Trump officials ‘inadvertently’ include a reporter in their Yemen chat -- One person argues that the reporter was deliberately included to get out a message

Allegedly, a chat among high-level Trump administration officials, including the Vice President, somehow included a reporter for the Atlantic. It looks like a mistake so bad that it would embarrass Biden, but one person has an interesting theory, which is that the reporter was included deliberately to get a message to Europe.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a hard-left, anti-Trump reporter, had the headline and, for those who prefer their administration to be competent, it was stomach-churning: “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.”

According to Goldberg, he learned about the March 15 attack on the Houthis two hours before it actually happened, although he did not broadcast that information. The reason he had this inside knowledge, he says, is because “Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.”

Goldberg explains that the message to join the conversation came to him from a “Michael Waltz” via Signal, which is a publicly available, albeit encrypted app, one that journalists often use. Although Goldberg suspected the sender was someone pretending to be Waltz, he nevertheless accepted the request.

Two days later, he found himself part of a Signal chat group entitled the “Houthi PC small group.” Sure enough, it seemed to be the real deal; that is, a chat including people such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, all discussing plans to attack the Houthis.

At this point, were Goldberg principled, he might have said, “Hey, guys! Are you sure I’m supposed to be included in this conversation?” But Goldberg is both a journalist and a leftist. Between a scoop and one-upping the Trump administration, that was an impossible option

Cynical Publius, a conservative on X who claims a military background, offers a different theory. He did acknowledge, via a link to an essay from The Hacker News, that it could be Russian disinformation.

However, the more interesting theory is that this was a set-up, with government officials intentionally “mistakenly” including Goldberg to get a message out to the European political community:

Re: the Signal chat and The Atlantic article.

The minute I read the chat my very first thought was that Goldberg was specifically and deliberately included so that he would leak what he saw to the public. The idea was to let Europe know just how unhappy American leadership is… pic.twitter.com/Ex2aQOhXS2 — Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) March 24, 2025

The most interesting part of the tweet is the last sentence:

Re: the Signal chat and The Atlantic article.
The minute I read the chat my very first thought was that Goldberg was specifically and deliberately included so that he would leak what he saw to the public. The idea was to let Europe know just how unhappy American leadership is with Europe's unwillingness to pull its weight militarily. The backchannel, seemingly accidental nature of that reveal was powerful and I believe intentional.
Also, as someone who has read his fair share of Top Secret/SCI war plans, this ain't it. (Emphasis mine.)

Once the tweet got traction, Cynical Publius updated the tweet to acknowledge that this could well have been a dreadful mistake or the work of a single bad actor in the chat. However, he also said that we’d be wise not to trust Jeffrey Goldberg based on the latter’s history:

Latest Tweet by Cynical Publius on X:

________________________________________________________

Alright, listen up.

I threw out a theory that the Goldberg chat may have been a set-up. That theory is getting a lot of visibility.

I still think it could have been. I also think it could have been a mistake. Or it could have been a traitor in the chat.

I don’t know, and anyone who thinks I cited my “first thoughts” theory for any reason other than to promote discussion is wrong.

I will stand by the following, however:

The chat Goldberg describes specifically and deliberately talked about classified information being shared on “the high side” (i.e., the classified SIPRNET), and every time Goldberg discusses what HE believes to be classified data he caveats it in the article with the word “conceivably.” I will not believe classified info was shared in the open until that fact is proven by someone other than Jeffrey Goldberg.

Remember this: Jeffrey Goldberg talked America into the 2003 invasion of Iraq with false stories about a Saddam/al Qaeda connection and he has steadfastly maintained that Donald Trump is a “de facto agent” of Vladimir Putin.

My “first thoughts” theory might be wrong. But the fact that Jeffrey Goldberg cannot be trusted to speak truthfully is not wrong.

Uh-huh. As I stated from the outset, smells like BS.

And here we are.

2 things newly revealed:

1. “Although Goldberg suspected the sender was someone pretending to be Waltz...”
2. “...included precise information about weapons packages...”

I’ll just let those percolate...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.