Listen To Story Above
In a striking revelation, Jeffrey Goldberg’s latest reporting for The Atlantic about alleged classified war plans shared in a Signal group chat has unraveled under scrutiny, exposing significant discrepancies in his claims about Trump administration officials.
The controversy centers around Goldberg’s reporting regarding Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, which initially suggested the existence of sensitive military plans against Houthi terrorists. However, the subsequent release of the complete Signal conversation transcript has painted a different picture.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe just completely destroyed Jeffrey Goldberg and the Atlantic for making up lies about him and the Trump admin at large.
You need to watch this. pic.twitter.com/EMvWcBsK2W
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) March 26, 2025
The messages, now publicly available, reveal nothing more than routine policy discussions about timing options for potential strikes, devoid of any classified information or detailed operational plans that Goldberg had initially suggested.
“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,” Vice President JD Vance wrote on X.
Trump just suggested Jeffrey Goldberg “hacked” the Signal group even though Mike Waltz admitted to adding him.
He’s such a child.
They are all fucking children.
It’s so embarrassing.— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) March 25, 2025
The White House and Trump team quickly challenged Goldberg’s characterization of the conversations. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz directly addressed the controversy, stating: “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.”
The episode has raised questions about the accuracy of Goldberg’s reporting, as the released transcript indicates standard policy deliberations rather than the sensitive military planning initially suggested in his article.
