Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
the-atlantic
From left, FBI Director Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, testify during the House Select Intelligence Committee hearing titled “Worldwide Threats Assessment,” in Longworth building on Wednesday, March 26, 2025. The witnesses fielded questions on the Signal chat, about attacks against Houthis in Yemen, that accidentally included a reporter.
Will Trump find a fall guy for Signal chat revelations?
The drip, drip, drip of revelations about the Trump administration’s Signal chat continued Wednesday as The Atlantic published screenshots that showed senior officials sharing military plans on the messaging app. “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets),” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote at 11:44 a.m. on March 15, two hours before the United States bombed the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The trick is not getting caught: Before The Atlanticposted receipts for its original article, Hegseth flatly denied that anyone had been “texting war plans.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that the chat didn’t contain any “intelligence equities.” After the screenshots dropped, Gabbard denied lying to senators, telling a House hearing on Wednesday that her Tuesday testimony “was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof, on the details that were posted there.”
Legal tactics: Rather than punish someone inside the ranks of government, the Trump administration may instead go after The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently added to the chat and published the screenshots.
“The Trump administration is very likely to target Goldberg with some legal repercussions, though runs the risk of keeping the story in the headlines as new angles emerge,” according to Eurasia Group US Director Clayton Allen.
For more insights on Signal-gate, check out Ian Bremmer’s latest Quick Take here.
What Trump team's war plans leak revealed
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take on this extraordinary story in The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of this magazine, invited into a Signal chat, the Signal app, by the national security advisor, Michael Waltz, with all of the major national security related principles in the Trump administration, to discuss imminent attacks by the United States on the Houthis in Yemen, the single biggest war fighting that the Trump administration has been involved in the first two months of their term. A lot to think about here, a few points I think worth mentioning.
The first point, it's pretty clear this should not have happened. A discussion of this sort, classified, involving direct war preparation, should not have been happening on Signal, but clearly everyone in the conversation was aware and okay with that. So, I don't think you blame singularly Mike Waltz for the fact that he was the guy that happened to bring the outsider inadvertently in. This collective responsibility, everyone, this is the way the Trump administration is handling these sensitive national security conversations, that is what needs to be looked into and rectified going forward. Mike definitely made a mistake here, and what seems almost certainly to be the case is that he thought he was including the US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, JG, same initials as Jeffrey Goldberg - and The Atlantic editor-in-chief, and he's the only obvious person, Greer, that otherwise wasn't on this broader conversation. So, I would bet my bottom dollar that is the way this happened. And I think all the people that are calling for Mike Waltz to be fired, I certainly wouldn't let him go for that. The issue is the broader lack of operational security around war decisions and fighting.
Now, as to the actual content of the conversations, frankly, I found all of the people involved to be pretty reasonable, especially in the context of how generally unprepared President Trump himself is on matters of national security. So, the fact that Vice President JD Vance was worried about the inconsistency of going to war for something that he doesn't think is a clear and direct US interest, that the US economy would be limited in terms of the impact of it, and this isn't really an American issue in the way that Trump defines American issues and war, that strikes me as not disloyal, but indeed the reality that Vance is aware of the fact that Trump doesn't know a lot of these details. But he doesn't want to bring it to Trump individually. Why not? Because he's going to get his head handed to him if he brings bad news to Trump unless everybody is on board, and of course, everybody isn't on board. There's some reasonable discussion around that, including with the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and then finally Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff and head of policy in the White House, is the one that cuts it off because, why? He's the guy that is saying, "Trump says he wants it, we're going to do it." In other words, you've got to be completely loyal to Trump, that's it. And that's exactly what we've seen from this second administration, what Trump wants, Trump gets.
Now, another interesting point here is that the Europeans are not considered allies by this group across the board. Should be clear from anybody that has seen Vance in Munich, anyone that has seen the recent interview between the US Special Envoy Witkoff and Tucker Carlson, a number of other places where that's happened. But the point is that the entire Trump cabinet is basically saying, "We shouldn't be helping the Europeans, and if we have to help the Europeans, and Lord knows we shouldn't, we have to ensure that they directly pay for American help, American assistance." This is not collective security. This is completely transactional. Also, you got a lot of that about el-Sisi in Egypt, someone that Trump has been very supportive of, and indeed the US provides more support to Egypt than any other country militarily in the world except Israel. So the last few months you would've thought that Egypt would've been an exception there. From what we've seen from the cabinet, apparently not. Certainly a concern in terms of what Egypt is and is not willing to do on the ground in Gaza for Trump. That relationship seems pretty dicey.
Final point here, Jeffrey Goldberg deserves credit. I know that Elon in particular likes to say a lot that the public is now the media, but it turns out that well-trained journalists have standards and those standards are important. I have had my disagreements with what Goldberg has had to say. Some of his positions over the years, support for the Iraq War, for example, lots of other things, but in terms of his professionalism, as soon as he realized that he had been invited into something that was an authentic conversation about actual war plans and fighting, he got out and he told Waltz that he had been mistakenly invited. He made the public aware of what was going on without divulging any of the direct war plans or outing intelligence, active intelligence member that was part of it, all of those things, it was absolutely the right thing to do. He's now getting smeared by Hegseth, the secretary of defense, who was clearly embarrassed by his own mistake and his participation and culpability in all of this. He personally won't take responsibility as we so frequently see with our political leaders and never should have gotten confirmed, in my view and in the view of many Republican senators who weren't willing to go out publicly because of course they were fearful for their own careers. But Jeff Goldberg has done the right thing in terms of his career and I commend him for it.
That's it for me. I'll talk to y'all real soon.
Big Tech: Global sovereignty, unintended consequences
Can Big Government still rein in Big Tech or has it already lost control? Never before have just a few companies exerted such an outsized influence on humanity. Today's digital space, where we live so much of our daily lives, has increasingly become an area that national governments are unable to control. It may be time to start thinking of these corporations as nation-states in their own rights. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks with Nicholas Thompson, CEO of the Atlantic and former WIRED editor-in-chief, about how to police the digital world.
- Big Tech's big challenge to the global order - GZERO Media ›
- Let's align interests to regulate Big Tech algorithms — AI scientist ... ›
- Kara Swisher on Big Tech's big problem - GZERO Media ›
- “Blood and glass" and the power of Big Tech - GZERO Media ›
- Why social media is broken & how to fix it - GZERO Media ›
- The technopolar world: A new dimension of geopolitics — Kevin Allison - GZERO Media ›
LinkedIn right to shut down in China, says journalist Nick Thompson
The Atlantic CEO Nick Thompson believes in tech firms doing business in China because connecting with people there is a huge social good for the world. But in demanding LinkedIn de-platform certain people, he says, the Chinese government crossed a line, and "you can't justify that."
Watch Ian Bremmer's interview with Nicholas Thompson in an upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television.
- Nick Thompson: Facebook realized too late it couldn’t control its own algorithms - GZERO Media ›
- Security flaws in China’s My2022 Olympics app could allow surveillance - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Man-made crisis: how do we survive on the planet we warmed? UN environment chief explains - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Brave new big tech world: Nicholas Thompson's perspective - GZERO Media ›