Lead Patriot

Right Leaning Commentary

Goldberg Responds To Criticism
The Scoop

Goldberg Responds To Criticism

The latest media firestorm involving The Atlantic and its editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg is rapidly collapsing under the weight of its own exaggeration. What began as a sensational claim — that Trump’s inner circle had shared classified “war plans” on Signal in a group chat that inexplicably included Goldberg — is now being quietly downgraded into something far less scandalous: a communications flub, yes, but a national security breach? No.

To be clear, the chat existed. Goldberg was added. The people involved were real — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and others. What’s missing is the substance: the bombshell evidence that these senior officials divulged classified information about a military operation targeting Iran-backed Houthi militants. That evidence has yet to materialize, and now even Goldberg appears to be backpedaling.

The facts are straightforward. Signal is a widely used, encrypted communication platform — and it's authorized for non-classified discussions across multiple branches of the U.S. government, including the intelligence community. CIA Director Ratcliffe confirmed this on the record: the app is permissible, his staff followed proper protocols, and no classified information was shared. Moreover, Ratcliffe stated plainly: no war plans were discussed.

If that’s the case, then Goldberg’s initial framing — that this was a leak of sensitive national security materials — simply doesn’t hold. And yet, rather than issue a correction or admit the story was overhyped, Goldberg released additional chat transcripts that further undercut his own narrative. The messages, far from revealing tactical details, amounted to general planning and scheduling — exactly the type of conversation Signal is authorized for.

The narrative shift is unmistakable. What began as a tale of leaked “attack plans” now reads more like an unfortunate but mundane digital misfire. Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat was accidental. No one disputes that. But the attempt to spin that accident into a catastrophic breach is what turned this into yet another journalistic overreach.

And then came the interview. While discussing the story with Tim Miller of The Bulwark, Goldberg was pressed on why he wouldn’t release the full context of the Signal messages. Miller — no friend of Trump — inadvertently dismantled Goldberg’s credibility by doing what Goldberg himself would not: scrutinizing the claim that anything in the chat was actually classified. Goldberg’s response? Deflection, paired with vague appeals to journalistic responsibility. But the evasion was telling. If the contents aren’t sensitive, what’s the hold-up?

Written by Arthur Higgens - March 26, 2025