The Atlantic felt their story was dying. The Trump administration said no classified war plans were discussed in the Signal chat story that’s captured the hyper-regional confines of liberal America. It looks like a nothing burger vis-à-vis a severe breach in classified information, though still an unforced error on behalf of top officials. To recap, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a group chat on the encrypted messenger app, which was pre-downloaded on the devices of those involved in the chat, which included CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Vice President JD Vance.
It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had. But one thing in particular really stands out.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 26, 2025
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
The hook was that classified war plans were discussed, and Mr. Ratcliffe shot down a claim. There was nothing classified, Jeff, so release the texts. At first, he decided not to do it, simply claiming his detractors were wrong—a typical response when fake news is knowingly peddled.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe just destroyed The Atlantic for blatantly making things up.
— Media Lies (@MediasLies) March 26, 2025
“The reporter indicated that I had released the name of another country – of an undercover CIA operative.”
“In fact, I released the name of my chief of staff who is not operating… pic.twitter.com/jOEmj3KCQ2
So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic released the so-called “war plans” and those “plans” include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 26, 2025
Those are some really shitty war plans.
This only proves…
So, The Atlantic opted to publish the text they felt was classified, though it wasn’t, and two things were clear: these aren’t war plans, and that narrative has conspicuously vanished.
Notice the narrative shift.
— Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeacefull) March 26, 2025
First it was “top secret”, then it was “classified”, now it’s “sensitive” pic.twitter.com/6AOincoKYO
I like how Jeffrey Goldberg went from saying he couldn’t possibly share the texts because they’d destroy national security to publishing them like 5 seconds later. These people are so unserious.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 26, 2025
Are these “war plans?” pic.twitter.com/3tjdDuAfYE
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 26, 2025
LOL... these are not war plans. https://t.co/oZ3cAbrdtk
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) March 26, 2025
Ok so the Atlantic released what they call the “war plans”—they’re depending on people not knowing (or caring) what this is, but to refer to it that way is a stretch. There’s nothing specific here, other than times at which events will occur. A leak of this kind could alert the… pic.twitter.com/dCss9wBby0
— David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense (@davereaboi) March 26, 2025
Re: Signalgate:
— David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense (@davereaboi) March 26, 2025
—people who hate Trump are cynically trying to manufacture Valerie Plame 2.0 (which itself was a bullshit scandal);
—people who love Trump are flailing and attacking Goldberg (a piece of trash lib, but one behaved like a normal reporter here);
—very few…
The Atlantic beclowns itself as they concede— by releasing this— that no “war planning” was going on as they had falsely alleged.
— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) March 26, 2025
Sounds like some terrorists had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. https://t.co/bTtKNzy55T
Now, this isn’t a one-sided deal. Again, this was a brutal, unforced error, adding a known Trump-hater to this chat. This administration dodged a significant bullet and was lucky that no classified information was disclosed. Then again, in the chats, all the principals are aware of the “high side” lines of communications, secure platforms where deeper discussions could occur.
The Atlantic has already abandoned their bullshit “war plans” narrative, and in releasing the full chat , they concede they LIED to perpetuate yet ANOTHER hoax on the American people.
— Taylor Budowich (@Taylor47) March 26, 2025
What scumbags! pic.twitter.com/RHSEGici2L
They backpedaled the whole “war plans” thing really really fast…. pic.twitter.com/LFroFp2fHI
— DOD Rapid Response (@DODResponse) March 26, 2025
The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT “war plans.”
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) March 26, 2025
This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin. pic.twitter.com/atGrDd2ymr
The Atlantic has already abandoned their bullshit “war plans” narrative, and in releasing the full chat , they concede they LIED to perpetuate yet ANOTHER hoax on the American people.
— Taylor Budowich (@Taylor47) March 26, 2025
What scumbags!
The chats are real, so it’s not a hoax, but the ‘they disclosed classified war plans’ narrative is fake news and hyper-sensationalized. The White House did well to notice how the words “war plans” got stealth edited in the new disclosures, pointing to a tacit acknowledgement that the publication got ahead of their skis on this one, which is a common trait at The Atlantic:
Many things can be true at once. 1) Jeffrey Goldberg is a clear Trump hater. 2) Goldberg has published sensationalized accounts in the past that have been disputed by people with first-hand knowledge. 3) He was added to this chat and has receipts, so it’s not a hoax. https://t.co/WmDA4LEsxi
— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) March 26, 2025
There will be more analysis of Trump’s successful strike on the Houthis than there was of Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) March 26, 2025
***
At some point we’re going to discover that the true origination of all this was to prevent the Trump administration from using Signal because the Intelligence Community can’t monitor their communications.
— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) March 26, 2025