Staff Reports
“Signalgate” turned out to be more of a sitcom than a scandal, and the ensuing farce has now been given the editorial treatment by none other than The New York Times. For those who have better things to do than keep up with the latest media melodrama, here’s a recap: Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic laid claim to a sensational scoop that Trump’s administration accidentally shared its “war plans” with him through a chat app. Yes, because when you’re itching to reveal military strategies, a first-rate classified environment is so last decade.
Goldberg, known for his disdain for all things Trump, was quick to declare the chat as high in classified content, full of *precise* details on weaponry, targets, and timing—except that this was more exaggeration than reality. As the days rolled by and more involved parties weighed in, it became clear that no genuine military secrets were shared in this chat. Despite the high drama surrounding it, officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth flatly stated that nobody was texting war plans, and any chatter simply didn’t involve sensitive information.
In a rather anticlimactic twist, The Atlantic rehashed the chat’s details, proving there was indeed nothing groundbreaking that warranted headlines blaring about “attack plans.” Apparently, by ‘precise,’ they must have meant truly vague, as the supposed revelations drifted more towards the absurd than actionable intelligence. In the end, the fruits of a major scooping endeavor turned out to be nothing more than an administrative hiccup, warranting an eye-roll instead of a headline.
"There was no “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.” No classified info. No unmasking of intelligence operatives. No “war plans.""
https://t.co/faG4jsrknZ— Albert Zipp (@CAlbertZipp3) March 28, 2025
The New York Times unconsciously shifted the narrative yet again, coming out with “The Leaked Signal Chat, Annotated.” However, they soon disclosed that the chat wasn’t as classified as Goldberg claimed. While describing how government lingo works—those high ‘n’ low sides of communication—somehow it slipped their primordial minds that conversations intended for sensitive information weren’t taking place in a publicly accessible messaging app. Surprise, surprise!
The sole takeaway from this supposed scandal is a haunting reminder of how lacking in genuine substance “Signalgate” truly is. It’s akin to students exchanging notes while inadvertently including their professor, only to find out there were no crucial revelations up for grabs. Thus, the clamor around a chat on a commercial app about supposed military operations amounted to very little more than a media cover of their own making. The real scandals, of course, still linger elsewhere, but that’s a narrative that won’t grab clicks like a false alarm of this nature will.
