The Atlantic’s exposé on a Signal text chain among Trump-era national security officials continues to unravel — not due to the gravity of its revelations, but because the foundation of its claims is growing shakier by the day. What started as a media frenzy over alleged mishandling of classified information has instead turned into a case study in sensationalism, selective outrage, and misplaced priorities.
Let’s get to the facts. The Trump administration made clear from the outset that no classified material was shared in the Signal thread. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz explicitly pointed out in the chat itself that sensitive information was kept to their “high side inboxes” — a direct reference to classified communication systems used by the intelligence community. In other words, they knew the lines, and they didn’t cross them.
Enter CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who dismantled another major accusation. The Atlantic implied that Ratcliffe had leaked the identity of an undercover operative. Not so, says Ratcliffe — and with clarity. The name he referenced was his chief of staff, not an undercover officer. “False and misleading,” he called it. That’s not just a rebuttal; it’s a factual correction.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe just destroyed The Atlantic for blatantly making things up.
“The reporter indicated that I had released the name of another country – of an undercover CIA operative.”
“In fact, I released the name of my chief of staff who is not operating… pic.twitter.com/jOEmj3KCQ2
— Media Lies (@MediasLies) March 26, 2025
As Ratcliffe emphasized during his testimony, the real focus of the House hearing — international threats — was overshadowed by a non-scandal that media and Democratic members elevated into a centerpiece. Instead of focusing on actual emerging threats abroad, much of the hearing became a proxy stage for performative outrage over a messaging app.
And about that app: Signal. Ironically, The Atlantic once praised it as the “gold standard” of encrypted messaging. In 2017, the very same publication listed Signal as the preferred tool for staffers working under Trump, Obama, Clinton, Cuomo, and de Blasio. But now, the outlet is decrying its use under Trump, despite it being standard-issue on government devices and used across multiple administrations — including the current one.
Well well well. The Atlantic labeled Signal the “gold standard of encrypted messaging” back in 2017. pic.twitter.com/TEEEMoiADZ
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) March 26, 2025
This entire episode points to a consistent pattern: when facts fail to support the preferred narrative, shift the focus, amplify the drama, and hope the noise drowns out the reality. But the reality is this — the Trump national security team made an error in inadvertently adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, yes, but they didn’t leak secrets, didn’t share war plans, and didn’t violate classified protocols.
So why all the drama? Because the “attack Trump” strategy is a well-worn page in the Democratic playbook, especially when approval numbers are slipping and policy wins are few. Theatrics and moral outrage are easier than accountability or results.
