White House Immediately Goes on the Offensive as The Atlantic Releases Full Signal Chat: 'Another Hoax'

Was this truly a grave national security breach that endangered lives?

Or was it simply a catastrophic PR misstep that’s being exaggerated for attention and engagement?

Regarding the widely scrutinized text chain blunder that has dominated headlines this week, the White House is adamant that it’s the latter—even as new details emerge about the situation.

To that end, on Monday, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, published an article pointedly titled, “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.”

In this piece, Goldberg made explosive assertions that his private phone number had somehow been added to a private Signal messaging app chat discussing potential military actions against Houthis in Yemen. This chat reportedly included top Trump administration officials, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

Understandably, this isn’t the best optic for the Trump administration. However, it doesn’t quite rise to the level of the administration-collapsing crisis that some—particularly The Atlantic—are making it out to be.

Or, at least, that’s how Team Trump positioned it when the inevitable questions arose.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that no actual “war plans” had been disclosed, while Trump dismissed the situation as overblown and assured that they had already identified the mishap. (Trump confirmed that an unidentified staffer working for Waltz inadvertently added Goldberg to the chat.)

Both Leavitt and Trump took jabs at Goldberg’s credibility (“Jeffrey Goldberg is well-known for his sensationalist spin”) in their respective responses—possibly compelling the editor to release the entirety of the conversation he had inadvertently gained access to.

“As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel,” The Atlantic’s follow-up article asserted. “That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.”

However, since Trump and his administration insist that no classified details were in the texts, Goldberg apparently felt justified in releasing the content—seemingly to prove a point.

The White House, however, isn’t having it.

Several top officials, including Leavitt, Waltz, and Vance, responded to this latest Atlantic “bombshell” with a mix of skepticism, mockery, and irritation.

Leavitt immediately highlighted inconsistencies in The Atlantic’s narrative, which fluctuated between “war plans” and “attack plans.”

Waltz reinforced what was absent from those messages.

Vance—who, according to The Atlantic, had said “a prayer for victory” in the chat—also weighed in.

“It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,” Vance posted. “But one thing in particular really stands out.

“Remember when he was attacking [CIA director John] Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff.”