To me the larger question is why this attack was done at all? It achieved nothing. The participants agreed that it mostly benefited Europe and had no USA vital interest.
All it did was flood the news.
The only thing that makes sense is that it distracts from something else.
Yours is that best explanation I've heard about how Goldberg got added to the group. Even if it's not explicitly how it happened it's probably very close. Thanks!
Thank you for this sharp and necessary breakdown. If even half of this is accurate, we’re looking at an administration that didn’t just ignore security protocols—it treated them like an optional suggestion, right up there with flossing or using a turn signal. Using Signal to dodge federal record-keeping laws? Of course. But the sheer, almost comical incompetence of it all is what really stands out. Lying under oath while knowing their messages were set to vanish? Adding Jeffrey Goldberg to a secret government chat? That’s not just reckless; it’s humiliating. And the worst part? They clearly thought they could get away with it. Maybe they’re right. Who’s actually going to stop them? The DOJ? Congress? A press corps that’s been numbed into submission by a never-ending parade of scandals?
And that is the real concern—not just that this happened, but that it reflects a broader erosion of institutional accountability. When those in power operate with the assumption that rules do not apply to them, and when mechanisms of oversight fail to respond, the damage extends beyond any single scandal. It sets a precedent, one that future administrations will inevitably build upon. The question is whether the institutions responsible for upholding the rule of law will act—or whether this, too, will fade into the background, reinforcing the perception that accountability is reserved for those without the power to avoid it.
Another rumor on the internet says, that someone was missing from that chat group. Like someone from Naval Air Force Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief of a magazine called The Atlantic… what a coincidence! What‘s more to this: Messaging sensitive and classified information on Signal did not seem to strike anyone in that chat group as abnormal. What else do these people talk about on Signal?
Yeah, I saw that rumor too, but why would they be including the Naval Air Force Atlantic in this discussion? Yemen isn't their area of operation. (Also, I have real trouble believing the commander of the Naval Air Force would've gone along with something like this. No one who's survived long enough in the military to become a commander would ever do something this hare-brained. Everyone in that conversation was an unqualified, neophyte political appointee. No one who actually commands the pilots who would be endangered would do that.) Also, everyone else is identified by their name, not their job title. Assuming they were using their private phones., it's not very likely that the commander of the Naval Air Force identifies himself that way on his phone.
* Though it's true that the DOD gave them a waiver to use Signal, which astonishes me. But I'm sure she did not give them a waiver to use signal to discuss classified information, still less *this* classified information.
Could they be using Signal because they don't trust the people in the US government who are officially responsible for securing the communications of the executive branch?
(edit: But I have no good theory about exactly how Jeffrey Goldberg got into that group.)
Claire — thanks for posting this, and for the catchy title(The Signal-to- noise ratio). Helps greatly in trying to plumb the depths of stupidity to which our new national security overlords have descended.
Even if you don’t understand the tech aspects, the narrative is damned frightening (and laughable in a gallows-humorous sort of fashion). Keep up the great work, Ms. Berlinski, and keep on keeping us looped in to the “Doom Loop of Trump Administration news”.
Just for the purpose of a dialogue of sorts, there are those with a vastly different take on matters of greater significance. Hope you can access, if not I'll excerpt. https://mail.aol.com/d/list/referrer=newMail&folders=1&accountIds=1&listFilter=NEWMAIL/messages/ALt4JLBXY-HdZ-sc8AczwF02gYQ
Claire, ran this down with a highly trusted source of my own: there WAS a Signal directive, issued by Bondi.
To me the larger question is why this attack was done at all? It achieved nothing. The participants agreed that it mostly benefited Europe and had no USA vital interest.
All it did was flood the news.
The only thing that makes sense is that it distracts from something else.
Thanks Claire. Great pıece again.
Yours is that best explanation I've heard about how Goldberg got added to the group. Even if it's not explicitly how it happened it's probably very close. Thanks!
It's just a hypothesis. I don't have any evidence for it.
Thank you for this sharp and necessary breakdown. If even half of this is accurate, we’re looking at an administration that didn’t just ignore security protocols—it treated them like an optional suggestion, right up there with flossing or using a turn signal. Using Signal to dodge federal record-keeping laws? Of course. But the sheer, almost comical incompetence of it all is what really stands out. Lying under oath while knowing their messages were set to vanish? Adding Jeffrey Goldberg to a secret government chat? That’s not just reckless; it’s humiliating. And the worst part? They clearly thought they could get away with it. Maybe they’re right. Who’s actually going to stop them? The DOJ? Congress? A press corps that’s been numbed into submission by a never-ending parade of scandals?
And that is the real concern—not just that this happened, but that it reflects a broader erosion of institutional accountability. When those in power operate with the assumption that rules do not apply to them, and when mechanisms of oversight fail to respond, the damage extends beyond any single scandal. It sets a precedent, one that future administrations will inevitably build upon. The question is whether the institutions responsible for upholding the rule of law will act—or whether this, too, will fade into the background, reinforcing the perception that accountability is reserved for those without the power to avoid it.
Another rumor on the internet says, that someone was missing from that chat group. Like someone from Naval Air Force Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief of a magazine called The Atlantic… what a coincidence! What‘s more to this: Messaging sensitive and classified information on Signal did not seem to strike anyone in that chat group as abnormal. What else do these people talk about on Signal?
Yeah, I saw that rumor too, but why would they be including the Naval Air Force Atlantic in this discussion? Yemen isn't their area of operation. (Also, I have real trouble believing the commander of the Naval Air Force would've gone along with something like this. No one who's survived long enough in the military to become a commander would ever do something this hare-brained. Everyone in that conversation was an unqualified, neophyte political appointee. No one who actually commands the pilots who would be endangered would do that.) Also, everyone else is identified by their name, not their job title. Assuming they were using their private phones., it's not very likely that the commander of the Naval Air Force identifies himself that way on his phone.
* Though it's true that the DOD gave them a waiver to use Signal, which astonishes me. But I'm sure she did not give them a waiver to use signal to discuss classified information, still less *this* classified information.
Could they be using Signal because they don't trust the people in the US government who are officially responsible for securing the communications of the executive branch?
(edit: But I have no good theory about exactly how Jeffrey Goldberg got into that group.)
Fascinating & very informative! Now a subscriber ~ thanks for all your diligence on this critical story.
Welcome, delighted to have you with us.
Great work as always.
Claire — thanks for posting this, and for the catchy title(The Signal-to- noise ratio). Helps greatly in trying to plumb the depths of stupidity to which our new national security overlords have descended.
Even if you don’t understand the tech aspects, the narrative is damned frightening (and laughable in a gallows-humorous sort of fashion). Keep up the great work, Ms. Berlinski, and keep on keeping us looped in to the “Doom Loop of Trump Administration news”.