Why did Jeffrey Goldberg leave the 'bomb Yemen' Signal chat?
Posted by Keith-264 on March 25, 2025, 10:06 pm
https://thegrayzone.substack.com/p/why-did-jeffrey-goldberg-leave-the With momentum for a strike on Iran building within the Trump White House, Goldberg was apparently summoned to move the neocon message. And he wound up with more access than he could handle. The Grayzone Mar 25, 2025
By Max Blumenthal
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Atlantic Magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has won the admiration of his Beltway peers for the conduct he displayed after being accidentally invited into a smoke-filled “bomb Yemen” Signal chat with Trump’s national security honchos and top advisors. “Props to Jeffrey Goldberg for his high standards as a professional journalist,” declared Ian Bremmer, the trans-Atlanticist foreign policy pundit on his Bank of America-sponsored GZero podcast. “When he realized the conversation was authentic he immediately left, informed the relevant senior official, and made the public aware without disclosing intelligence that could damage the United States.”
But what exactly did Goldberg do to deserve such high praise?
With a once in a lifetime opportunity to view and report on high level discussions on the US launching an illegal war on Yemen, Goldberg chose to avert his gaze and leave the scene as soon as he could, apparently because maintaining such unparalleled access would have compelled him to report on discussions that might have complicated a war being waged on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state to which he emigrated as a young man. Instead of exploiting his front row seat to the Trump admin's war planning - a vantage point that would have yielded countless scoops and a bestselling book for any adversarial journalist - Goldberg bolted and dutifully informed the White House about the unfortunate situation.
From there, the story became a palace intrigue over an embarrassing failure of “opsec,” or operational security, and not one about the policy itself, which entails a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel's genocide in Gaza.
In the fourth paragraph of Goldberg's Atlantic article about the principals' Signal group, he strongly implied that he supports the war's objectives, describing Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as an "Iran-backed terrorist organization" which upholds a belief system that is (what else?) antisemitic. Given Goldberg’s admission that Waltz first reached out to him at least two days prior to mistakenly adding him to the Signal group, it appears the NSC director had been leaking to the Atlantic editor on behalf of the neocon faction in the Trump White House. And it seems clear why Waltz would have sought to cultivate Goldberg.
During the run-up to to the Iraq war, then-Vice President Dick Cheney cited Goldberg’s bunk reporting alleging deep ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda during multiple media appearances hyping up the coming invasion. Under Obama, Goldberg served as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s errand boy, churning out tall tales about Tel Aviv’s imminent plan to attack Iran’s nuclear sites – unless the US did it first. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, the once-failing Atlantic has suddenly turned a profit, as Goldberg unleashed a firehose of propaganda against the keffiyeh-clad enemies of the magazine’s Upper East Side donor base. This month, with momentum for a strike on Iran building within the Trump White House, Goldberg was summoned once again move to the neocon message, and wound up with more access than he bargained for.
When asked in a March 24 interview with CNN's Kaitlan Collins why he left the Trump principals’ Signal group voluntarily, Goldberg ducked the question. But as Ian Bremmer suggested, he did so out of deference to power and an abiding belief in a US empire hellbent on protecting Israel. And in the culture of Beltway access journalism, that's considered a laudable trait.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: Why did Jeffrey Goldberg leave the 'bomb Yemen' Signal chat?
Conpiratorial it may be, but the fact that it "happened" to be Goldberg who was the "journalist" involved makes me wonder if the whole thing wasn't deliberately engineered by a faction that is unhappy with the, admittedly enormously unqualified and inept, defsec or natsec heads.
It's been followed-up with fairly well coordinated "calls to quite" type articles and segments.
It could of course just be that a massively unqualifed frat-boy piss head who's been overpromoted because he's a loyalist fucked up.The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
I'm aware. Good to see I was ahead of the curve anyway.
Hegseth is so far out of his depth whatever happened here.The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
This is firming up a bit now with The Atlantic's latest piece(s)
They are now publishing excerpts that they didn't initially publish (presumably to get his "good boy" pat on the head) to contradict what the admin has been claiming so the media press seems to be quite coordinated.
The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
Re: This is firming up a bit now with The Atlantic's latest piece(s)
Their opening graph has two links both of which redirect to their own sodding page:
Newly shared Signal messages show Trump advisers discussed Yemen attack plans
The Atlantic releases more text from chat after Trump officials claimed none of it was ‘classified information’
The Atlantic magazine has published fresh messages from a group chat among top US officials in which they discuss specific operational details of plans to bomb Yemen, spurring leading Democrats to accuse Trump administration officials of lying to Congress by claiming the messages did not contain classified information.
BREAKING: Read the detailed attack plans that Trump’s advisers shared in the Signal group chat. Politics Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal
The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief. By Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris Pete Hegseth and Michael Waltz Andrew Harnik / Getty March 26, 2025, 8:19 AM ET Pete Hegseth and Michael Waltz Listen 1.0x 0:0010:12
Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (Noa) using AI narration. Listen to more stories on the Noa app.
So, about that Signal chat.
On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.
At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”
President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”
These statements presented us with a dilemma. In The Atlantic’s initial story about the Signal chat—the “Houthi PC small group,” as it was named by Waltz—we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.
Read: The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: “In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain.”
We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.” (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)
A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer. Otherwise, the messages are unredacted.
Listen: Jeffrey Goldberg on the group chat that broke the internet
As we wrote on Monday, much of the conversation in the “Houthi PC small group” concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis, and contained remarks by Trump-administration officials about the alleged shortcomings of America’s European allies. But on the day of the attack—Saturday, March 15—the discussion veered toward the operational.
At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:”
The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:
“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)” “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Let us pause here for a moment to underscore a point. This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.
The Hegseth text then continued:
“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)” “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)” “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.” “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)” “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security. “Godspeed to our Warriors.”
Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.” Recommended Reading
A photo of Mike Waltz, JD Vance, and Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans Jeffrey Goldberg
A stylised photograph of President Trump One Word Describes Trump Jonathan Rauch illustration of students sitting at desks made up of towering books The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books Rose Horowitch
At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.
Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz’s message, wrote, “What?”
At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”
Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.” Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, “A good start,” which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
Later that afternoon, Hegseth posted: “CENTCOM was/is on point.” Notably, he then told the group that attacks would be continuing. “Great job all. More strikes ongoing for hours tonight, and will provide full initial report tomorrow. But on time, on target, and good readouts so far.”
It is still unclear why a journalist was added to the text exchange. Waltz, who invited Goldberg into the Signal chat, said yesterday that he was investigating “how the heck he got into this room.”
The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
Re: It may be paywalled so I've bypassed that and C&P it here (not tidied up)
Thanks. I like the way it was dismissed by US admin and at the same time asking The Atlantic no to publish the 'sensitive' info since it's really not that sensitive. What a load of bollox.
Trump Admin Inner Circle Invites Journalist "Accidentally" to Secret Yemen War Signal Chat
▪️Atlantic journalist was invited into a chat including Hegseth, Vance, Waltz, and Radcliffe regarding war plans to strike Yemen;
▪️Political discussion about US-European tensions were made overtly as well as operational details regarding strikes on Yemen with the purpose stated as restoring freedom of navigation;
▪️If this was a genuine accident, it means the US is run by low IQ, emoji-using men-children who are as basic in their understanding of the world as they are incompetent with opsec;
▪️However, this was almost certainly done deliberately, with the likely purpose to make the US-Europe "split" more convincing to the Russians, and also to convince the world Yemen is about "freedom of navigation" and not as a means of deliberately escalating war in the region toward provoking war with Iran;
on March 25, 2025, 10:06 pm