Four days. That’s how long it took the Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg to exit a group chat on Signal, an encrypted messaging service, with Trump administration officials, which he was inexplicably invited to join. During the four days, Goldberg was privy to highly classified discussions and information, which included plans for military airstrikes against the Yemen-based Houthis, a terrorist organization funded by Iran.
The event is a total embarrassment for the Trump administration. It revealed startling inefficiency and incompetence. However, one important aspect that hasn’t received much attention is why Goldberg waited four days to exit a group chat with Trump administration officials.
This isn’t to blame Goldberg for the ordeal. After all, he didn’t ask to be part of the group chat, nor does it appear he engaged in any mischievous, nefarious, or illegal activity to gain access to it. All the blame for Goldberg’s invitation belongs to national security adviser Mike Waltz. However, it’s worth questioning why it took Goldberg so long to exit the group chat or properly alert the appropriate people.
Was he waiting four days to verify if the Signal group chat was legitimate? Maybe. Or was he waiting that long to try to obtain damaging information that would embarrass the Trump administration? That is also a distinct possibility.
In his article, Goldberg revealed he first received “a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz.” He admitted questioning the legitimacy of the invitation and the validity of the supposed user’s identity. He said his intrigue motivated him to proceed with the request, a normal reaction for anyone in such a situation. Two days then passed before anything happened. His decision not to bring the matter to Waltz during this time is puzzling, particularly given Goldberg’s history in investigative journalism.
On the second day, Goldberg said he received a notice that he was being included in a Signal group chat called “Houthi PC small group.”
Goldberg then described receiving the following message from “Michael Waltz” in the group chat:
“Team — establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening. Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.”
Goldberg then mentioned that people (supposedly) in the Trump administration began replying with the names of points of contact.
All the while, Goldberg remained silent.
However, Goldberg said he “consulted a number of colleagues” about the group chat and questioned the authenticity of the messages.
“We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds,” Goldberg said. “I had very strong doubts that this text group was real because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans.”
Questioning whether the messages were legitimate is a natural reaction. Deciding not to contact anyone about the conversation at this juncture is more challenging to believe. This is even more true after the message Goldberg said he received the following morning.
“Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes. State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work with DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed,” the message said.
At this point, either the group chat’s contents were legitimate or scammers were falsely identifying themselves as administration officials. In either scenario, reporting the group chat was the prudent choice. After all, Goldberg revealed later in his article that he had the contact information for Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others. Yet Goldberg waited until after reading information about the strikes on the Houthis to contact them.
It appears Goldberg waited until he had something significant before contacting the appropriate officials. Why? Because revealing that he received classified information about military strikes is more damning and embarrassing to the Trump administration than writing about mistakenly being included in a group chat. Goldberg is a savvy veteran journalist and knew this. He also knew he could control the narrative and portray himself in a way that absolved him from any possible wrongdoing. Objectively, it was a brilliant political move — as well as mischievous.
TRUMP STANDS BY WALTZ AFTER HOUTHI GROUP CHAT LEAK
Nevertheless, everyone should be questioning why he waited so long to exit the group chat and bring his inclusion to the attention of Trump administration officials. His explanation of wanting to wait to evaluate the chat’s authenticity doesn’t add up.
It’s fair to wonder if an anti-Trump editor-in-chief of a major political publication remained stealth on purpose. He should not be to blame for being invited to join the group chat, but he sure decided to stay in it long enough for it to be worth his while.