The administration of President Donald Trump has been reeling from an article published in The Atlantic, which disclosed that editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was included in a group chat of high-ranking government officials discussing plans for bombing Yemen.
On Tuesday, the White House was in damage control mode, attempting to downplay claims that sensitive government information had been compromised.
“There was no classified information, as I understand it,” Trump remarked during a meeting with US ambassadors, dismissing the issue.
“We’ve pretty much looked into it. It’s quite straightforward, to be honest. It’s just one of those things that can happen.”
He informed reporters that he did not plan to pursue any repercussions, aside from the use of the social messaging app Signal or requesting an apology from those implicated.
Trump’s remarks followed Goldberg’s article, which was published the previous day, detailing how he obtained an invitation on the Signal platform from a user identified as White House National Security Advisor Michael Waltz.
Upon accepting the invitation, Goldberg quickly became embroiled in discussions regarding the justification for bombing Houthi forces in Yemen.
Although Goldberg abstained from citing specific military details from the chat, he recounted interactions involving top government officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Vance, Hegseth, and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller were among those quoted deliberating the timing of these attacks and considering whether economic benefits could be “extracted” from Europe in exchange for the bombings.
Vice President Vance specifically conveyed concerns that the strikes would primarily aid European trade in the Red Sea, where Houthi forces are known to target naval vessels.
The article caused a stir in Washington, DC, almost immediately after its release, prompting inquiries about why sensitive discussions took place on a non-government platform and how the text messages would be stored, as federal records laws mandate.
Some of these questions were directed to two participants in the Signal chat, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday, Ratcliffe and Gabbard faced intense questioning from Democrats.
“This was not only careless. It violated established protocols, and if this information had leaked, American lives could have been endangered. The Houthis could have adjusted their defensive postures,” stated Senator Mark Warner, the leading Democrat on the committee.
“It’s also astonishing that all these senior officials were on this line, and nobody even bothered to verify Security Hygiene 101.”
Senator Ron Wyden, also a Democrat at the hearing, called the Signal chat “obviously reckless and perilous.”
“Both the mishandling of classified information and the deliberate destruction of federal records are potential crimes that should be investigated immediately,” asserted Wyden. “I believe there should be resignations, beginning with the national security advisor and the secretary of defence.”
Questions Regarding Classified Information
However, the White House maintains that no classified information was disclosed in the Signal chat.
Goldberg clearly stated in his article that top-secret information was featured in the group chat’s communications.
“The information within those messages, if accessed by a US adversary, could potentially harm American military and intelligence personnel,” Goldberg wrote.
If Goldberg had repeated that information in his article, he could have exposed himself to legal consequences. Instead, he provided a high-level overview of what unfolded in the chat.
“To illustrate the alarming recklessness of this Signal discussion, I will mention that the Hegseth post included operational details about upcoming strikes on Yemen, including target information, weapons to be deployed, and attack sequencing,” he recounted.
On Tuesday, however, the Trump administration contested that assertion, insisting no secrets were disclosed in the Signal chat.
“Jeffrey Goldberg is notorious for his sensationalist narratives,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on social media. “Here are the facts about his latest story: 1. No ‘war plans’ were discussed. 2. No classified materials were shared in the chat.”
Ratcliffe and Gabbard reiterated similar sentiments during the Capitol Hill hearing, refuting allegations of sharing top-secret information on Signal, whether in that chat or any others.
“To be clear, I haven’t taken part in any Signal group messaging related to classified information at all,” Ratcliffe asserted.
“I have the same answer,” Gabbard echoed, but unlike Ratcliffe, she chose not to confirm whether she was part of the chat, as stated in Goldberg’s article.
This stance resulted in a heated exchange with Senator Warner, who contended that if the chat did not contain classified information, its content should be available for review immediately.
“Why are you not willing to discuss specifics? Is it all classified?” Warner pressed.
“Because this is currently under review by national security—,” Gabbard began to respond as Warner interjected, “Because it’s classified? If it’s not, share the messages now.”
During the meeting with the US ambassadors, Trump again dismissed notions of a national security breach.
“Our national security is currently stronger than it has ever been,” Trump stated to reporters. Instead, he attributed the issue to technology — specifically the Signal app — allowing Goldberg access to the private chat.
“There’s no perfect technology; the finest ones tend to be quite cumbersome and challenging to access,” he remarked.
Trump Revives Rivalry with The Atlantic
The controversy surrounding the classified information in the Signal chat provided Trump with an opportunity to reignite his feud with The Atlantic magazine, where Goldberg is employed.
Trump has previously criticized the publication, especially after it released a 2020 account claiming he had privately referred to fallen soldiers as “losers” and “suckers.” Although Trump himself is not a military veteran, he has publicly questioned the service of individuals such as the late Senator John McCain.
Goldberg was the author of that article as well. At the time, Trump denied the accusations, labeling the article a “disgrace.”
The Republican leader has long been critical of mainstream media outlets, even insinuating that their reporting might be illegal.
As he addressed the scandal during Tuesday’s meeting, Trump targeted Goldberg again for his reporting.
“I know this guy is a complete sleaze bag,” Trump stated. “The Atlantic is a failing magazine. It performs poorly. Nobody pays any attention to it. This gives it a slight boost. I’ll tell you this: They’ve fabricated more stories. They’re just a failing magazine. The public gets that.”
He then turned to Waltz, who was also present at the meeting, and defended the adviser’s apparent mistake in inviting Goldberg to the Signal chat.
“He’s a very good man. That man is a very good man, right there, that you criticize,” Trump said, gesturing towards Waltz. “He’s a very good man, and he will continue doing an excellent job.”
Waltz, a former US representative from Florida, joined in by pointing blame at The Atlantic and its editor.
“I think there are many lessons to be learned. There are many journalists in this city who have gained notoriety for crafting lies about this president,” Waltz said.
“This one, in particular, I’ve never met or communicated with. We are investigating how the heck he got access to this conversation.”
Conversely, Democrats commended Goldberg for his decision not to publish national security secrets and for voluntarily removing himself from the Signal chat.
“Regardless of how much the secretary of defence or others want to criticize him, this journalist at least had the integrity not to report everything he heard,” Senator Warner noted during the intelligence hearing.
Trump Reaffirms Views on ‘Free-loading’ Europe
What Goldberg did quote directly, however, were messages in which high-ranking officials discussed postponing the attacks on Yemen and the potential benefits for Europe stemming from the bombings.
An account purportedly belonging to Vice President Vance reportedly emphasized how heavily European trade is routed through the Red Sea and adjacent waterways.
“3 percent of US trade transits through the Suez. In comparison, 40 percent of European trade does. There is a significant risk that the public does not grasp this or understand why it’s essential,” Vance is reported to have commented.
“I am not sure the president is aware of how contradictory this is to his current stance on Europe.”
Vance appeared to support delaying the bombings by a month, but ultimately rescinded his objections — although with another jab at Europe.
“If you believe we should proceed, then let’s go. I just despise bailing Europe out again,” Vance reportedly wrote.
In response, Defense Secretary Hegseth allegedly commented, “VP: I completely share your disdain for European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”
This behind-the-scenes bargaining supports what has been speculated publicly for some time: that the relationship between the US and Europe is deteriorating.
Trump has accused Europe of exploiting the US, citing trade deficits that reveal Americans consuming more European goods than the opposite. On April 2, his administration plans to implement what Trump calls “reciprocal tariffs,” which will match import taxes imposed by other nations.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Trump was asked if he concurred with Hegseth and Vance’s characterization of Europe as “free-loading.”
“Do you really want me to answer that?” Trump asked flatly. “Yes. I believe they’ve been freeloading. The European Union has been absolutely terrible to us regarding trade. Terrible.”
He then changed focus, highlighting his peace negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, as well as the impending tariffs. “I think I’ve been very fair to nations that have genuinely taken advantage of us economically for many decades.”
