Watch: Gabbard Dismantles 'War Plans' Narrative in Under 30 Seconds with Expert Testimony

The so-called Signalgate controversy barely lasted long enough to warrant the infamous "-gate" suffix. Initially revealed in an article by The Atlantic on Monday, by Wednesday, most people were already moving on, hunting for fresh angles.

Any scandal that fizzles out in just 48 hours hardly qualifies as a major political upheaval. Frankly, I’ve had bouts of mild food poisoning that lingered longer than this, and much like those experiences, Signalgate was neither enjoyable nor significant.

For those who’ve been off the grid since the weekend, here’s the short version: On Monday, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published an article titled “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans” in The Atlantic.

As the headline suggests, the premise is fairly straightforward: Due to an apparent mishap, Goldberg—an outspoken critic of Donald Trump—was mistakenly added to a private Signal chat discussing an unfolding U.S. military operation targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The chat reportedly included National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who inadvertently invited Goldberg, along with Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and other senior officials.

By Monday afternoon, demands for accountability were already circulating, particularly targeting Waltz and, to some extent, Hegseth. Hegseth responded succinctly: “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was also part of the chat, testified before the House Intelligence Committee. In a conversation with Rep. Greg Steube of Florida, she systematically debunked the notion that anything in the chat could be classified:

“Were there any sources described in the Signal chat?” Steube inquired.

“No, congressman,” Gabbard replied.

“Were there any methods described in the Signal chat?” he pressed.

“No,” she confirmed.

“Were there any locations?” he continued.

“No,” she answered once more.

Steube followed up: “Therefore, due to the fact that there were no sources, no methods, no locations described in the Signal chat, it does not make the discussion classified, is that correct?”

“That is up to the Secretary of Defense’s determination,” Gabbard clarified.

Democrats, however, have been pushing the narrative that Secretary Hegseth exposed a “war plan” to the world—something Gabbard’s testimony directly refutes. Steube further questioned:

“Were there any names in the Signal chat?”

The answer, once again, was no—no targets, no unit names, no locations, no operational details of any kind:

“Wouldn’t an operational plan contain that type of information?” Steube asked.

“Every operational plan I’ve ever seen has contained that information,” Gabbard responded.

With her background—an Iraq War veteran, a former congresswoman on multiple security-related committees, and now the Director of National Intelligence—Gabbard knows what qualifies as an actual "war plan."

Perhaps even The Atlantic recognized this flaw in its reporting, as evidenced by the change in their wording when they published the full chat log on Wednesday. The updated headline? “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal.”

A subtle shift, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took note:

None of this suggests that what happened was ideal or without consequence. But worthy of a "-gate" level scandal? Hardly.

Unless Goldberg and his team have more to reveal, Gabbard’s series of “nos” should put this so-called controversy to rest. The original framing was misleading, the outrage exaggerated, and even The Atlantic is quietly revising its claims. That should tell you all you need to know about the actual significance of what was shared.