Sign in

The Atlantic releases full Signal chat messages

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, has released the full chain of messages of the Signal group chat.

Goldberg recently published a report claiming that high-level Trump administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, discussed classified military plans against Houthi terrorists in a private Signal group chat. However, after the full transcript of this conversation was made public, Goldberg’s narrative quickly unraveled.

Despite Goldberg’s initial claims, the conversation in question contained no classified war plans. Instead, officials discussed the strategic timing of potential military strikes, weighing the pros and cons of acting immediately versus waiting another month. There was no disclosure of sensitive intelligence, operational details, or secret locations—contrary to what Goldberg’s article suggested.

A closer look at the conversation, which has now been widely circulated online, confirms that it was a routine discussion about policy considerations rather than a leak of classified military strategy.

Shawn Farash, a conservative commentator, shared screenshots of the Signal chat on X (formerly Twitter), writing: “Full Signal text chain has been released. There’s nothing in it but the pros and cons of striking now vs. waiting a month. It’s not war plans. It’s not classified info. It’s a conversation, and nice to see cabinet members and staffers hashing out the best way to move forward.”

Accompanying Farash’s post were images of the full conversation, which lacked any mention of confidential details or intelligence sources.

After Goldberg’s claims were debunked, senior members of Trump’s team responded forcefully.

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who was accused of adding Goldberg to the Signal chat, dismissed the allegations outright: “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.”

Waltz’s statement directly refuted Goldberg’s characterization, reinforcing that no classified details were discussed and that foreign allies had already been informed of impending military actions through official diplomatic channels.

This isn’t the first time Jeffrey Goldberg has faced backlash for questionable reporting. Over the years, he has published several high-profile stories that later turned out to be misleading or outright false.

Senator JD Vance pointed to a past incident in which Goldberg falsely accused former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe of exposing a CIA agent’s identity. In reality, Ratcliffe had merely named his chief of staff.

Vance took to X to highlight Goldberg’s repeated pattern of exaggeration: “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.”

This latest episode adds to Goldberg’s history of pushing politically charged narratives that later fall apart under scrutiny.

Goldberg’s Atlantic report is part of a broader trend in which major media outlets amplify dubious claims without fully vetting the facts. In this case, his framing of the Signal chat as a leak of “war plans” was eagerly picked up by like-minded journalists and commentators before being thoroughly debunked.

Critics argue that such reckless reporting erodes public trust in journalism. Instead of providing accurate information, some outlets appear to prioritize political attacks over factual integrity.

The full release of the Signal chat proves that Goldberg’s claims were exaggerated. Trump administration officials were not leaking classified war plans but rather engaging in standard strategic discussions about military timing.

Goldberg’s eagerness to frame the conversation as a national security scandal has backfired, exposing yet another instance of media-driven misinformation. As more details emerge, it becomes increasingly clear that this was a politically motivated attempt to discredit Trump and his team rather than a legitimate exposé.