign — and how he may have influenced President Biden&#8217;s 11th-hour pardons.
As The Daily Wire reported at the time:
<blockquote>“Right, so one of the scenes in the book is that the President has a big month ahead in June of 2024, he has European travel, he has the first debate with Donald Trump, as you saw, it didn’t go so well,” Dawsey began. “But the thing he’s telling his friends he’s plays concerned about is that his son is not convicted in his court case.”
“He even offers to testify for his son,” Dawsey continued. “And he’s talking to folks nonstop around him … about his son, right? And he’s just constantly worried about him, he said the prosecutors are trying to break him, and as you see ultimately he decides to pardon his son.”</blockquote>
Dawsey&#8217;s book also revealed the lengths to which Biden&#8217;s aides went to keep him from taking a cognitive test in 2024 and to insulate him from the press, the public, and even members of his own cabinet.
And while the Wall Street Journal was ahead of most other outlets in publishing a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-struggling-to-function-during-closed-door-meetings-with-officials-report">damning report</a> on Biden&#8217;s condition before his only debate with Trump, even the concerns raised by that report were obvious to anyone who&#8217;d been paying attention to the first three years of his presidency.
<h3>Gaslighting The Audience.</h3>
Following the release of new information about the Russian collusion hoax from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and a declassified congressional report, a number of outlets and personalities have adopted this strategy.
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley addressed this during a recent Fox News appearance.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Jonathan Turley on the Russia Hoax: &#8220;The problem with Democrats and the media is that they&#8217;re trying to run the same grift on the same marks&#8230;They&#8217;re trying to tell the public, &#8216;Don&#8217;t look at this stuff, there&#8217;s nothing to see here.&#8217; The public largely rejected that whole pitch… <a href="https://t.co/pkXNPK9phU">pic.twitter.com/pkXNPK9phU</a>
— Julia 🇺🇸 (@Jules31415) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/1950017567596134452?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The problem with Democrats and the media is that they&#8217;re trying to run the same grift on the same marks &#8230; They&#8217;re trying to tell the public, &#8216;Don&#8217;t look at this stuff, there&#8217;s nothing to see here.&#8217; The public largely rejected that whole pitch when they reelected Donald Trump; it&#8217;s not going to really work,&#8221; Turley explained.
&#8220;This is really damning stuff. What was just released, in my view, undermines the testimony of people like John Brennan, but what Ratcliffe is talking about is exposing it all to show the public exactly what happened. This is the real Russian conspiracy. There wasn&#8217;t a Russian collusion conspiracy, but there was a Russian conspiracy: it&#8217;s when John Brennan went to Obama in 2016.&#8221;
Turley also suggested that of those involved in pushing the hoax on the American people, former CIA Director John Brennan was probably the most vulnerable to prosecution.
MSNBC has perhaps presented the most egregious example of this strategy. Instead of addressing the new information, the outlet has opted to repeatedly platform Brennan to refute it.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
John Brennan was platformed again this morning by his favorite &#8216;news&#8217; network to attack Tulsi Gabbard:
&#8220;I think she&#8217;s projecting. Obviously, she&#8217;s engaged in the politicization of intelligence.&#8221;
&#8220;She’s not interested in the truth.&#8221;
The hosts enthusiastically agree. <a href="https://t.co/tGGy4w2CRL">https://t.co/tGGy4w2CRL</a> <a href="https://t.co/vPsGqauw8g">pic.twitter.com/vPsGqauw8g</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1949131297718481113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
MSNBC has fully leaned in to gaslighting on other topics as well, platforming the poster child for politicization of the Justice Department — former Attorney General Eric Holder — to complain that the Trump administration is &#8230; politicizing the Justice Department.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Obama’s Wingman says he’s concerned about the politicization of Trump&#8217;s DOJ:
“This administration has used the power of the Justice Department to target political opponents.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/7ZyOoBIYxX">pic.twitter.com/7ZyOoBIYxX</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1949557074465259900?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<h3>Restructuring Everything.</h3>
Among those outlets that appear to be restructuring to meet changing needs in the Trump era, the most obvious is The Washington Post. Things began falling apart at the Post before the presidential election, when Executive Editor <a href="https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2024/why-sally-buzbees-resign-what-next-washington-post/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sally Buzbee</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/absolute-exodus-washington-post-bleeds-talent-as-experienced-staffers-take-buyout">abruptly exited</a> the paper in June 2024. She left, according to several sources, because she was not on board with the new organizational structure CEO Will Lewis planned to introduce.
The outlet&#8217;s decision not to endorse former Vice President Kamala Harris — and to take a neutral stance in future elections — prompted a few resignations. More followed over several months as changes were made to the editorial and opinion sections to &#8220;champion timeless American values.&#8221;
Then, in late May, The Washington Post announced it was offering buyouts to staffers, primarily those who had been with the outlet for a decade or longer. The &#8220;absolute exodus&#8221; continued.
In early July, Lewis sent an email encouraging employees who did not feel that they were  &#8220;aligned&#8221; with the outlet&#8217;s new direction to seriously consider the buyouts — and a number of them have.
Several big names have announced their plans to depart The Washington Post — including political reporter Dan Balz, obituary section chief <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/24/washington-post-jeff-bezos-obituary-buyout-00473350" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adam Bernstein</a>, reporter Philip Bump, as well as columnists David von Drehle, <a href="https://x.com/crampell/status/1948096670253605297" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Catherine Rampell</a>, and <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/travel/americas/washington-post-exodus-jonathan-capehart-buyout-bezos-b2793184.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jonathan Capehart</a>. The Post’s original TikTok pioneer, Dave Jorgenson, legal reporter Ann Marimow, and sports writer Dan Steinberg also took the buyout.
Reporter Joe Davidson says he left after being told that one of his opinion columns was “too opinionated,” and fact-check editor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wapo-fact-checker-takes-buyout-internet-reminds-him-he-stopped-dealing-in-facts-long-ago">Glen Kessler</a> announced his departure on Monday.
It remains to be seen whether any of these strategies will work — and some outlets may not even get the chance to try.
As President Donald Trump and his allies repeatedly demonstrate a willingness to fight back against media outlets that run with stories they believe to be defamatory — and a knack for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-wins-millions-in-defamation-suit-against-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos">winning</a> the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/big-and-important-win-trump-crows-over-settlement-in-cbs-paramount-lawsuit">ensuing lawsuits</a> — some organizations may buckle under the strain. Just ask the left-wing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musks-lawsuits-and-a-federal-probe-threaten-to-bring-down-media-matters">Media Matters</a>, which appears poised to collapse under the weight of government investigation coupled with lawsuits from billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Donald Trump

Media Scramble To Find Footing — And Stay Relevant — In The Trump Era

Media Outlets Scramble To Find Footing — And Stay Relevant — In Their Trump Era

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

The New York Times

Washington Post

Defense Department Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson torched The Atlantic over a hit piece claiming that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is making policy changes that will effectively &#8220;sideline&#8221; women in the military.
Staff writer Missy Ryan shared the article along with the following tease line, on X: &#8220;NEW: Will Pete Hegseth&#8217;s &#8216;War on Woke&#8217; sideline women in the military? A team appointed by Hegseth to look at fitness/combat standards will review and possibly redo the &#8216;women in combat&#8217; study that led to the integration of ground combat roles 10 yrs ago.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: Will Pete Hegseth&#8217;s &#8216;War on Woke&#8217; sideline women in the military? A team appointed by Hegseth to look at fitness/combat standards will review and possibly redo the &#8216;women in combat&#8217; study that led to the integration of ground combat roles 10 yrs ago. <a href="https://t.co/HlQo4B1Bzi">https://t.co/HlQo4B1Bzi</a>
— Missy Ryan (@missy_ryan) <a href="https://twitter.com/missy_ryan/status/1943298384762425494?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The article suggested that Hegseth was so driven to remove &#8220;woke&#8221; culture from the military that he was willing to undo years of &#8220;progress&#8221; that had ultimately led to women serving in combat roles.
Wilson responded first by mocking the outlet for apparently updating the article with a new headline, and suggested that its first effort had not been &#8220;woke&#8221; enough.
&#8220;.@TheAtlantic headline wasn&#8217;t woke enough so they changed it,&#8221; she posted, sharing screenshots of the original and the update, in side-by-side format.
The original headline read, &#8220;Will Pete Hegseth&#8217;s &#8216;War On Woke&#8217; Sideline Women?&#8221; — and the updated version read, &#8220;The Backdoor Way That Pete Hegseth Could Keep Women Out Of Combat.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheAtlantic</a> headline wasn&#8217;t woke enough so they changed it. <a href="https://t.co/2gKhbWctoy">https://t.co/2gKhbWctoy</a> <a href="https://t.co/jL6xMhYD6j">pic.twitter.com/jL6xMhYD6j</a>
— Kingsley Wilson (@PressSecDOD) <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSecDOD/status/1943336054389436886?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In a follow-up post, Wilson noted that she had given the outlet a comment for the story — but that it had been selectively edited prior to publication.
&#8220;.@TheAtlantic also didn&#8217;t want to run my whole statement because it would have discredited their story,&#8221; she said, sharing the full statement: &#8216;Military standards across the board have largely been ignored by leadership of the past. Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, the U.S. military is getting back to basics and restoring the warrior ethos. Our standards for combat arms positions will be elite, uniform, and sex neutral because the weight of a rucksack or a human being doesn&#8217;t care if you&#8217;re a man or a woman. We will not compromise our standards to satisfy quotas or an ideological agenda—this is common sense.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheAtlantic</a> also didn&#8217;t want to run my whole statement because it would have discredited their story:
“Military standards across the board have largely been ignored by leadership of the past. Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, the U.S. military is getting back to… <a href="https://t.co/6I2rK5CGqo">https://t.co/6I2rK5CGqo</a>
— Kingsley Wilson (@PressSecDOD) <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSecDOD/status/1943336313417015519?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The only part of Wilson&#8217;s statement that was used was her description of  to goal standards for combat positions: &#8220;elite, uniform, and sex neutral, because the weight of a rucksack or a human being doesn’t care if you’re a man or a woman.&#8221;

President Trump Visits Fort Bragg To Honor U.S. Forces

Defense Department Press Secretary Torches The Atlantic For Selectively Editing Statement

Combat

Military

Pete Hegseth

Women

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'

Signal

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

The media are on the hunt for a bad story they can hang around President Trump&#8217;s neck. Why? Because President Trump&#8217;s approval rating continues to hover around 50%, which is a historic high for him.
The SignalGate story basically went nowhere because the truth is that everybody has, at one point or another, included somebody in a group chat by accident and it gets very awkward. The actual result of the Signal chat was kind of an embarrassing snafu. The military strikes on the Houthis, however, were totally successful. The United States military is currently eviscerating the Houthis in Yemen.
So the media continue on the hunt.
There are certain stories that are so bad for an administration that they end up hampering their ability to do anything because association with the administration becomes toxic. And there have been many cases of this over the course of modern American history.
The Hunter Biden laptop story, for example, hovered over the Biden administration for the entirety of his term. Sometimes a single story can shift an entire election cycle. In 2006, Republicans looked like they were in decent shape for the midterm elections. But there was a Republican congressperson named Mark Foley who allegedly had been sleeping with some of his aides. Because of that, Republicans ended up getting shellacked.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2170-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
With the media on the hunt, they are digging into the immigration realm. Thus, there is a story from The Atlantic, written by Nick Miroff, that was intended to do serious damage to the Trump administration. The story was titled, “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/an-administrative-error-sends-a-man-to-a-salvadoran-prison/682254/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">An ‘Administrative Error’ Sends a Maryland Father to a Salvadoran Prison</a>.”
The idea here is that the most popular element of Trump&#8217;s agenda — by far right now — is his immigration portfolio. He has done more on the border than any president in modern American history by far.
“The Trump administration says that it mistakenly deported an immigrant with protected status but that courts are powerless to order his return,” The Atlantic piece started. “The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, but said that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his return from the megaprison where he’s now locked up.”
On its face, that&#8217;s a bad story for the Trump administration. If they just took a random, innocent guy from El Salvador who had protected status and then threw him into a prison in El Salvador, that would be a really bad story. A major screw-up. And if the administration said they couldn’t do anything to fix it, an even bigger screw up.
According to The Atlantic:
<blockquote>The case appears to be the first time the Trump administration has admitted to errors when it sent three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan deportees to El Salvador’s grim “Terrorism Confinement Center” on March 15. Attorneys for several Venezuelan deportees have said that the Trump administration falsely labeled their clients as gang members because of their tattoos. Trump officials have disputed those claims. But in Monday’s court filing, attorneys for the government admitted that the Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, had been deported accidentally. “Although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error,” the government told the court. Trump lawyers said the court has no ability to bring Abrego Garcia back now that he is in Salvadoran custody.</blockquote>
The lawyer for Garcia is asking for the court to order the Trump administration to ask for Abrego Garcia&#8217;s return.
“Trump-administration attorneys told the court to dismiss the request on multiple grounds, including that Trump’s “primacy in foreign affairs” outweighs the interests of Abrego Garcia and his family,” The Atlantic reported.
The lawyer for Garcia said, “They claim that the court is powerless to order any relief. If that’s true, the immigration laws are meaningless—all of them—because the government can deport whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, and no court can do anything about it once it’s done.”
Here is where The Atlantic gets itself into trouble. So far, it’s a bad story for the administration. They took a man who shouldn&#8217;t have been deported and they deported him. And the Trump administration admits he shouldn&#8217;t have been deported.
The Atlantic continued:
<blockquote>Abrego Garcia, who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a 5-year-old disabled child who is also a U.S. citizen, has no criminal record in the United States, according to his attorney. The Trump administration does not claim he has a criminal record, but called him a “danger to the community” and an active member of MS-13, the Salvadoran gang that Trump has declared a foreign terrorist organization. Sandoval-Moshenberg said that those charges are false, and that the gang label stems from a 2019 incident when Abrego Garcia and three other men were detained in a Home Depot parking lot by a police detective in Prince George’s County, Maryland. During questioning, one of the men told officers that Abrego Garcia was a gang member, but the man offered no proof and police said they didn’t believe him, filings show. Police did not identify him as a gang member.</blockquote>
But here is where The Atlantic screws it up. This is what makes this story at least partially fake news.
As John Hasson <a href="https://x.com/SonofHas/status/1906906290791616899">reported</a>, “An Immigration judge found that Garcia was an MS-13 member, a flight risk, and a threat to the community SIX YEARS AGO.”
That is not included in the story. Instead, you get the story from this guy&#8217;s lawyer that says he was just an innocent person who was wrapped up in a bunch of bad testimony from people with whom he was hanging out at a Home Depot parking lot.
But according to the actual legal filings:
<blockquote>During the course of his proceedings, Abrego-Garcia remained in ICE custody because the Immigration Judge (IJ) with the Executive Office for Immigration Review denied Abrego-Garcia bond at a hearing on April 24, 2019, citing danger to the community because &#8220;the evidence show[ed] that he is a verified member of [Mara Salvatrucha] (&#8216;MS-13&#8217;)]&#8221; and therefore posed a danger to the community. The IJ also determined that he was a flight risk.</blockquote>
There was an administrative error here. That is true. So what exactly was the administrative error?
<blockquote>On March 12, 2025, ICE Homeland Security Investigations arrested Abrego-Garcia due to his prominent role in MS-13. Over the next two days, Abrego-Garcia was transferred to the staging area for the removal flights &#8230; The operation that led to Abrego-Garcia&#8217;s removal to El Salvador was designed to only include individuals with no impediments to removal. Generally, individuals were not placed on the manifest until they were cleared for removal. ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time of Abrego-Garcia&#8217;s removal from the United States. Reference was made to this status on internal forms.</blockquote>
So, years ago an immigration judge labeled this guy a member of MS-13 and a flight risk. Despite that, they placed an order to withhold removal upon him because he had a credible fear of being harmed by people back in his home country.
That was the screw-up. He was on the list as an alternate.
But how exactly is it that The Atlantic fails to mention that an immigration judge literally found that there was credible evidence that he was MS-13, which changes the entire nature of the story? It turns this from a horrifyingly terrible story in which an innocent person with no connections to any form of criminal activity and a five-year-old son with disabilities and an American wife is removed for no good reason, to a story where a credibly-accused and legally-found MS-13 gang member, according to this immigration judge, is removed by accident despite a withholding of removal order.
In other words, it’s a bureaucratic screw-up and the guy shouldn&#8217;t have been removed. But it is not a human tragedy if somebody who is involved in MS-13 ends up being removed from the country.
It&#8217;s this sort of desperate hunger for a story to use as a baton against the Trump administration that leads so many members of the mainstream legacy media to play up the headline.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Holds Press Briefing

The Atlantic’s Giant Fake News Screw-Up

Ben Shapiro

El Salvador

illegal immigrants

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

MS-13 Gang

President Trump

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 ...

Menu