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

Opinion

The Atlantic

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

Media

Peter Baker

Politics

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

Media Bias

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 ...

CIA Director John Ratcliffe accused the journalist from The Atlantic who wrote a piece about top Trump officials communicating over a Signal chat group that inadvertently included him of lying in his report.
Ratcliffe made the remarks during testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, National Security Agency Director Gen. Timothy Haugh, and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.
&#8220;My responsibility as CIA Director, one of its responsibilities is to kill terrorists, and that&#8217;s exactly what I did along with President Trump&#8217;s excellent national security team,&#8221; he said. &#8220;That&#8217;s what we should be focused on.&#8221;
Ratcliffe said that one of the major issues with the article was how it falsely suggested things that never happened.
&#8220;I spent four hours answering questions from Senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because they were hidden messages,&#8221; Ratcliffe said. &#8220;Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information and that the reporter, who I don&#8217;t know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that.&#8221;
&#8220;That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff, who is not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.&#8221;
Ratcliffe noted that his answers have not changed about what happened, he used an appropriate channel to communicate, and he did not transfer any classified information.
&#8220;At the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here because that&#8217;s what did happen, not what possibly could have happened,&#8221; he said.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/CIADirector?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CIADirector</a>: &quot;My answers haven&#39;t changed. I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so &#8230; and at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Mas5YKrz5a">pic.twitter.com/Mas5YKrz5a</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1904908706426351757?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

US-POLITICS-INTELLIGENCE-CONGRESS

CIA Director John Ratcliffe Shreds Atlantic Editor Behind Signal Story: ‘Deliberately False’

John Ratcliffe

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth slammed The Atlantic on Wednesday over its reporting on a Signal chat group where he gave updates to top administration officials that inadvertently included a journalist from the publication about the United States&#8217; recent military strikes against Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.
Hegseth made the remarks while addressing reporters from a tarmac in Hawaii where he was visiting U.S. forces as part of a larger trip to the Indo-Pacific region, where the administration is currently working to counter a rising Chinese threat.
Hegseth said that the attacks against the Houthis have been &#8220;devastatingly effective&#8221; as the military campaign now enters its second week.
&#8220;Nobody&#8217;s texting war plans,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Well, I noticed this morning out came something that doesn&#8217;t look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack plans because they know it&#8217;s not war plans. There&#8217;s no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.&#8221;
&#8220;You know who sees war plans? I see &#8217;em. Every single day. I looked at them this morning,&#8221; he said while indicating that he believes that there is a difference between &#8220;war plans&#8221; and &#8220;attack plans.&#8221;
He said that his role in the Signal group chat was to &#8220;provide updates in real time, general updates in real time, keep everybody informed.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s what I did. That&#8217;s my job,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The war fighters will take the fight to the enemy, and I love what they do. And with President Trump&#8217;s leadership, our enemies are on notice. We will have peace through strength, and we&#8217;ll keep putting our troops first.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
One more time…
I see war plans every single day. No one is texting war plans. <a href="https://t.co/ujU7IvHGmL">pic.twitter.com/ujU7IvHGmL</a>
&mdash; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (@SecDef) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef/status/1904974332532490584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

White House: Trump

Hegseth Fires Back At The Media Over ‘SignalGate’ Reporting

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt opened Wednesday&#8217;s press briefing by going on offense against Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg over his report this week about a Signal chat group where top Trump administration officials discussed U.S. strikes against Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.
Leavitt ripped the mainstream media for focusing on the story, which she called &#8220;sensationalized&#8221; and said was &#8220;falling apart by the hour.&#8221;
The story broke open because Goldberg was somehow added to the group, allowing him to monitor what U.S. officials were saying about the forthcoming strikes.
&#8220;The National Security Advisor has taken responsibility for this matter, and the National Security Council immediately said alongside the White House Counsel&#8217;s Office that they are looking into how a reporter&#8217;s number was inadvertently added to this messaging thread,&#8221; Leavitt said. &#8220;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.&#8221;
She said that the story proves that &#8220;Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate, and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well, and there&#8217;s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and pushing hoaxes more than Jeffrey Goldberg.&#8221;
&#8220;Goldberg is an anti-Trump hater,&#8221; she said. &#8220;He is a registered Democrat. Goldberg&#8217;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.&#8221;
&#8220;And how else has Goldberg discredited himself?&#8221; she continued. &#8220;By absurdly claiming that President Trump was Vladimir Putin during the 2016 campaign, by peddling the &#8216;Russia, Russia, Russia&#8217; hoax that tried to hijack President Trump&#8217;s first term, by inventing the &#8216;suckers and losers&#8217; 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.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a> on the latest hoax from Democrats and their media mouthpieces: &quot;If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate, and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/F33uQtduD8">pic.twitter.com/F33uQtduD8</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1904947160178725156?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

US-POLITICS-LEAVITT-BRIEFING

Karoline Leavitt Hammers Jeffrey Goldberg At Press Briefing

Karoline Leavitt

Trump Administration

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’

White House

Menu