"Nobody was texting war plans": Hegseth denies Yemen leaks, calls Atlantic editor "garbage-peddler'

Salon - Mar 25th, 2025

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing accusations of leaking U.S. military plans for airstrikes on Yemen via a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal, which included high-profile Trump administration officials and inadvertently Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Despite screenshots shared by Goldberg depicting detailed messages, Hegseth denies any wrongdoing and dismisses the journalist's claims as 'hoaxes,' sparking a significant controversy over national security breaches.

The incident highlights ongoing tensions within the Trump administration as White House officials consider the fallout's impact on National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who is reportedly under scrutiny for his involvement in creating the group chat. President Trump, distancing himself from the matter, downplayed the report while criticizing The Atlantic. This breach could have significant implications for U.S. military operations and the administration's handling of secure communications.

Pete Hegseth National Security Trump Administration Jeffrey Goldberg Signal App The Atlantic U.S. Military Operations Yemen Airstrikes

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a compelling narrative about an alleged security breach involving high-ranking government officials. However, its overall quality is hampered by a lack of corroborating evidence and reliance on contested sources. While the topic is timely and of public interest, the article's balance and transparency are limited, affecting its credibility. The potential impact and engagement are notable, given the sensational nature of the claims, but the lack of substantiation may limit its influence. Overall, the article raises important questions about government transparency and accountability but requires more comprehensive evidence to support its claims.

Accuracy

The story makes several significant claims, such as the involvement of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a group chat that allegedly leaked military plans. These claims are serious and if true, represent a major breach of security. However, the article lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate these claims, relying heavily on statements from Jeffrey Goldberg, which are contested by Hegseth and Trump. The story would benefit from corroborating details from independent sources or official statements to verify the accuracy of these allegations.

Balance

The article seems to lean towards a critical perspective of the Trump administration officials involved, particularly highlighting Hegseth's and Trump's dismissive responses. It does not provide a balanced view by including perspectives from other experts or officials who might support or refute the claims. The focus is primarily on the alleged leak and the responses from the officials, without exploring the broader context or potential reasons behind the differing accounts.

Clarity

The article is relatively clear in its narrative, presenting a coherent story about the alleged leak and the subsequent denials. However, the language used, particularly the quotes from Hegseth and Trump, may contribute to a perception of bias. The structure is straightforward, but the tone fluctuates between serious reporting and a more informal, critical style, which may affect the reader's understanding of the gravity of the claims.

Source quality

The primary source for the claims is Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist whose credibility is questioned by the subjects of the article. While Goldberg is a well-known journalist, the article lacks additional sources that could provide a more comprehensive view of the situation. The reliance on a single, contested source diminishes the overall reliability of the report, as it does not adequately address potential biases or conflicts of interest.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient transparency regarding how the information was obtained, particularly the screenshots of the group chat. There is a lack of explanation about the methods used to verify the authenticity of these screenshots. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the reporting, such as the relationship between the journalist and the subjects.