Was it actually a serious, national security breach that put lives at risk?
Or was it more of a disastrous public relations blunder that’s being overblown for clicks and views?
When it comes to the highly criticized text chain snafu that has captured national attention this week, the White House firmly believes it’s the latter — even as more information comes to light regarding the incident.
To wit, on Monday, The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg published a piece straightforwardly titled, “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.”
In it, Goldberg made the explosive claims that his private phone number was somehow added to a private chat in the Signal messaging app discussing possible military strikes against Houthis in Yemen, that included top Trump cabinet members, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
For obvious reasons, this is not the best look for the Trump administration, but it also doesn’t quite appear to be the administration-killing debacle that some — like The Atlantic — are making it out to be.
Or, at least, that’s the way it was framed by Team Trump when they were inevitably asked about it.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt set the facts straight that no actual “war plans” had been divulged, while Trump explained that he thought it was much ado about nothing and that they’ve already pinpointed the issue. (Trump confirmed that an unknown staffer of Waltz accidentally added Goldberg.)
Should someone be fired over the Signal chat leak?
Both Leavitt and Trump took shots at Goldberg’s integrity (“Jeffrey Goldberg is well-known for his sensationalist spin”) during their respective responses — perhaps prompting the editor to feel compelled to release the entire chat he was privy to.
“As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel,” this new Atlantic piece claimed. “That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.”
But since Trump and his team have insisted that no classified information was in those texts, Goldberg felt compelled to release the information, seemingly to prove some sort of point.
Only, the White House isn’t standing for it.
Various top White House representatives, including Leavitt, Waltz, and Vance, all responded to this latest Atlantic “bombshell” with a mixture of derision, mockery and annoyance.
Leavitt pointed out the immediate discrepancy with The Atlantic’s narrative, ping-ponging from “war plans” to “attack plans.”
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. pic.twitter.com/atGrDd2ymr
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) March 26, 2025
Waltz hammered home what wasn’t in those text messages.
No locations.
No sources & methods.
NO WAR PLANS.
Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent.
BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.
— Mike Waltz (@MikeWaltz47) March 26, 2025
Vance — whom The Atlantic revealed said “a prayer for victory” in the text chain — also chimed in.
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. https://t.co/BUGbX6gZDZ
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 26, 2025
“It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,” Vance posted. “But one thing in particular really stands out.
“Remember when he was attacking [CIA director John] Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
