You Know It’s a Bad Situation When Trump Seems to Be the Most Honest Person Involved

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

On Monday, the Atlantic magazine published a truly wild story co-written by its editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. As Goldberg explained, he had been added—for reasons unknown to him—to a group discussion on the Signal messaging app that appeared to involve some of the highest-ranking figures in the U.S. government, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (President Donald Trump himself did not appear to be part of the group.) The conversation involved detailed plans (sent by Hegseth) for an apparently imminent bombing attack on Yemen’s Houthi rebels—an attack that subsequently took place in real life as a stunned Goldberg followed events from a supermarket parking lot. In its story, the Atlantic withheld the specific details that Hegseth had shared.

In the immediate aftermath of the story’s publication, a plausible theory emerged to explain how Goldberg had mistakenly been looped into the conversation—seemingly by former Florida congressman and current national security adviser Michael Waltz. Goldberg reports frequently on issues of national security, and also has the same initials as current U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Yemeni civil war is of particular interest internationally because the country is situated along a shipping channel that leads to the Suez Canal, a crucial point of transit for global shipping. So, the thinking goes, Waltz probably had both Goldberg and Greer’s numbers in his phone and, meaning to keep Greer apprised of an imminent development relevant to his job, accidentally added the wrong “JG.”

The Trump administration hasn’t confirmed this, though, and has been all over the map with its responses and explanations for what did happen and whether it was a problem. In rough chronological order:

• Before the Atlantic’s article was published, a spokesman for the White House–based National Security Council confirmed to the magazine that Goldberg’s messages appeared to be part of an “authentic message chain” and that the council was “reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.” Note here the words “inadvertent” and the acknowledgment that Goldberg had been “added” by another individual, as well as the implicit admission that sending details about an impending military operation to a random civilian is the kind of thing you “review,” presumably because you don’t want it to happen again.

• The same statement asserted that the disclosure had not created “threats to troops or national security.”

• Later on Monday, Trump told reporters that he was not aware of Goldberg’s story about the discussion of the strikes. “I know nothing about it,” Trump said. (As president, Trump is, legally, the chair of the National Security Council, i.e., the group whose spokesman had already commented on the apparent breach of protocol.)

• Elsewhere on Monday, Hegseth told reporters that “nobody was texting war plans” and that Goldberg was a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called ‘journalist’ who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes.”

• On Tuesday, Trump said Waltz had “learned a lesson” about using “equipment and technology that’s not perfect” to discuss matters of national security. “Probably he won’t be using it again. At least not in the very near future,” added the president. He also said that Goldberg’s number had been given to Waltz by “a staffer.”

• At about the same time, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt denied in a post on Twitter/X that “war plans” or “classified information” had been shared with Goldberg by administration officials.

• Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, at a Tuesday meeting of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, also claimed that no classified information had been shared. Gabbard specifically denied that “precise operational details” had been discussed. Ratcliffe testified that there was nothing inappropriate about his having used the name of his chief of staff, an active intelligence officer, in the unsecured channel. When asked whether Goldberg’s inclusion on the chain was “a huge mistake,” he replied, “No.”

• In a Tuesday night appearance on Fox News, Waltz—who, according to both the National Security Council and the White House press secretary, added Goldberg to the group chain—suggested that Goldberg may have, “somehow” arranged to have himself “sucked in” to the chain. “Whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical means is something we’re trying to figure out,” said Waltz. (Impersonating someone else in order to gain access to details of an impending military strike would, presumably, be highly illegal.) Waltz further denied knowing Goldberg, claimed he did not receive his number from a staffer, and said he never intentionally added Goldberg’s contact information to his own phone. “If you have somebody else’s contact, then somehow it … gets sucked in. It gets sucked in,” he explained (?).

• On Wednesday morning, the Atlantic published Hegseth’s messages to the chain. The messages communicated, in advance, the specific times that specific types of U.S. aircraft would be embarking for Yemen, as well as the time (two and a half hours later) they would begin their attacks.

• Hegseth is still currently claiming on X that he did not convey any “war plans” or “classified information” to the chain. The White House also said, in a response included in the Atlantic’s Wednesday article, that the information discussed was “sensitive” but not “classified.” On Wednesday afternoon, however, CNN published a piece citing two sources—including “a US defense official familiar with the operation”—who said, in the network’s words, that the information Hegseth sent to the group chat was indeed “highly classified at the time he wrote it.” (To state what is perhaps obvious, a heavily armed militant group given two and a half hours notice that an air assault against them was imminent—what if the wrong JG had, say, been a diplomat from a country allied with the Houthis’ side of the Yemeni war?—could, presumably, initiate countermeasures that would mitigate the effectiveness of the strike and potentially kill U.S. service members.)

• The Atlantic also says a CIA spokesperson asked the Atlantic not to publish the name of Ratcliffe’s chief of staff. (It complied with this request.)

What are the takeaways here? Trump, playing against type, appears to be the most honest actor involved, having given a plausible explanation of what happened (a staffer gave Waltz the wrong “JG” number) and stated plainly that Waltz shouldn’t have initiated the conversation on a chat app.

Waltz and Hegseth are delivering the worst and sweatiest responses, which likely indicates that they are feeling the most heat about losing their jobs. But they also don’t seem particularly concerned about contradicting the president in public—Waltz went on TV and raised the possibility that Goldberg had used goblin powers to plant his own number on Waltz’s phone after Trump had already said Waltz’s staffer was responsible.

This is noteworthy in light of multiple messages in the group discussion that seemed to suggest that Trump was, at best, only vaguely involved in initiating the Yemen attack and that he did not, in the estimation of the other principals involved, fully understand what its consequences would be. Who, exactly, is flying the plane here?