SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 1024px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 1024px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 1024px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"A reminder that various administration officials lied under oath in the Senate yesterday," said one former Democratic congressman, "which is a crime punishable by imprisonment."
In response to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claiming on live television earlier this week that "nobody was texting war plans," The Atlantic magazine on Wednesday morning published the "war plans" that were, in fact, shared on the private sector messaging app Signal by top members of President Donald Trump's national security team, including Hegseth and national security advisor Mike Waltz.
It was The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg who on Monday published a bombshell report about how he was, seemingly "inadvertently," added to the Signal group chat by Waltz, a conversation that, in addition to Hegseth, also included director of national security Tulsi Gabbard, CIA director John Ratcliffe, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Vice President JD Vance, and others.
In the new piece published, Goldberg said that public denials by these top officials since the original reporting presented the magazine "with a dilemma" about what to do with information the editorial team had initially withheld, citing national security concerns.
"These are strike plans. There must be a broad investigation of how compromised our national security is because of their shocking incompetence." — Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas)
Though its editorial decision to withhold information was criticized by some journalists who believe the public has a right to know such details—including reporter Ken Klippenstein who accused the magazine of falling prey to "media paternalism" by not initally releasing the full contents of the chat—Goldberg explained The Atlantic's decision this way:
we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.
However—citing Hegseth's on-air denial Monday, a statement by Trump that nothing in the chat was "classified," as well as testimony before a committee in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday by Gabbard and Ratcliffe, both of whom said under oath that classified information was not shared—Goldberg said the magazine's assessment changed.
"We believe," writes Goldberg in the latest piece, "that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared."
Given that the nation's highest-level national security officials, up to and including the President of the United States, have said the material is not classified, the magazine acknowledged—and since the attack plans were for an operation already carried out against Houthis targets in Yemen—it would be strange if The Atlantic still felt not at liberty to publish them.
After reaching out to various agencies in advance of its decision to publish, Goldberg reports that the White House still objected to the release of the exchange, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt claiming that even though "there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat," the administration holds that what was said on the unsecured, third-party communication app was "intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed."
What follows are screenshots of the detailed war plans discussed on the Signal group chat by Trump's top officials, as reported by The Atlantic:
After this portion, Goldberg notes: "If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic."
More details:
And then these paragraphs:
While The Atlantic's new reporting on Wednesday sits behind a paywall, reaction to it was immediate and widespread.
"Hegseth repeatedly lied to the American people and should be fired—along with all the others in the chat," said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) in response to Goldberg's latest revelations. "These are strike plans. There must be a broad investigation of how compromised our national security is because of their shocking incompetence."
On Wednesday, two Democratic House members—Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs—launched a congressional probe into whether or not war plans were discussed in the group chat and called on every official involved to preserve all related documents and communications.
"This incident raises grave concerns about the misuse of unsecured communication platforms for classified discussions and the potential that American military and intelligence professionals may have been compromised by the reckless dissemination of such classified material,” Connolly and Frost wrote in a letter addressed to all the officials involved.
Given their testimony before the Senate on Tuesday, Ratcliffe and Gabbard may come under specific scrutiny by members of that committee and other lawmakers.
"A reminder that various administration officials lied under oath in the Senate yesterday," said former Democratic congressman Mondaire Jones, "which is a crime punishable by imprisonment."
Reactions included: "Dangerous." "Gross incompetence." "Unfathomable."
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration came under fire Monday after a journalist revealed that he was added to a group on a commercial messaging application in which top officials discussed secret plans for the recent bombing of Yemen.
"I have never seen a breach quite like this," Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic, wrote of his experience in the group, which began with a March 11 connection request on the app Signal from "Michael Waltz," the name of Trump's national security adviser. The journalist—who has faced public attacks from the president—figured "someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me."
However, in the days that followed, Goldberg saw messages from accounts with names or initials of top officials—including Vice President JD Vance, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. On March 15, Trump bombed Yemen, citing the Houthis' interference with global shipping over Israel's U.S.-backed assault on the Gaza Strip.
"Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting in The Atlantic calls for a prompt and thorough investigation...There needs to be an oversight hearing and accountability for these actions."
Goldberg published quotes and screenshots from the group but withheld some details due to security risks for U.S. personnel. Noting a March 15 message from the Pentagon chief, he wrote, "What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets."
The journalist also highlighted how—according to lawyers interviewed by his colleague Shane Harris—Waltz "may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act," as well as federal records laws, given that he set some messages to eventually disappear.
After Goldberg formally inquired about the Signal group on Monday, Brian Hughes, the spokesperson for the National Security Council, told him: "This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain... The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security."
Political figures and observers swiftly weighed in and shared the article on social media, with reporters calling it "unfathomable" and "the must-read of the week," and saying that "this story almost seems too wild to be real, but no one involved is disputing it."
CNN's Christiane Amanpour said: "Amateur hour? Is the president, is America, being properly served? Dangerous."
The group VoteVets took aim at the defense secretary—a former Fox News host—saying: "Gross incompetence. The Trump admin accidentally texted a journalist our war plans. This proves what we always knew: Hegseth was never qualified to be SecDef—now his recklessness is putting troops' lives at risk. This is deadly serious."
Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz—who was former Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate—pointed to the Department of Government Efficiency's attacks on the federal bureaucracy, including the Department of Veterans Affairs: "You know where DOGE should take a closer look? Trump's Cabinet. None of the 83,000 caregivers Trump fired from the VA leaked classified information."
Congressman Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) said: "If you read one article today, make it this one. Total incompetence, yet again. And putting our national security at great risk."
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) declared that "this administration is playing fast and loose with our nation's most classified info, and it makes all Americans less safe."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said: "Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting in The Atlantic calls for a prompt and thorough investigation. If senior advisers to President Trump in fact used nonsecure, nongovernment systems to discuss and convey detailed war plans, it's a shocking breach of the standards for sharing classified information that could have put American servicemembers at risk. There needs to be an oversight hearing and accountability for these actions."
When asked about the reporting on Monday, Trump—a serial liar—said: "I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. It's, to me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it."
"You're saying that they had what?" Trump asked the inquiring journalist, who explained that top officials were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials related to the U.S. attack targeting the Houthis.
Trump then added: "Well, it couldn't have been very effective, because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time."
Responding to a clip of Trump's remarks, David Badash, founder and editor of The New Civil Rights Movement, said: "1. 100% incompetence if his comms staff did not brief him on this before he got in front of a camera. 2. This is the commander-in-chief admitting that he is unaware of what his top NatSec officials are doing. This is bad."
As Common Dreams has reported, Trump has also faced criticism for the assault on Yemen—which killed more than 50 people, mostly women and children, according to the Yemeni Health Ministry. Critics, including U.S. lawmakers, have long argued that airstrikes on the Middle Eastern country are illegal because Congress has not declared war.
"We can win. We will win," said the senator. "Let's go forward together."
If working-class people in the United States were wondering why President Donald Trump had "very little to say about the REAL crises facing the working class of this country" in his State of the Union address, said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Tuesday night, they need look no further than the people Trump surrounded himself with at his inauguration in January.
"Standing right behind him were the three wealthiest men in the country," said the Vermont Independent senator, naming billionaire mogul and "special government employee" Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. "And standing behind THEM were 13 other billionaires who Trump had nominated to head major government agencies. Many of these same billionaires—including Musk—were there tonight."
Despite Trump's repeated campaign promises to address the rising cost of living for working people, said Sanders, the State of the Union address offered the latest proof that "the Trump administration IS a government of the billionaire class, by the billionaire class, and for the billionaire class."
Watch Sanders' address in full:
LIVE: President Trump’s Congressional Address needs a response. Here’s mine. https://t.co/O9yN04isIw
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 5, 2025
Sanders amplified the message he has sent on his National Tour to Fight Oligarchy—which he is scheduled to continue this week with stops in Warren, Michigan on Saturday and Kenosha, Wisconsin on Friday.
The senator called on working people of all racial identities, religions, and sexual orientations to join together to fight Trump's agenda and the billionaires who would benefit from his tax cuts, slashes to essential public services like Medicaid and food assistance, and efforts to divide people by demonizing immigrants, transgender people, and people of color.
"Yes, the oligarchs ARE enormously powerful. They have endless amounts of money. They control our economy. They own much of the media. They have enormous influence over our political system," said Sanders. "But, from the bottom of my heart, I am convinced that they can be beaten."
"If we stand together and not let them divide us up by the color of our skin or where we were born or our religion or sexual orientation; if we bring our people together around an agenda that works for the many and not the few—there is nothing in the world that can stop us," he said.
In his address, Sanders remained laser-focused on issues that impact working people—raising the federal minimum wage of just $7.25 per hour to a living wage of $17 per hour, repealing the Citizens UnitedSupreme Court ruling to end corporate influence over elections, and Trump's desire to pass a "big, beautiful" budget that would cut Medicaid by $880 billion, leaving up to 36 million Americans, including millions of children, without health insurance.
His response to the State of the Union address contrasted sharply with parts of the Democratic Party's official response given by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who spoke out against the "unprecedented giveaway" Trump wants to give "to his billionaire friends" but also signaled the party leadership's disinterest in focusing primarily on issues that impact working people when she spoke positively about former Republican President Ronald Reagan.
"After the spectacle that just took place in the Oval Office last week, Reagan must be rolling over in his grave," Slotkin said, referring to Trump and Vice President JD Vance's attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s."
Historian Moshik Temkin wondered why the Democratic Party chose to hold up Reagan as a positive example of a president—considering his deregulatory, anti-taxation policies and promotion of so-called "trickle-down economics" that helped pave the way for rising economic inequality and the decimation of the middle class—instead of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who introduced Social Security, reformed the financial system, and provided relief to people who were suffering due to the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression.
"Who was this for?" asked historian Michael Brenes of Slotkin's address. "You don't rebuild the New Deal coalition with Cold War nostalgia and deference to Ronald Reagan. A better message: national security begins with economic security."
In contrast, Sanders' response, said former journalist and author Paul Handley, "is how you respond to Trump and define him for the American people."
Sanders ended his address by acknowledging the challenge of fighting against a political system increasingly controlled by billionaires, but warned, "despair is not an option."
"Giving up is not acceptable," said Sanders. "And none of us have the privilege of hiding under the covers. The stakes are just too high. Let us never forget. Real change only occurs when ordinary people stand up against oppression and injustice—and fight back."
"We can win. We will win," he concluded. "Let's go forward together."