Jeffrey Goldberg’s revelation that he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat with top Trump administration officials discussing imminent military action against Houthi targets in Yemen is, without question, a great scoop. The Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic found himself privy to real-time planning between Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and others. The texts detailed timing, targeting, and tactical objectives—and were confirmed when the operation was executed successfully.
But once again, the process-driven left media is seizing on the story as a scandal of process, focused less on the operational success of an administration just a few months into implementing its policies, and more on perceived violations of the Federal Records Act, Espionage Act, and the use of encrypted messaging in government.
BORING!
The conclusion of Goldberg’s piece on the matter is the real rub, wherein Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declares, “We are currently clean on OPSEC,” without noticing the accidental inclusion of an America-hating “journalist” in the chat. Needless to say, Michael Waltz will have to answer some awkward questions about how that even happened, and operational security will need revisiting, posthaste.
But as the MSNBC and CNN chyrons whirl aggressively later tonight, as “top-level national security” guests are ferried into D.C. and Manhattan studios to opine about “the serious implications!!!!!!111!1” of this all, the framing misses the far more consequential truth: the Trump administration’s national security team demonstrated ruthless clarity of mission, hard alignment with presidential policy, and fear-inducing tactical competence.
Far from a picture of chaos, the Signal exchange captures the Trump war cabinet executing a swift and decisive retaliatory strike on foreign adversaries. No leaks actually ended up compromising the mission. The planning was otherwise tight. The strikes were exceptionally precise. The communication—despite the unintentional inclusion of a journalist—was professional and focused.
Compare this with the Obama administration’s decision to grant security clearances to Iranian regime-linked figures, or the Biden government’s chronic leaking of internal deliberations to preferred media outlets in the name of “narrative shaping.” In both cases, information was shared deliberately for political advantage—sometimes with actors who had no loyalty to U.S. interests. The Trump team’s sole error was accidental and internal; the others were strategic and often hostile to American strength.
Moreover, the episode underscores a divide between the political class’s and the public’s priorities. The Beltway fixates on process violations and bureaucratic niceties, while voters care about results. They expect American officials to act decisively against threats, not to seek institutional cover from multilateral committees.
The Goldberg leak inadvertently revealed a reality the press has long tried to deny: this is a second-term administration that knows what it’s doing. It is staffed by people who are aligned with the President’s agenda, capable of rapid execution, and unapologetic about protecting American interests. In trying to embarrass them, the story could end up doing the opposite.
