Staff Reports
Calling all journalists: if the goal is to attack the messaging around a fumbling tech mistake involving the Trump administration, it might be prudent to have your facts straight. The recent Signal fiasco, which has taken center stage in the news cycle, revolves around the confusion ignited by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, a noted Trump critic. In a spectacular display of journalistic gymnastics, he found himself unintentionally privy to a Signal text chain featuring prominent members of the national security team, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz.
This texting mix-up was related to a military operation in Yemen that occurred back in March. Yet, while the Trump officials were busy discussing strategy, Politico decided to add its own spin by misidentifying Hegseth’s geographical status, claiming he would be leaving from Hawaii for Guam. This prompted the kind of collective facepalm that only misinformed geographical faux pas could create. Reports had to be amended swiftly to clarify that, yes, Hawaii and Guam are both U.S. territories, something that a seasoned political reporter should easily know. One has to wonder if this is a mistake stemming from ignorance or an indictment on the shiny new world of liberal political reporting.
A quick dive into the facts should clear up any misrepresentation concerning what transpired on that text thread. Contrary to what Goldberg would have his readers believe, no classified information was shared during those discussions. Trump administration officials firmly stated that no “war plans” were exchanged, a claim bolstered by the testimony of Tulsi Gabbard in a House Intelligence Committee hearing. She clarified that specific military targets, sources, and operational details were decidedly absent from the chats. So much for a scandal, right? The “bombshell” accusation fizzled like a dud firecracker.
Smug Reporter Humiliated After Attempt to Mock WH Shows He Doesn't Know Basic US Geography@Politico made an embarrassing mistake covering a mistake made by a Trump administration official. https://t.co/RMt5nDuuEU
— Randy DeSoto (@RandyDeSoto) March 27, 2025
In a detail that seems lost on many, the airstrikes against the Houthi rebels were executed successfully, with no American casualties to report. One would think this would occupy a larger portion of the headlines, but liberal outlets prefer to pin their hopes on dubious reporting than on an operation that illustrates how effective national security strategy can look when wielded by competent individuals, even when texting using high-tech apps. The irony of sensationalist narratives is that they mask real achievements.
And speaking of irony, it was no surprise to see the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, have to jump into the fray to reaffirm what should already be obvious: there were no classified discussions happening in that Signal chat. She voiced this on social media, which begs the question of why inaccurate reporting continues to flourish in the face of substantive evidence to the contrary. When an outlet like The Atlantic decides to plunge into “gripping” narratives instead of pursuing genuine journalism, one must question their credibility altogether.
This so-called Signalgate, albeit dramatic from a media perspective, is revealed to be a trivial slip-up in the grand landscape of national security discussions. Trump himself characterized this whole affair as “the only glitch in two months” and promptly dismissed it as a minor inconvenience. While other reports attempt to spin a negative narrative around the administration’s competency and transparency, the reality remains: they managed to execute a complex military operation while juggling a media circus. But who needs facts when the narrative is so readily available to shape? It seems the left’s fixation on taking down the Trump administration remains alive and well, even if it means sacrificing accuracy at the altar of sensationalism.
