SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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 As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel.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.
The whole exercise of asking whether these numbers are accurate is just distraction and obfuscation.
A friend with whom I regularly discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recently told me that The Atlantic is the place to go for “serious news” on the topic. I subscribed through their website, and the first thing that caught my eye was a short piece dated May 17 by Graeme Wood entitled “The U.N.’s Gaza Statistics Make No Sense.”
The article analyzed a recent update by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA oPt) on the death toll during Israel’s assault on Gaza. (The regular updates are published here.) Wood concludes that the office “jeopardized its credibility by repeating dubious numbers, long after the reasons for doubting them had been explained. That credibility is a precious resource.” Wood proposes that Israel embed more reporters with its troops to counteract these fake “statistics from Hamas.”
This news story had been widely reported, and (quite surprisingly) many media outlets accurately reported the basic facts. As an American trauma surgeon who just returned from working in Gaza, who has edited books on the human rights dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the University of California Press and O/R Books in London, and who has a master’s in public health from Harvard, I figured this article would let me assess the credibility of this “serious news” source.
I would encourage Wood to spend five minutes in any hospital in Gaza and then see if he ever repeats such a claim.
I started off skeptical, but I was still shocked to see the sloppiness with which The Atlantic reported this story. Wood claims the “most detailed account of what had happened” came from a right-wing think tank’s Twitter account, but there are much more serious sources. Three days before Wood’s piece was published, Israel’s leading newspaper Haaretz provided a detailed explanation that answered virtually every question Wood raised in his piece. To be sure, the mundane nature of the updates wouldn’t have made for such a salacious article as the one The Atlantic published. Nevertheless, they are a simple matter, the facts of which are widely known.
As Haaretz reported, the previous total count was a combination of media reports collected by the Hamas-run Information (or Media) Office and the Ministry of Health data. “There’s about another 10,000 plus bodies who still have to be fully identified,” stated U.N. spokesperson Farhan Haq, “and so then the details of those—which of those are children, which of those are women—that will be re-established once the full identification process is complete.” Wood quotes Mr. Haq, but only to cast doubt and confusion about the updates. Dr. Mark Perlmutter and I described the state of many bodies brought into the hospital morgues of Gaza: “burned until they resembled blistered hotdogs more than human beings, shredded to pieces such that they can only be buried in mass graves.” Is it really such a shock that many such corpses cannot be definitively identified, but nevertheless are a human being who was killed? I would encourage Wood to spend five minutes in any hospital in Gaza and then see if he ever repeats such a claim.
Wood even stated that he doesn’t know why OCHA oPt relied on the Media Office in Gaza instead of the Ministry of Health, but the reason was widely reported:
The Gaza health ministry says its daily tally now relies on a combination of accurate death counts from hospitals that are still partially operating, and on estimates from media reports to assess deaths in the north of Gaza, where Israeli forces control access. Its detailed daily report shows that its electronic system for counting the dead was disrupted on Noveber 12, when communication was lost with three major hospitals in the north, soon followed by more in other parts of Gaza.
A Reutersarticle from the same day as the Haaretz piece discussed a World Health Organization briefing on the same changes: “Nothing wrong with the data, the overall data (more than 35,000 dead) are still the same,” said WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier at a press conference in Geneva. Mr. Lindmeier went on to explain that it is normal “for death tolls to shift in conflicts, recalling that Israel had revised down its own death toll from the Octoer 7 Hamas attacks [from 1,400] to 1,200 after checks.”
Even CNN managed to properly convey the basic facts:
The number [of women and children who are fully identified] was reduced because the U.N. says it is now relying on the number of deceased women and children whose names and other identifying details have been fully documented [in the Ministry of Health database], rather than the total number of women and children killed [as reported by the Media Office]. The ministry says bodies that arrive at hospitals get counted in the overall death count.
In other words if any single piece of information about a corpse is unknown—name, ID number, date of birth, and whatever else the Ministry of Health considers essential to full documentation—then that person is counted in the overall count but not specified in the breakdown of men, women, children, and elderly. “Two officials from the Palestinian Ministry of Health have told CNN that although the ministry keeps a separate death toll for identified and unidentified individuals, the total number of people killed remains unchanged.”
So, when someone’s identify can be fully verified they are moved from the unidentified database to the identified database, and then they are reported in the total number of people killed and in the subcategory that they fall into: man, woman, child, elderly. If they cannot be fully identified then they stay in the unidentified database and are included in the overall count but not in the subcategories. For anybody who has ever looked at a spreadsheet there is nothing complicated or confusing about this. Nothing about it implies anything other than a decision by the Hamas governing authority to be transparent about the death toll and the available data on who has been killed in Gaza.
Wood even claimed to be confused about where these unidentified bodies are coming from, and claimed it is “just a vaguely-defined ‘report’ from outside the hospital system.” This is completely false; all dead counted in these tallies were delivered to hospital morgues and died of violent causes. That is precisely why every responsible news organization reports that the death toll does not count people buried under the rubble, estimated by the Palestinian Civil Defense at more than 10,000.
Indeed, there seems to be utter confusion on Wood’s part about two different groups of people. The number of dead who are not fully identified is approximately 10,000, and the number of bodies estimated to be buried under the rubble is also approximately 10,000. But these are two separate groups of dead that just happen to both contain an estimated 10,000 people.
And while Wood clearly states that this update proves that the “numbers from Hamas’ Government Media Office” and “Hamas’ numbers” and the “figure… generated by Hamas” and the “statistics from Hamas” and “Hamas’ official figures” and “Hamas’ propaganda” and “Hamas’ allegations” are falsified, he never mentions the many sources that show in detail that “Hamas’ official figures” are in fact quite accurate and possibly even an undercount.
And it’s not just media organizations: Wood could have consulted this article or this one in the world’s leading medical and public health journal. Indeed, Wood could have avoided writing his whole article by simply noting that after investigating them evenIsraeli military intelligence believes “Hamas’ official figures”! As a military intelligence source told the Israeli magazine Mekomit: “It is assumed that there is a gap between the data and the reality and that they may be manipulating, but they [Israel] checked, and it is reliable. Also see that in previous rounds [of fighting between Palestinian armed groups and the Israel Defense Forces] the reports of the Ministry of Health in Gaza were reliable.” To borrow a phrase from Abba Eban, “it takes a great effort of imagination” to see the IDF as being duped by Hamas propaganda.
As Wood noted, “credibility is a precious resource,” and the OCHA oPt has proven it cannot be trusted: “Operating a statistics laundromat for Hamas’ media wing is embarrassing.” And what is truly bewildering is that this passes for “serious news.” There is no reason to doubt “Hamas’ official figures” whatsoever. On its history page, The Atlantic notes that its founders “wanted to pursue truth and disrupt consensus without regard for party or clique.” A version of this article was sent to The Atlantic as a letter to the editor and to their corrections department, with no response from either one.
But there is a far more important point than all the minutiae above: The whole exercise of asking whether these numbers are accurate is just distraction and obfuscation. According to the main monitor of major food insecurity in the world, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, an estimated 1 million Gazans—half the population—are now in catastrophic food insecurity and famine conditions. This means approximately 6,000 deaths per month from starvation, half of them in children under the age of five. And none of these people are included in these statistics. Alex de Waal warned in March: “Gaza is already the most intense starvation catastrophe of recent decades… Famine is unfolding in Gaza today. We should not have to wait until we count the graves of children to speak its name.”
Cease-fire now.