It's the Biggest Lie Nobody Caught - JD Vance Obliterates Signal Story Writer with Single Revelation

“Let’s just make sure our messaging is tight here.”

Those were the words of Vice President J.D. Vance in what has been dubbed the “bombshell” “war plans” Signal chat—a chat that, in reality, contained neither a bombshell nor actual war plans. However, one thing is clear now that the full conversation has been revealed: Vance certainly managed to deliver his message effectively.

To start, Europe is “free-loading” off American military power, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated. (“I just hate bailing out Europe again,” Vance remarked in the chat.)

Secondly, media exaggeration is not just expected, but practically guaranteed. A prime example: the way Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist who broke this story, initially framed it versus how he is portraying it now.

For those who need a quick refresher: On Monday, Goldberg—a well-known critic of President Donald Trump and his administration—published an article titled “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.”

Goldberg was quite explicit about how he gained access to the chat, and there’s no debate that this was a significant oversight. Essentially, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz contacted him via Signal, an encrypted messaging app, and inadvertently added him to a White House discussion group concerning strikes against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. (These rebels, who have been disrupting Red Sea shipping, have disproportionately impacted Europe, hence the claim of bailing them out.)

Once the initial shock wore off, scrutiny turned to the story’s wording. First, were these actually “war plans”? The U.S. is not formally at war with Yemen or the Houthis, the latter being an insurgent terrorist faction unrecognized as the ruling authority by most major governments.

Goldberg then claimed the chat included “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.” To borrow an internet phrase, “big if true.” Yet, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and Goldberg failed to provide any detailed evidence beyond vague descriptions.

Additionally, there was the assertion that CIA Director John Ratcliffe, while designating a point person for the operation, disclosed the name of a covert “active intelligence officer,” implying classified material had been shared.

Goldberg reinforced this claim in interviews following the article’s publication.

However, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was quick to counter: “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard further testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, stating, “there was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group.”

At that point, Goldberg needed to substantiate his claims. He responded by publishing most of the Signal messages in a follow-up piece titled “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal.”

Notice the shift? No longer “war plans,” but merely “attack plans.” And the supposedly “precise” details? They included aircraft types, some weapon mentions, general timetables, and the location of the strikes: Sanaa, Yemen’s capital and home to roughly 10 percent of the country’s population. Hardly pinpoint accuracy.

Then came the revelation Vance highlighted:

WARNING: The following posts contain vulgar language that some readers may find offensive.

That supposedly top-secret “active intelligence officer”? It turned out to be Ratcliffe’s chief of staff. This wasn’t included in Goldberg’s message dump, but considering Ratcliffe confirmed it in congressional testimony under oath, the implications are clear: either Ratcliffe is in serious trouble, or Goldberg made an error.

Ratcliffe addressed this directly:

“With regard to that article, I also would appreciate the opportunity to relay the fact that yesterday I spent four hours answering questions from senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because there were hidden messages,” Ratcliffe told the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, per Fox News.

“Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information, and that the reporter who I don’t know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that,” he continued.

“That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat. In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff who was not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.”

“I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn’t transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here, because that’s what did happen, not what possibly could have happened.”

Once the speculation was stripped away, there wasn’t much of a story left. And where’s the excitement in that?

The real takeaway is that this so-called blockbuster fizzled out quickly. The article surfaced on Monday afternoon. By Monday night, it had been dubbed “Signalgate.” By Tuesday, key figures were testifying before Congress. By Wednesday, it became evident that calling this scandal a mountain was unfair to actual mountains.

To be clear, since groups like Media Matters tend to spin any attempt to contextualize the situation as Trumpist propaganda: Was this a mistake? Yes. It was a significant error that created a mess for Waltz, Hegseth, and others involved.

But was there a “precise” discussion of “war plans” on Signal, where an Atlantic journalist was accidentally included and could have compromised military operations with classified leaks? No.

The available records simply don’t support Goldberg’s sweeping claims. This is a journalist whose anti-Trump narratives frequently rely on dramatic anonymous sources—and even when armed with direct screenshots, he still managed to misrepresent the reality of what he had.

It was an eventful 48 hours. Unfortunately for Goldberg, failing to verify the so-called covert “active intelligence officer” claim only served to reinforce Vance’s core message about media credibility.