Another day, another questionable media report targeting President Donald Trump’s administration. This time, it involves supposed “leaked war plans” that had Washington insiders concerned.
Top news outlets ran with the story. Something potentially damaging to national security had allegedly been compromised.
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg claimed that he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat. The chat included Trump military and intelligence officials. He said it contained sensitive “attack plans” that could damage U.S. national security if released.
But the truth? There were no classified war plans at all. The entire story was dramatically overblown by a publication with a history of anti-Trump reporting. Sound familiar? It should.
When The Atlantic finally released the supposedly dangerous messages, they contained nothing more than basic operational timelines for a strike against Houthi targets in Yemen. The message, sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, included launch times for F-18s and strike drones – information that contained no classified details, locations, or sensitive intelligence.
President Trump confirmed, “There was no classified information as I understand it.”
The Media’s Pattern of Deception
This incident follows a familiar pattern of media outlets making sensational claims about the Trump administration that later prove unfounded. I’m noticing this happens with alarming frequency.
Vice President JD Vance didn’t mince words: “It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had.”
Vance also pointed out another falsehood in The Atlantic’s reporting: “Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff.”
This represents yet another example of mainstream media’s eagerness to run with anti-Trump narratives before verifying facts. How many times will they cry wolf before Americans stop listening entirely?
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a forceful response to the misleading reporting.
“The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT ‘war plans,'” Leavitt stated. “This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin.”
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz reinforced this point: “No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”
What Americans Need to Know
The real story isn’t about leaked documents. Instead, it’s about media credibility. When publications like The Atlantic make alarming claims that later prove exaggerated, it erodes public trust in journalism.
The administration demonstrated proper operational security while carrying out necessary strikes against Houthi targets that threatened American interests. Meanwhile, certain media outlets appeared more interested in manufacturing controversy than reporting facts.
Americans deserve better. This incident serves as a reminder to approach mainstream media reporting on the Trump administration with healthy skepticism. The pattern of sensationalized claims followed by quiet retractions or clarifications continues.
When consuming news about the current administration, consider the source and wait for the full facts to emerge. More often than not, the reality is far different from the initial alarming headlines.
Key Takeaways:
- The Atlantic dramatically exaggerated routine military communications as “leaked war plans.”
- White House officials confirmed no classified information was shared, calling the story “another hoax.”
- This incident follows a pattern of media outlets publishing sensationalized anti-Trump narratives.
- Americans should approach mainstream reporting on the Trump administration with healthy skepticism.
Source: Daily Wire
